Thank You Senate Democrats! Up or Down Vote on Judges.

[Oldstyle]

Thank You Senate Democrats! Up or Down Vote on Judges.

My email box has filled up with celebratory screeds and such. God Bless Leader Reid!







"A GOP senators have done so much to stand in the way of President Obama's executive and judicial choices that they're responsible for nearly half of all filibusters against presidential nominees in history."

"Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have put a stop to this type of unprecedented obstruction, giving the President's nominees -- except those to the Supreme Court -- an up-or-down vote."

It’s sad and telling that the partisan right would actually be opposed to majority rule, and exhibit disdain for the will of the people as clearly expressed in the 2012 General Election.

The Founding Fathers are the ones who were opposed to "majority rule". They understood that individual rights of citizens had to be protected from the tyranny of temporary political majorities. It's the reason that they put into place checks and balances that make it hard to pass legislation that isn't bi-partisan in nature.

The "will of the people"? The people weren't in favor of ObamaCare. We got it anyways because Barry, Harry and Nancy pushed it through Congress before the representatives from the 2010 elections could be seated. Is that "telling"? Does THAT exhibit "disdain" for the will of the people?

 

[jasonnfree]

Thank You Senate Democrats! Up or Down Vote on Judges.

My email box has filled up with celebratory screeds and such. God Bless Leader Reid!







"A GOP senators have done so much to stand in the way of President Obama's executive and judicial choices that they're responsible for nearly half of all filibusters against presidential nominees in history."

"Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have put a stop to this type of unprecedented obstruction, giving the President's nominees -- except those to the Supreme Court -- an up-or-down vote."

It’s sad and telling that the partisan right would actually be opposed to majority rule, and exhibit disdain for the will of the people as clearly expressed in the 2012 General Election.

You mean a majority of the house of reps (the peoples house) being GOP.

And that a majority of people think Obamacare sucks.

Yep...I am sure you are all over that one or two.

The dems got more votes than the repubs in 2012 congressional election. Gerrymandering swung the vote to the repubs. A majority of the people voted for Obama the 2nd time after they knew about Obamacare. So no, a majority of the people are not on the republicans side.
Link below. Oooh, a liberal site you will say maybe? Find a site that sez different.

PolitiFact | Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote

 

[mamooth]

You must want to support a 90 vote cloture rule. If you don't, you clearly hate minority rights.

The point: Why is 60 the magic number?

Cloture was introduced in 1919. Was that tyranny? After all, it removed power from the minority.

When cloture was changed from 66 votes to 60 in 1975, was that tyranny? That also removed power from the minority.

Why is this change tyranny, but none of the others?

By design, the senate already give minorities disproportionate representation. There is such a thing as taking it to ridiculous levels, as the 90 vote example shows. And as recent history showed, 60 votes was also a ridiculous level. 51 votes gives minorities the representation that the founders intended. Founders who didn't approve of filibusters, by the way.

 

[emilynghiem]

People like Dante we can kiss our asses goodbye

we are now under dictatorship

according to your nonsense, we've been under one for years now.


make up your demented mind, willya wilma?

Dear Dante: I do agree with part of your point here. That regardless of this procedure or change in it, I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is TOO EASILY ABUSED.

It becomes kritocracy or rule by judges.

I believe it is a disguised form of theocracy where people can act as God and decide law for people. Where we "agree" with judicial rulings as Constitutional, then we don't notice or complain.

But with cases like Kelo or Terri Schaivo; or even people who protested the court ruling in Bush's contested election as a conflict of interest, or Judge Roberts suddenly switching sides and turning a dissenting opinion he had already written up to a ruling in favor of ACA,

it is clear to me that we need more check and balance on judges especially on the Supreme Court.

Ideally issues should be resolved by consensus to PROTECT all interests EQUALLY and not favor one party over another which ISN'T EQUAL. DUH.

Especially with issues of religious beliefs, these should be mediated and decided by the people who are represented/affected by the outcomes. NOT "decided/dictated" by the state and especially not by a judge without accountability or check on the ruling or outcome.

This has ALWAYS been a problem with government. This is not new, but we don't notice or complain until something goes wrong. But the problem of people making/imposing decisions onto other people without their consent/representation has always been the conflict with collective authority, whether through the church or state. And with judges it is almost the same problem with clergy making decisions and handing them down to people.

We complain when churches or religious leaders do this, impose their biases on others. But when it comes to politics or govt, why don't we see it's the same problem in a different context?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

51 GOP senators.....

Obamacare is history. They'll change all the rules to flush that turd.

I agree with Dante...thanks Harry.

keeper post: GOP Congress and Executive

GEesh, some times you simply leave me flabbergasted

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You mean a majority of the house of reps (the peoples house) being GOP.
...

***Ding*** ***Ding*** ***Ding******Wingnut Alert!*** ***Ding*** ***Ding*** ***Ding***

The framers of the US Constitution not only split powers between the 3 separate branches of government, not trusting "the people" to always get it right, they watered down the power of the majority to get it's way during emotional and partisan times -- like now. They split Congress' power between two bodies

[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] ​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thank You Senate Democrats! Up or Down Vote on Judges.

My email box has filled up with celebratory screeds and such. God Bless Leader Reid!







"A GOP senators have done so much to stand in the way of President Obama's executive and judicial choices that they're responsible for nearly half of all filibusters against presidential nominees in history."

"Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have put a stop to this type of unprecedented obstruction, giving the President's nominees -- except those to the Supreme Court -- an up-or-down vote."

It’s sad and telling that the partisan right would actually be opposed to majority rule, and exhibit disdain for the will of the people as clearly expressed in the 2012 General Election.

The Founding Fathers are the ones who were opposed to "majority rule". They understood that individual rights of citizens had to be protected from the tyranny of temporary political majorities. It's the reason that they put into place checks and balances that make it hard to pass legislation that isn't bi-partisan in nature.

The "will of the people"? The people weren't in favor of ObamaCare. We got it anyways because Barry, Harry and Nancy pushed it through Congress before the representatives from the 2010 elections could be seated. Is that "telling"? Does THAT exhibit "disdain" for the will of the people?

***Alert!*** ​

The people were for Obama and the Democrats in Congress passing healthcare reform . Check the 2006 and 2008 elections debates and issues.

The people did not put Congress in the hands of the GOP in 2010 in order to do away with Obamacare, because they reelected Democrats to control of the Senate in 2010 and reelected Obama and the Democrats in the Senate in 2012


denial, ignorance, and revisionist history will not save you

[MENTION=31215]Oldstyle[/MENTION] ​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Republicans might be thanking democrats next year.

and maybe not...

and then again both sides will complain and cheer it when they need to justify how to run Congress

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hell yeah, Democrats! Way to go complete and open hypocrite on the matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hell yeah, Democrats! Way to go complete and open hypocrite on the matter.

Yeah, I bet you would have called White Southerners hypocrites for embracing black voters and equality, and I bet you would have called the Pope and the Christian world hypocrites for changing their opinions as new scientific info came in.

go away

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People like Dante we can kiss our asses goodbye

we are now under dictatorship

according to your nonsense, we've been under one for years now.


make up your demented mind, willya wilma?

Dear Dante: I do agree with part of your point here. That regardless of this procedure or change in it, I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is TOO EASILY ABUSED.

It becomes kritocracy or rule by judges.

I believe it is a disguised form of theocracy where people can act as God and decide law for people. Where we "agree" with judicial rulings as Constitutional, then we don't notice or complain.

But with cases like Kelo or Terri Schaivo; or even people who protested the court ruling in Bush's contested election as a conflict of interest, or Judge Roberts suddenly switching sides and turning a dissenting opinion he had already written up to a ruling in favor of ACA,

it is clear to me that we need more check and balance on judges especially on the Supreme Court.

Ideally issues should be resolved by consensus to PROTECT all interests EQUALLY and not favor one party over another which ISN'T EQUAL. DUH.

Especially with issues of religious beliefs, these should be mediated and decided by the people who are represented/affected by the outcomes. NOT "decided/dictated" by the state and especially not by a judge without accountability or check on the ruling or outcome.

This has ALWAYS been a problem with government. This is not new, but we don't notice or complain until something goes wrong. But the problem of people making/imposing decisions onto other people without their consent/representation has always been the conflict with collective authority, whether through the church or state. And with judges it is almost the same problem with clergy making decisions and handing them down to people.

We complain when churches or religious leaders do this, impose their biases on others. But when it comes to politics or govt, why don't we see it's the same problem in a different context?

"I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is *too easily abused." -- Exactly what Chief Justice Roberts said was the Court's reasoning and justification based on principle and precedent, in his ruling that the Court use the Obama administrations' second argument in upholding the mandated 'shared penalty responsibility'

You obviously have NOT read Roberts' ruling

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] ​

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hell yeah, Democrats! Way to go complete and open hypocrite on the matter.

Yeah, I bet you would have called White Southerners hypocrites for embracing black voters and equality, and I bet you would have called the Pope and the Christian world hypocrites for changing their opinions as new scientific info came in.

go away

Yeah, hypocrites.

Dipshit.

 

[emilynghiem]

"I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is *too easily abused." -- Exactly what Chief Justice Roberts said was the Court's reasoning and justification based on principle and precedent, in his ruling that the Court use the Obama administrations' second argument in upholding the mandated 'shared penalty responsibility'

You obviously have NOT read Roberts' ruling

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] ​

Dear Dante:
Let us separate the two arguments that I am making
(A) First is by the "spirit of the law" -- the whole spirit of the Constitutional contract is CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. So if people dissent, there is an inalienable right of the people to redress grievances. The democratic "due process" necessary to resolve conflicts should be protected and facilitated by govt NOT BLOCKED BY PARTY POLITICS to the point of endangering constitutional liberties. My argument is that the Supreme Court and judges/courts in general have too much power to rule and not enough check, and there has been NO protection of equal interests or equal justice under law AS LONG AS ONE SIDE OR ONE VIEW CAN RULE OVER OTHERS (justified by the letter of the law or not). Once you violate consent, that is no longer consent of the governed or representation of those interests. Free and equal access to the political/legal process has long been compromised by financial interests and bullying by coercion or exclusion; this is a separate issue indirectly tied with any other that comes up.

This is a whole area of conflict that would require either (1) mediating every case and conflict by consensus (as the Greens practice) so "bullying" or obstructionism is NOT rewarded but solutions agreed upon by all sides/interests; (2) agreeing to separate funding/jurisdiction so that all interests are protected, and responsibility is relegated respectively to the people/parties of different views.

So that is my spirit of the law argument which is separate

(B) for the "letter of the law" issue regarding Roberts' ruling and the Supreme Court,
from what I understand
(1) the ACA was passed through Congress as a reform of a previous public health bill. It was NOT passed as a revenue bill dealing with income tax
(2) Roberts originally wrote a dissenting opinion and was opposed to the ACA as unconstitutional. After either pressure from the Administration pushing the ACA, and/or some excuse he gave that he "didn't want to oppose where it appeared to be political" he reversed his opposition and supported the ACA as constitutional. The argument was that it WAS constitutional as "tax"

So there was some switch that when the bill was passed through Congress it was NOT a tax, but when it was defended before the Supreme Court it was argued as a "tax."

There is even a federal lawsuit based on this issue, that if it was confirmed by the Supreme Court as constitutional as a tax, then the bill was NOT constitutionally passed through Congress as a tax.

Dante in either case, the arguments around (B) indicate that criteria (A) WAS NOT MET.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE ARGUMENTS OVER ACA IF IT REPRESENTED CONSENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS AFFECTED BY THIS BILL.

The simplest solution would be to hold the supporters of ACA to THEIR OWN CONTRACT WITH GOVT. And allow other people of dissenting political beliefs to represent their own contracts regarding health care as well.

Where ALL PARTIES agree, then THAT PART can be made federal law.

Otherwise, SEPARATE OUT PRIVATELY. By respect for First Amendment religious freedom; Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection of the laws and no discrimination by govt against people for their beliefs; and respect for Tenth Amendment rights reserved to the people and the states.

Those who support ACA may choose to be under those mandated policies by organizing by PARTY such as through the Greens and Democrats who WANT single payer. Set up a semi-governmental network, similar to the Federal Reserve that is a mix of public and private interests, but make it OPTIONAL. Where ONLY people/members who WANT benefits through that system are REQUIRED to pay into it under the rules set forth by their representatives.

Thank you Dante
If you can understand either part of both of these arguments, I have nothing but respect for you. if you keep projecting your own beliefs on others, you are part of the problem. So any circular arguments you inject yourself into will go round and round in circles, spinning you with them.

This way i propose allows for all the conflicting views to coexist peacefully without imposing on each other. May all the enlightened people who believe in free choice and constitutional protections and limitations on federal government be united in their diversity, and work together to create amicable solutions by separating by parties to organize resources around solutions they believe in, and stop wasting time and resources fighting each other's ways of reform.

Why can't we reward citizens for setting up their own reforms and quit imposing one way?

How can activists and rejectionists lobby so hard against "religious groups" for imposing their views and biases on public policy and govt,
and yet NOT SEE how lobbyists in this case are pushing THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS AND AGENDA on the public similar to a religious cult?

How is the partisan push for ACA different from a religious-based imposition on dissenters of opposing beliefs?

 

[Claudette]

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what Dante says when the Reps hold power and that up or down vote gives a Rep Prez anyone he wants on the SC.

Kinda sorta think Dante will be screaming like a stuck pig.

What goes around comes around and I think Harry Reid will rue the day he enacted this.

 

[mamooth]

But you're assuming that Democrats are like yourself, complete partisan hypocrites. Not a good assumption. When the Republicans were threatening the nuclear option, I was saying "Do it. About time." So were about half of the Democrats. Hence, we're not hypocrites.

Any Republican here can show their lack of hypocrisy by pledging to immediately reinstate the filibuster if the Republicans get the senate. If they won't make that pledge, then they're open hypocrites, and no one should care what they think. TakeAStepBack especially should be the one making that pledge. TakeAStepBack, will you do so, or are you a flaming hypocrite?

I just wonder Republicans bother denying that they would have done the same the instant it was convenient for them. Since the Republicans absolutely would have killed the filibuster anyways, there's zero harm to the Democrats for doing it earlier. Republicans are just angry because the ones they were bullying dared fight back.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=21503]Claudette[/MENTION]

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what Dante says when the Reps hold power and that up or down vote gives a Rep Prez anyone he wants on the SC.

Kinda sorta think Dante will be screaming like a stuck pig.

What goes around comes around and I think Harry Reid will rue the day he enacted this.

If you actually knew what you were speaking about you'd know the SCOTUS appointments are not effected by this move.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But you're assuming that Democrats are like yourself, complete partisan hypocrites. Not a good assumption. When the Republicans were threatening the nuclear option, I was saying "Do it. About time." So were about half of the Democrats. Hence, we're not hypocrites.

Any Republican here can show their lack of hypocrisy by pledging to immediately reinstate the filibuster if the Republicans get the senate. If they won't make that pledge, then they're open hypocrites, and no one should care what they think. TakeAStepBack especially should be the one making that pledge. TakeAStepBack, will you do so, or are you a flaming hypocrite?

I just wonder Republicans bother denying that they would have done the same the instant it was convenient for them. Since the Republicans absolutely would have killed the filibuster anyways, there's zero harm to the Democrats for doing it earlier. Republicans are just angry because the ones they were bullying dared fight back.

Times change...


seriously

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is *too easily abused." -- Exactly what Chief Justice Roberts said was the Court's reasoning and justification based on principle and precedent, in his ruling that the Court use the Obama administrations' second argument in upholding the mandated 'shared penalty responsibility'

You obviously have NOT read Roberts' ruling

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] ​

Dear Dante:
Let us separate the two arguments that I am making
(A) First is by the "spirit of the law" -- the whole spirit of the Constitutional contract is CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. So if people dissent, there is an inalienable right of the people to redress grievances. The democratic "due process" necessary to resolve conflicts should be protected and facilitated by govt NOT BLOCKED BY PARTY POLITICS to the point of endangering constitutional liberties. My argument is that the Supreme Court and judges/courts in general have too much power to rule and not enough check, and there has been NO protection of equal interests or equal justice under law AS LONG AS ONE SIDE OR ONE VIEW CAN RULE OVER OTHERS (justified by the letter of the law or not). Once you violate consent, that is no longer consent of the governed or representation of those interests. Free and equal access to the political/legal process has long been compromised by financial interests and bullying by coercion or exclusion; this is a separate issue indirectly tied with any other that comes up.

This is a whole area of conflict that would require either (1) mediating every case and conflict by consensus (as the Greens practice) so "bullying" or obstructionism is NOT rewarded but solutions agreed upon by all sides/interests; (2) agreeing to separate funding/jurisdiction so that all interests are protected, and responsibility is relegated respectively to the people/parties of different views.

So that is my spirit of the law argument which is separate

(B) for the "letter of the law" issue regarding Roberts' ruling and the Supreme Court,
from what I understand
(1) the ACA was passed through Congress as a reform of a previous public health bill. It was NOT passed as a revenue bill dealing with income tax
(2) Roberts originally wrote a dissenting opinion and was opposed to the ACA as unconstitutional. After either pressure from the Administration pushing the ACA, and/or some excuse he gave that he "didn't want to oppose where it appeared to be political" he reversed his opposition and supported the ACA as constitutional. The argument was that it WAS constitutional as "tax"

So there was some switch that when the bill was passed through Congress it was NOT a tax, but when it was defended before the Supreme Court it was argued as a "tax."

There is even a federal lawsuit based on this issue, that if it was confirmed by the Supreme Court as constitutional as a tax, then the bill was NOT constitutionally passed through Congress as a tax.

Dante in either case, the arguments around (B) indicate that criteria (A) WAS NOT MET.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE ARGUMENTS OVER ACA IF IT REPRESENTED CONSENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS AFFECTED BY THIS BILL.

The simplest solution would be to hold the supporters of ACA to THEIR OWN CONTRACT WITH GOVT. And allow other people of dissenting political beliefs to represent their own contracts regarding health care as well.

Where ALL PARTIES agree, then THAT PART can be made federal law.

Otherwise, SEPARATE OUT PRIVATELY. By respect for First Amendment religious freedom; Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection of the laws and no discrimination by govt against people for their beliefs; and respect for Tenth Amendment rights reserved to the people and the states.

Those who support ACA may choose to be under those mandated policies by organizing by PARTY such as through the Greens and Democrats who WANT single payer. Set up a semi-governmental network, similar to the Federal Reserve that is a mix of public and private interests, but make it OPTIONAL. Where ONLY people/members who WANT benefits through that system are REQUIRED to pay into it under the rules set forth by their representatives.

Thank you Dante
If you can understand either part of both of these arguments, I have nothing but respect for you. if you keep projecting your own beliefs on others, you are part of the problem. So any circular arguments you inject yourself into will go round and round in circles, spinning you with them.

This way i propose allows for all the conflicting views to coexist peacefully without imposing on each other. May all the enlightened people who believe in free choice and constitutional protections and limitations on federal government be united in their diversity, and work together to create amicable solutions by separating by parties to organize resources around solutions they believe in, and stop wasting time and resources fighting each other's ways of reform.

Why can't we reward citizens for setting up their own reforms and quit imposing one way?

How can activists and rejectionists lobby so hard against "religious groups" for imposing their views and biases on public policy and govt,
and yet NOT SEE how lobbyists in this case are pushing THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS AND AGENDA on the public similar to a religious cult?

How is the partisan push for ACA different from a religious-based imposition on dissenters of opposing beliefs?

You appear to be confused about what 'consent of the governed' actually means.

Wherever did you get this nonsense: "Roberts originally wrote a dissenting opinion and was opposed to the ACA as unconstitutional."?

When people and institutions bond together as "religious groups" with the expressed intent of "imposing their views and biases on public policy and govt," we get lobbying for an unconstitutional, government seal of approval for their religious beliefs to the exception of others.


Keep religion separate. Religious faith is a personal thing and many religious folks would do well to reflect on that