All Things POLITICS 3.0

[BKlutch]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

I've got my Democrat here. I also have an African American. I'm WINNINGGGGGG!

[BKlutch]

Why would you want nine unelected people that will serve as long as they want without being challenged for their seats to write laws for the country?

They don't have to answer to anyone. That's not good.

By what mechanism would you make the federal judiciary accountable? The independence of the federal judiciary, in my opinion, is its greatest hallmark but of course a judge can be impeached if he/she is not on good behavior.

Making judges politically accountable would turn the Supreme Court into another Kangaroo Court. Their independence is the quintessence of our form of government.

To have this any other way would soon put the SC in the pocket of the 1%. Only the 1%, and those who aspire to be in the 1%, could possibly want this.

[HarthorneWingo]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

By the way, what exactly is Trump's immigration policy?

[BKlutch]

i was merely giving my opinion on why merrick garland was nominated.

Garland was nominated primarily as a f*ck you to the Republican Congress. He was basically saying "See? I nominated someone non-controversial, whose qualifications cannot be questioned, and you still won't consider it." The irony is that they may end up trying to confirm him anyway, knowing that Obama could withdraw the nomination so Hillary can choose someone more left-leaning.

Congress didnt vote on him because scallia died during election season while obama was a lame duck and congress felt the voters should have a say in the matter. That and obama already got two justices confirmed. I lean right, but i certainly dont want a conservate activist judge. Give me a constitutionalist all day every day.

These are the reasons they gave, but we all know that's not why. First of all, "lame duck" generally refers to a politician whose successor has already been chosen. Obama nominated Garland in March, which is 8 months before the election and 10 months before he will leave office. The fact that he already chose two justices is meaningless. It's his job as president, and voters DID have a say in the matter, when they elected him to office -- TWICE.

Well said, and very true.

[BKlutch]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

By the way, what exactly is Trump's immigration policy?

Check here hourly for updates, on Spin Central.

[Greenie]

Jeez.

[CJackson]

They don't have to answer to anyone. That's not good.

By what mechanism would you make the federal judiciary accountable? The independence of the federal judiciary, in my opinion, is its greatest hallmark but of course a judge can be impeached if he/she is not on good behavior.

Making judges politically accountable would turn the Supreme Court into another Kangaroo Court. Their independence is the quintessence of our form of government.

To have this any other way would soon put the SC in the pocket of the 1%. Only the 1%, and those who aspire to be in the 1%, could possibly want this.

Yeah, I would think it is pretty obvious why they have life terms. It is the purest anti-corruption counter balance conceived by the founders. It was very smart of them to figure that out. And that is why every pick counts so much.

[CJackson]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

By the way, what exactly is Trump's immigration policy?

Didn't you hear? Trump bends to the will of the people. That's why he is so great, really great according to Scott Adams.

[BKlutch]

By what mechanism would you make the federal judiciary accountable? The independence of the federal judiciary, in my opinion, is its greatest hallmark but of course a judge can be impeached if he/she is not on good behavior.

Making judges politically accountable would turn the Supreme Court into another Kangaroo Court. Their independence is the quintessence of our form of government.

To have this any other way would soon put the SC in the pocket of the 1%. Only the 1%, and those who aspire to be in the 1%, could possibly want this.

Yeah, I would think it is pretty obvious why they have life terms. It is the purest anti-corruption counter balance conceived by the founders. It was very smart of them to figure that out. And that is why every pick counts so much.

I'd go even further and say that people who oppose this haven't really studied much about American history.

[Greenie]

If it's so damn anti-corruption why not have constitutional purists? I mean, the judiciary branch is used to comprehend and uphold writen law. So if there is no corruption then there is no need to have left or right leaning judges.

[GONYK]

I truly wonder how Trump supporters feel now that Trump, their strongman who is supposed to stare down China, Mexico, BLM and Apple, folded on his chief initiative out of desperation under the guise of “other people told me to".

That is the very definition of selling out. Trump's backbone was supposed to be his hallmark.

[Greenie]

I'm tired of people questioning others intelligence because they have different opinions on things.

[GONYK]

If it's so damn anti-corruption why not have constitutional purists? I mean, the judiciary branch is used to comprehend and uphold writen law. So if there is no corruption then there is no need to have left or right leaning judges.

Because they don't believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document and over half of the country disagrees with that interpretation.

[Greenie]

I truly wonder how Trump supporters feel now that Trump, their strongman who is supposed to stare down China, Mexico and Apple, folded on his chief initiative out of desperation under the guise of “other people told me to".

That is the very definition of selling out. Trump's backbone was supposed to be his hallmark.

Who the fuq is Trump? No one. This whole election has been joke from the beginning.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

i was merely giving my opinion on why merrick garland was nominated.

Garland was nominated primarily as a f*ck you to the Republican Congress. He was basically saying "See? I nominated someone non-controversial, whose qualifications cannot be questioned, and you still won't consider it." The irony is that they may end up trying to confirm him anyway, knowing that Obama could withdraw the nomination so Hillary can choose someone more left-leaning.

Congress didnt vote on him because scallia died during election season while obama was a lame duck and congress felt the voters should have a say in the matter. That and obama already got two justices confirmed. I lean right, but i certainly dont want a conservate activist judge. Give me a constitutionalist all day every day.

These are the reasons they gave, but we all know that's not why. First of all, "lame duck" generally refers to a politician whose successor has already been chosen. Obama nominated Garland in March, which is 8 months before the election and 10 months before he will leave office. The fact that he already chose two justices is meaningless. It's his job as president, and voters DID have a say in the matter, when they elected him to office -- TWICE.

I think you're parsing the term lame duck. The fact of the matter is obama is on way out and theres no mandate for congress to vote on whomever he nominates in any sort of timely fashion. And 8 months before the election is election season. Obama has gotten most of the major legislation he wannted as president passed, saying that congress has obstructed his entire agenda is simply a false narrative.

[Greenie]

If it's so damn anti-corruption why not have constitutional purists? I mean, the judiciary branch is used to comprehend and uphold writen law. So if there is no corruption then there is no need to have left or right leaning judges.

Because they don't believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document and over half of the country disagrees with that interpretation.

So then we are agenda based, no?

[CJackson]

Making judges politically accountable would turn the Supreme Court into another Kangaroo Court. Their independence is the quintessence of our form of government.

To have this any other way would soon put the SC in the pocket of the 1%. Only the 1%, and those who aspire to be in the 1%, could possibly want this.

Yeah, I would think it is pretty obvious why they have life terms. It is the purest anti-corruption counter balance conceived by the founders. It was very smart of them to figure that out. And that is why every pick counts so much.

I'd go even further and say that people who oppose this haven't really studied much about American history.

Many don't even have a basic grasp of civics. That anyone could even question the weighted importance of the three branches of government is baffling.

Further, what you have amongst the idiocracy is a lack of principled thinking. Even though firepax was clearly pushing their agenda, they did say they'd choose a constitutionalist over an activist judge which to me is a principle and therefore implies if said judge ruled for modifying the 2nd amendment on clearly articulated constitutional grounds then I'd assume they'd be OK with that even if they were disappointed in the outcome.

But in the idiocracy, with Trump clearly leading the way, you have cherry picking of what they want to keep on the books and what they don't without a bit of constitutional rigor or well-reasoned principles. Trump will pander to the gun lobbies and vociferously defend status quo for gun laws, but in the next breath he'll defame the first amendment and vow to rip it to shreds if he gets the chance solely based on people "not being nice" to him. And the idiocracy claps for this with barely a neuron firing.

[GONYK]

If it's so damn anti-corruption why not have constitutional purists? I mean, the judiciary branch is used to comprehend and uphold writen law. So if there is no corruption then there is no need to have left or right leaning judges.

Because they don't believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document and over half of the country disagrees with that interpretation.

So then we are agenda based, no?

Who is the 'we' here?

In general though, I think everyone is agenda based. I certainly have political agendas that I would like to see represented. I would prefer judges who see the world the way I do, because the legislative process is a mess.

If the legislative process were to function again, you are correct that judges should become less important. Sadly, that is not the state of play right now.

[BKlutch]

If it's so damn anti-corruption why not have constitutional purists? I mean, the judiciary branch is used to comprehend and uphold writen law. So if there is no corruption then there is no need to have left or right leaning judges.

There's really no relationship between left-right and corruption. It jut doesn't make sense. The court, which has as its mission deciding certain Federal cases and interpreting the Constitution, has always had its own ideological bias. Our "right to privacy," for example, is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, but was derived as a consequence of other rights that are clearly spelled out. The interpretation of the Constitution has grown over the past 2+ centuries, which has given the impression that the Constitution, itself, is not merely a moribund piece of paper stuck in our distant past.

A simple example is freedom of speech, which applied to the press in the 18th century, but is now applied to online speech. As we've all seen, technology has changed how the constitution is applied, but almost all of the Justices have tried to decide new cases consistent with the original intent. How this is done is very tied in with ideology, and gives rise to the great importance in appointing justices.

[Greenie]

Because they don't believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document and over half of the country disagrees with that interpretation.

So then we are agenda based, no?

Who is the 'we' here?

In general though, I think everyone is agenda based. I certainly have political agendas that I would like to see represented. I would prefer judges who see the world the way I do, because the legislative process is a mess.

If the legislative process were to function again, you are correct that judges should become less important. Sadly, that is not the state of play right now.

The "we" are people claiming this branch is not corrupt.

It's corrupted, just like the rest of the government.