All Things POLITICS 3.0

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

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.

I wasn't intending to make a larger point about his entire agenda being obstructed. I was merely stating that on this issue, the "lame duck" and "voters should have a say" arguments are just excuses, and poor ones at that. There's no point in having a 4-year term if the final year of that term somehow doesn't count. By a similar rationale, Obama was a lame duck as soon as he was re-elected, since he can't run for a third term. The man was chosen, by voters, to be our president and carry out the duties of office. Among those duties is nominating justices when there is a vacancy and there is no quota on the number of appointments he is allowed to make. If all justices die in some freak accident, it's his job to make 9 nominations. If no vacancies are open during his term, he makes none.

Again, these are just excuses for what you yourself hinted at in your post -- they wanted to wait. We know why they wanted to wait, and it has nothing to do with whether or not Obama has the right to nominate anyone. They were hoping that a Republican would win in November and then be able to choose a conservative judge. If Obama withdraws Garland's nomination and Hillary wins, they are going to wish they had voted on Garland.

[BKlutch]

Try getting an amendment in any controversial area ratified by 2/3 of the states. Not going to happen.

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

Do you really want issues of civil rights to be on ballots though? Or left up to the legislators in areas with histories of discrimination?

Some things are too important, because the would abridge the Constitutional rights of a group of people. These things must be determined by the courts. We could never leave this up to legislation.

Voting rights? This year, Latinos can't vote. Maybe next year, they get the vote but Latvian Americans can't. We can not have this kind of situation where the basic Constitutional protections are discarded with the whim of fashion. Some things are too important.

[HarthorneWingo]

^^^ It's agenda based. One hand washing the other. We have no clue what's going on behind closed doors where deals are being brokered just to get a nomination.

That is politics. I honestly don't know how to avoid that.

Why would a President ever nominate a judge who wouldn't promote said President's agenda?

That is why I would only elect a President who sees the world closest to the way I do.

That's fine. I just have a problem with people thinking it's clean and pure of what political office is. Corruption.

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

[BKlutch]

That is politics. I honestly don't know how to avoid that.

Why would a President ever nominate a judge who wouldn't promote said President's agenda?

That is why I would only elect a President who sees the world closest to the way I do.

That's fine. I just have a problem with people thinking it's clean and pure of what political office is. Corruption.

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

[HarthorneWingo]

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

Do you really want issues of civil rights to be on ballots though? Or left up to the legislators in areas with histories of discrimination?

Some things are too important, because the would abridge the Constitutional rights of a group of people. These things must be determined by the courts. We could never leave this up to legislation.

Voting rights? This year, Latinos can't vote. Maybe next year, they get the vote but Latvian Americans can't. We can not have this kind of situation where the basic Constitutional protections are discarded with the whim of fashion. Some things are too important.

The federal courts always have the power to determine whether a law abridges any of the fundamental rights proscribed by the constitution to the states through the 14th amendment. Thankfully. I forget which Article that's in, but I'm sure Knickstape1214 can tell us having just finished Con Law 101.

[HarthorneWingo]

That's fine. I just have a problem with people thinking it's clean and pure of what political office is. Corruption.

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

[BKlutch]

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

Wingo, this is exactly why I feel it's so important to stop Trump, and not let personal feelings about a candidate force us into a worse choice. Well said, Harthorne!

[CJackson]

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

It is far easier to destroy than to build. The destruction Trump would wreak could be fatal. Building an alternative in that wreckage would be far more difficult or maybe impossible.

[Knicks_Fan2]

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

Wingo, this is exactly why I feel it's so important to stop Trump, and not let personal feelings about a candidate force us into a worse choice. Well said, Harthorne!

Agreed. I think it is perfectly understandable to have multiple priorities and base your voting decision based on the relative impact of the decision. I obviously have no problem with anyone voting third party in any state but, for those progressives that understand the process of cumulative change, basing your vote on the state you are in is a perfectly practical way to go.

[Greenie]

What GONYK said was what I was trying to say. But if Hillary is beating Trump in the NY polls (outside the margin of error) come November, then I'm voting for Stein. We need to prop up the Green Party where possible so it can participate in the debates next election. Swing states can't f*ck around tho.

I really like that you can support your favorite candidate, but don't want to put our future at stake if she can't win. I also agree that we need more dramatic changes going forward, but I also strongly feel we may lose our opportunity to make those changes if we get a fascist leadership. The real key is for people starting to work on this as soon as the elections are over. In 4 years, it could make a huge difference. Really Yuge.

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

Nah, vote for who you want no matter what. Hillary is not a must. We will stay in this current cycle of voting for "lesser of two evils" if people don't stop the nonsense. If you want to vote Stein, then vote Stein you should be worried about Hillary. You don't want her anyway, hence you voting Stein.

[Greenie]

That's why I think if you live in those swing states where it's close or Hillary is losing, you can't mess around voting for Stein or Johnson. It'll be much easier to take the country to where we want to go from where Hillary will leave us after 8 years compared to where Trump would leave the country. In the meantime, we have to continue to push our local and federal representatives in that direction.

Wingo, this is exactly why I feel it's so important to stop Trump, and not let personal feelings about a candidate force us into a worse choice. Well said, Harthorne!

Agreed. I think it is perfectly understandable to have multiple priorities and base your voting decision based on the relative impact of the decision. I obviously have no problem with anyone voting third party in any state but, for those progressives that understand the process of cumulative change, basing your vote on the state you are in is a perfectly practical way to go.

Wrong mindset. Next election we will say the same things.

[Greenie]

Hillary is no better than Trump. She voted for the war. She advocated for bad laws. She has a horrible track record. We know what she does in power. All of what you say of Trump is pure speculation.

[Greenie]

Hillary has already helped destroy though.
I really don't understand how that's be passed over.

[Greenie]

Try getting an amendment in any controversial area ratified by 2/3 of the states. Not going to happen.

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

Do you really want issues of civil rights to be on ballots though? Or left up to the legislators in areas with histories of discrimination?

I think you have to look at the voting of said legislators. Odds are they line up with the majority of voters in the region since people are to vote for who represents their personal ideals, no?

[Greenie]

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

But the problem is the supermajority required for ratification of a new amendment. The supermajority provision allows a minority to hold hostage a substantial majority.

And I was wrong about the 2/3 of the states. It requires 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that...

Maybe we should look into changing that. Makes sense right?

[Knicks_Fan2]

Wingo, this is exactly why I feel it's so important to stop Trump, and not let personal feelings about a candidate force us into a worse choice. Well said, Harthorne!

Agreed. I think it is perfectly understandable to have multiple priorities and base your voting decision based on the relative impact of the decision. I obviously have no problem with anyone voting third party in any state but, for those progressives that understand the process of cumulative change, basing your vote on the state you are in is a perfectly practical way to go.

Wrong mindset. Next election we will say the same things.

Say what? The entire country is tilting more and more progressive both socially and fiscally. Post Obamacare and Dodd-Frank you have progressives pushing even further left and it will become more and more acceptable politically to go that route. You get Trump, and an alt-conservative movement and what we have now will seem like progressive nirvana 8 years from now. Cumulative movement is much more realistic at a national level.

[GONYK]

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

Do you really want issues of civil rights to be on ballots though? Or left up to the legislators in areas with histories of discrimination?

I think you have to look at the voting of said legislators. Odds are they line up with the majority of voters in the region since people are to vote for who represents their personal ideals, no?

Sure, but, hypothetically speaking, should black people or gay people not have equal rights and legal protections in Alabama if certain counties in Alabama are made up of a majority of prejudiced constituents? Or is the Constitution there to provide equal rights to all?

[Knicks_Fan2]

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

But the problem is the supermajority required for ratification of a new amendment. The supermajority provision allows a minority to hold hostage a substantial majority.

And I was wrong about the 2/3 of the states. It requires 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that...

Maybe we should look into changing that. Makes sense right?

Change what? Article V of the United States Constitution?

[GONYK]

Then congress must be addressed. SC is not to basically make up new rules. That's not their jobs and I don't want it to be.

If congress have been addressed and the people choose not change things (keep electing the same people) then the people are speaking. They don't want to change certain things. The whole country is neither liberal, progressive or conservative. We are a mixed pot.

But the problem is the supermajority required for ratification of a new amendment. The supermajority provision allows a minority to hold hostage a substantial majority.

And I was wrong about the 2/3 of the states. It requires 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that...

Maybe we should look into changing that. Makes sense right?

How? Can someone personally elect a 75% new Congress who will then make it easier to change the Constitution?

It is much easier to leverage your vote and choose a person who will choose a SC Justice who agrees with your values.

[BKlutch]

Agreed. I think it is perfectly understandable to have multiple priorities and base your voting decision based on the relative impact of the decision. I obviously have no problem with anyone voting third party in any state but, for those progressives that understand the process of cumulative change, basing your vote on the state you are in is a perfectly practical way to go.

Wrong mindset. Next election we will say the same things.

Say what? The entire country is tilting more and more progressive both socially and fiscally. Post Obamacare and Dodd-Frank you have progressives pushing even further left and it will become more and more acceptable politically to go that route. You get Trump, and an alt-conservative movement and what we have now will seem like progressive nirvana 8 years from now. Cumulative movement is much more realistic at a national level.

Today Hillary gave a speech and apparently said that Trump is trying to take hate groups mainstream. Of course that's true, and it's something I've never seen before among major party presidential candidates. What he's doing can only serve to narrow his base. There is no valid place for invoking hate in our governing process. (Anybody remember MLK?)