Page 104 of 193

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:34 am
by Grizalltheway
kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:
I'm not a partisan hack like some people from the Pine Tree State. The last 6 elections I voted Rep 2, Dem 1, Indy 3 times.
I didn’t know Maine was the Pine Tree State. That’s kind of BS. I see a ton of Maples and oaks. Sure there are a few pines but I don’t see any pondersosas....

:ohno:
They had a head start on us.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:48 am
by Col Hogan
kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:
I'm not a partisan hack like some people from the Pine Tree State. The last 6 elections I voted Rep 2, Dem 1, Indy 3 times.
I didn’t know Maine was the Pine Tree State. That’s kind of BS. I see a ton of Maples and oaks. Sure there are a few pines but I don’t see any pondersosas....

:ohno:
https://statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-offi ... tree-state

Re: RE: Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:13 am
by UNI88
kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:
I'm not a partisan hack like some people from the Pine Tree State. The last 6 elections I voted Rep 2, Dem 1, Indy 3 times.
I didn’t know Maine was the Pine Tree State. That’s kind of BS. I see a ton of Maples and oaks. Sure there are a few pines but I don’t see any pondersosas....

:ohno:
Pipe down Little Joe!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:18 am
by Chizzang
The Majestic Ponderosa...

Image

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:59 am
by Pwns
So, someone want to explain to me how using emergency declaration to do what congress won't let you do is an abuse of power, but expanding the SCOTUS because you don't like the judges isn't?

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:21 am
by ∞∞∞
Pwns wrote:So, someone want to explain to me how using emergency declaration to do what congress won't let you do is an abuse of power, but expanding the SCOTUS because you don't like the judges isn't?
Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:44 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Pwns wrote:So, someone want to explain to me how using emergency declaration to do what congress won't let you do is an abuse of power, but expanding the SCOTUS because you don't like the judges isn't?
Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.
It's stacking the bench. It's also pandering to the idiot voters that don't understand that.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:52 am
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.
It's stacking the bench. It's also pandering to the idiot voters that don't understand that.
Is stacking the bench unconstitutional?

The law on the books limits the SCOTUS to nine, but that can be changed with enough Senators (and Reps).

Otherwise, no one is saying it'll be done through an emergency declaration.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:02 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote: It's stacking the bench. It's also pandering to the idiot voters that don't understand that.
Is stacking the bench unconstitutional?

The law on the books limits the SCOTUS to nine, but that can be changed with enough Senators (and Reps).

Otherwise, no one is saying it'll be done through an emergency declaration.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum; and for the purposes of this act there shall be appointed an additional associate justice of said court.

— Judiciary Act of 1869
I would think that a POTUS, placing more people on the bench. Let's play a game - what national emergency would occur that would justify expanding the court from 9-10? The need to make sure a law is upheld or voted down? That doesn't seem like an emergency to me. :suspicious:

It didn't work in 1937 when FDR tried to pack the court. Though, with the new crop of socialists and leftists in America, it might just happen. Fuck the laws, right?

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:07 am
by ∞∞∞
Am I being unclear?

"No one is saying it'll be done through an emergency declaration."

It will need Congress to change the law.

Nothing in the article - or what the candidates said - states it'll be done through a declaration. It's a rallying cause and likely change if the Democrats win both chambers and the Presidency.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:19 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:Am I being unclear?

"No one is saying it'll be done through an emergency declaration."

It will need Congress to change the law.

Nothing in the article - or what the candidates said - states it'll be done through a declaration. It's a rallying cause and likely change if the Democrats win both chambers and the Presidency.
I was throwing that out there. You know it'll come up. Trump has opened the door to that sort of nonsense. But it's still an obvious pander. And I think a dangerous precedent. W Hat would be the point of anything if a party can control the gov't then amend or undo laws so that it can do whatever it wants? Change laws that should be changed. Repeal bad laws. But to amend something just so you can get an ideological majority on the bench isn't very democratic.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:30 am
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote: But to amend something just so you can get an ideological majority on the bench isn't very democratic.
So if the People vote enough progressive Congressman to enact progressive laws, do you think it's democratic that five conservative judges are able to hold back those laws? Personally I think it's even more undemocratic, since it's essentially past generations holding back how a new society wants to govern itself.

Even today, I think the SCOTUS is a complete farce to how a good democracy works. It's one of the things the founders got wrong that other nations have since improved on.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:35 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote: But to amend something just so you can get an ideological majority on the bench isn't very democratic.
So if the People vote enough progressive Congressman to enact progressive laws, do you think it's democratic that five conservative judges are able to hold back those laws? Personally I think it's even more undemocratic, since it's essentially past generations holding back how a new society wants to govern itself.

Even today, I think the SCOTUS is a complete farce to how a good democracy works. It's one of the things the founders got wrong that other nations have since improved on.
If you want to change the term limits of a justice, then do it.

Be honest, you would want to maintain a progressive court if a conservative Congress enacted conservative laws which were held up by progressive judges. So, you're hypothetical situation here shows that you want want's best for YOUR ideas and nobody else's. Which to me isn't democratic.

Besides, we've had conservative judges side over and over with the liberal judges. There are good judges that don't view everything through a Red of Blue lens. And the ones that judge with an obvious biased usually get those cases overturned.


You seem to think government should be perfect. We're a very diverse culture and our politics are messy because of it.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:50 am
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: So if the People vote enough progressive Congressman to enact progressive laws, do you think it's democratic that five conservative judges are able to hold back those laws? Personally I think it's even more undemocratic, since it's essentially past generations holding back how a new society wants to govern itself.

Even today, I think the SCOTUS is a complete farce to how a good democracy works. It's one of the things the founders got wrong that other nations have since improved on.
If you want to change the term limits of a justice, then do it.
How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.
You seem to think government should be perfect. We're a very diverse culture and our politics are messy because of it
I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:04 pm
by AZGrizFan
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote: If you want to change the term limits of a justice, then do it.
How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.
You seem to think government should be perfect. We're a very diverse culture and our politics are messy because of it
I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.
Dems are fucking comical. Don't get your way? Fuck it, just change the rules! :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

Can't get your SC nomination through the Senate? USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
Didn't win the presidential election? ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
Can't stop a SC nomination? ADD ADDITIONAL PROGRESSIVE SEATS TO OFFSET THE MAJORITY!!

You are the epitome of the "participation trophy" generation. This is what happens when people grow up having NEVER "lost" at anything in their life. Having always gotten their way. Having been told their entire lives they're better, smarter, faster than everybody else and having been given a trophy whether they deserved it or not.

Y'all are fucking :loko: :loko:

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:12 pm
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote: If you want to change the term limits of a justice, then do it.
How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.
You seem to think government should be perfect. We're a very diverse culture and our politics are messy because of it
I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.
Changing the term limits is very different than changing the number of people on the court. If there's enough bipartisan support to increase the # of judges, then ok.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:15 pm
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.


I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.
Changing the term limits is very different than changing the number of people on the court. If there's enough bipartisan support to increase the # of judges, then ok.
The only way they differ is that one takes a Constitutional change while the other takes a simpler legislative change. But ultimately, both are ways for a society to achieve new goals without undermining what it believes are its democratic values.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:20 pm
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote: If you want to change the term limits of a justice, then do it.
How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.
You seem to think government should be perfect. We're a very diverse culture and our politics are messy because of it
I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.
Government is messy and it should be. It will never be perfect and most attempts to create a perfect government/society/world has usually ended up terrible. Utopias are un-achievable. That isn't to say we don't strive for it. We should be bettering ourselves. But bettering yourself at the expense of others USUALLY doesn't turn out well in the end. :twocents:

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:22 pm
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
Changing the term limits is very different than changing the number of people on the court. If there's enough bipartisan support to increase the # of judges, then ok.
The only way they differ is that one takes a Constitutional change while the other takes a simpler legislative change. But ultimately, both are ways for a society to achieve new goals without undermining what it believes are its democratic values.
Like I said - if the people want to change it through a democratic process then so be it.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:32 pm
by Pwns
∞∞∞ wrote:
Pwns wrote:So, someone want to explain to me how using emergency declaration to do what congress won't let you do is an abuse of power, but expanding the SCOTUS because you don't like the judges isn't?
Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.
I didn't say it will be done via emergency declaration. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between expanding the court and what Trump is doing with the national emergency (besides that one is unprecedented, but does that make it right?)

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:36 pm
by Grizalltheway
Pwns wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.
I didn't say it will be done via emergency declaration. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between expanding the court and what Trump is doing with the national emergency (besides that one is unprecedented, but does that make it right?)
We've already discussed what the difference is. :?

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:37 pm
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: How is this statement any different than:

If you want to change the amount of justices, then do it.

They're both perfectly acceptable ways to an end if the People want.


I know it's messy, but the entire point of humanity is to perfect the species as best as possible. This includes government. Just because anything's messy it doesn't mean we go, "well it's messy and that's how it is."

We should leave this Earth better off than we enter it.
Government is messy and it should be. It will never be perfect and most attempts to create a perfect government/society/world has usually ended up terrible. Utopias are un-achievable. That isn't to say we don't strive for it. We should be bettering ourselves. But bettering yourself at the expense of others USUALLY doesn't turn out well in the end. :twocents:
I don't disagree. Usually is the key word though; there are times where it's necessary not just for the betterment of yourself, but of society as a whole.

Additionally, you can't simply dismiss a Utopian society as unachievable. It likely won't be in our lifetimes, but future humans could certainly do it (ex. humans evolving with tech to become a hive-mind species). But us thinking about how a Utopian society would come to fruition is like the ancient Sumerians trying to understand how an entire world can be connected in milliseconds. That is, we'll never know.

It's a fun thought-exercise though. And it's worth striving for.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:47 pm
by ∞∞∞
Pwns wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote: Did you read the article? They don't want to do it with an "emergency declaration." If Democrats hold the house and have 60 votes in the Senate to change the statute, it's happening (as it should).

It's a rallying cause to win the Presidency, House, and Senate.
I didn't say it will be done via emergency declaration. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between expanding the court and what Trump is doing with the national emergency (besides that one is unprecedented, but does that make it right?)
One is a single individual surpassing the authority given to him by the contract he swore an oath to. And no one in his party giving a sh*t beyond symbolic finger-wagging.

One is hundreds of thousands of constituents telling their reps that they want something changed and said reps changing it with the full authority of the contract they swore an oath to.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:49 pm
by 93henfan
Utopian societies will never work, because people are never truly equal in them. Somebody pulls the strings, and that somebody is always going to look out for #1.

And then if #1 is sniffed out and executed, #2 becomes #1. Rinse and repeat.

It's just human nature. To make us different, in whatever techno-BS you mentioned, you'd have to make us not human.

Re: Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:57 pm
by Pwns
∞∞∞ wrote:
One is hundreds of thousands of constituents telling their reps that they want something changed and said reps changing it with the full authority of the contract they swore an oath to.
Trump elected himself?

And an emergency declaration isn't within the president's authority?