Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[∞∞∞]

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.

[Ibanez]

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.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[AZGrizFan]

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!

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

[Ibanez]

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.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[Ibanez]

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.

[Ibanez]

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.

[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?

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?)

[Grizalltheway]

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.

[∞∞∞]

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.

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.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[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.

[Pwns]

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?

[∞∞∞]

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 natural to approach the concept from the collective human experience up to this point in time (as you did) and predict it'll never work, but if one arises, it'll be from an interconnection of events, technology, biological changes, etc. that we can't really imagine today.

[Skjellyfetti]

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?

Not to avoid going through Congress to request $$.

The Constitution is pretty clear about appropriation.

[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 natural to approach the concept from the collective human experience up to this point in time (as you did) and predict it'll never work, but if one arises, it'll be from an interconnection of events, technology, biological changes, etc. that we can't really imagine today.

I know you mean well, but that sort of talk always reminds me of this fella:

[Col Hogan]

It's natural to approach the concept from the collective human experience up to this point in time (as you did) and predict it'll never work, but if one arises, it'll be from an interconnection of events, technology, biological changes, etc. that we can't really imagine today.

I know you mean well, but that sort of talk always reminds me of this fella:

[kalm]

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.

Dems are fucking comical. Don't get your way? Fuck it, just change the rules!

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

I earned every fucking trophy I ever won and Trip is right at least part of the time.

Your argument is invalid.

[CID1990]

The Majestic Ponderosa...

It was nice of the loggers to make that clearing so we can see the waterfall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Utopian pablum garbage

You peddle the same misery and hate mongering everybody else does, albeit from a less rational direction

Same thought process as evangelicals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

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 natural to approach the concept from the collective human experience up to this point in time (as you did) and predict it'll never work, but if one arises, it'll be from an interconnection of events, technology, biological changes, etc. that we can't really imagine today.

Thanks, Dr. Kaku.

[css75]

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.

Dems are **** comical. Don't get your way? **** it, just change the rules!

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 ****

You stated that quite well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

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 natural to approach the concept from the collective human experience up to this point in time (as you did) and predict it'll never work, but if one arises, it'll be from an interconnection of events, technology, biological changes, etc. that we can't really imagine today.

And then we "will be assimilated."

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Snowflake

Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for Allowing Accounts to Insult Him
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/p ... wsuit.html