Kavanaugh should not be confirmed but, not because of Ford

I was focused on what you wrote in your initial post and I addressed your comments on corruption and 1984.

What was it that you think I did not pay attention to (not that you have paid attention to anything I have said but, just because you have these failings does not mean they are mine)

 

Did FDR have 2/3rds majority ? Regardless- if the court is "Stacked" on the basis of overwhelming majority - this at least has the appearance of legitimacy.

At the end of the day I disagree with these Justices having lifetime terms with no realistic mechanism for removal. These Judges should have to answer to "we the people" for their actions in a way that is better than current.

 

Through coercion and black mail yes

I don't, the life time appointment is to encourage them to become less biased. It doesn't always work but there are ways to restrict their actions.

 

No need for that.

A man comes in here with ideas of liberty and limited government and a "conservative" takes a shot at his name. Go figure

I'd opt for 75%, keep the federal gov from accomplishing almost anything. Every time they accomplish something, your liberty and pocketbook get smaller

 

There are ways but, as stated previously - these are not realistic checks on power.

 

Well if the rules can just be changed then there never were in the first place.

 

Just because the rules can be changed does not mean there are not rules. The real question is what the basis for that change is.

Regardless - I am arguing against changing the rule - the main rule/principle on which this nation was founded.

I agree that when we reject this principle - that principle is no more - and that is exactly what is happening.

 

The basis was to gain the system.

In order to return to having 67% be the minimum the rules must be changed because now it's 51%

Agreed

 

The 67% rule may not prevent gaming the system but, it is a whole lot harder than with 51%

Right - I believe we should not have changed the rule to begin with.

 

Agreed. I do think we need a barrier to presidential interference to prevent things like FDR attempted.

 

I'm not "caught up in semantics". This is crucial. One of the ways you can destroy something is by arbitrarily re-defining it. We are a Democratic Republic, and we strive to stay a Democratic Republic.. Maybe making it better...

Much as I appreciate your attributing it to me , it's not "my" definition (I'd have a Nobel hanging on my wall, if it were). It's just the definition.

As for your definition of "Pure Democracy", I agree. And I completely agree that a simple majority to select a life-long appointment to the United States Supreme Court is preposterous.

You just properly explained one. I have held for a long time that the limitations are explained on the Preamble to the Constitution. Which states why our nation was constituted. What the ultimate purpose is and which imperative conditions must be met when enacting or revoking laws.. And they are more explicitly outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, for the most part, we wrote based on the Preamble to our Constitution.

 

You are one to perpetually rain on the parade of the partisan pukes of both parties.

 

You are correct but you know how Trumpthinks that the DOJ is only his? Well now he will believe that the SUPREMES only sing to him.

 

Tough when someone you disagree with it right?

 

So at the end of the day we are on the same page - despite the semantic quibbling

The Declaration of Independence is a treatise on "legitimacy of authority". Essential liberty is put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Gov't is not to make any law that messes with essential liberty - of its own volition. Never mind law based on personal or religious belief.

The legitimate purview of Gov't is based on Classical Liberalism = Protection from direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on.

The statement - rights/essential liberty ends - where the nose of another begins sums it up nicely. This is where Gov't authority - with respect to essential liberty - begins and ends.

Jefferson put it this way.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

So really there are two main points/principles in the DOI

1) individual liberty "so called unalienable rights" are "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't

2) this authority comes from "consent of the governed/ we the people" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case in the past.

 

I really don't know what anyone thinks.

 

Looks like the dems little scam is falling apart quite rapidly. Dr. Ford and other accusers being proven as liars. The dems need to figure out this kind of thing isn't working for them anymore.

 

No idea what you are trying to say - never mind what your point is.

 

removed by YouTube, Google, and Facebook for violations of decency act pending review of the words "Christian" and "Life in the Womb"

 

LOL, this is sooooooo funny.

 

Looks like we are. But not on reducing it to a "semantic quibbling". It's a fundamental principle in Political Sciences.

Completely agree. Our individual rights can be limited only by the rights of others.

Yes. That's the reasoning leading to our independence. Authority is retained by "we the people". And, through the Constitution, the powers necessary to maintain it (though not the authority itself) are delegated to the government.

The power to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court for life with just a simple majority requires a Constitutional Amendment. By which the people specifically grants Congress such power. The overreach by McConnell is unprecedented. He is the dictatorial figure in the current government..

 

Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclea...court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/

 

Stormy Daniels happened long before Trump gained office. Don't include him with the likes of Clinton and the Kennedys who waggled while in office, the oral orifice.

 

It does not require a 2/3 majority to add seats to SCOTUS.

 

correct ... right now it requires 50 + 1