Should a new Scotus judge be appointed before the 2020 Presidential election?

Instinctive (unconscious) self interest (an element of individual organisms' survival mechanisms in a predatory biological system such as life on earth), when it is allowed to dominate a conscious awareness of "justice", "equity", "fairness" (which are conceptions of the human cerebral cortex not found in the rest of nature's creatures), ensures the two realities ARE mutually exclusive.

That is my point.

ie, your conception of liberty, including an awareness of justice for the individual, is dominated by this conception's (unconscious) relationship to the self interest of the individual; my conception of liberty is dominated by its awareness of a need for equity between self-interested individuals.

 

The People of the United States; you ideology is blinding you.

I look forward to your reply in the "instinctive self interest" versus "conscious awareness" debate, and how the former affects the latter in an understanding of "individual liberty". ...

Now you are merely repeating yourself, BECAUSE like all conservatives you are incapable of reading the spirit rather than the letter ...

So the constitution doesn't even deal with how and why states will raise taxes.....

Trust a Conservative, who thinks provision for the general welfare implies an infringement of individual liberty, to say its provision is impossible.....

While the world looks on in horror and disgust as suburbs burn and the national guard is brought in.

 

Again, nothing I have posted would go against the constitution.

Show where the number of justices are limited by it or are unchangeable

Democrats would be doing the same, “following what the Constitution and the rules say as they exist”.
I see no reason for the Democrats to operate in good faith any longer as the Republicans have abandoned it.

 

False, the argument is since Obama was blocked because “it was an election year” then the same should be held today.
trump should make his pick, the Senate mitch (using the narrative above and the reasoning he previously used) should not even allow it to the floor however.

You don’t understand what the world hypocritical means if you believe this is the Democrats fault.

Btw, the people did not elect the president the EC overruled their vote, almost 10 million more people voted against him than for him.
Republicans lost the midterms by 9,743,703 votes

Saying this is some kind of mandate but a twice elected — by the people — president isn’t is just absurd.


This is an absolute subversion of the will of the people, but that is the entire goal of the Republicans today so it should come as no surprise.

 

'Single-payer' health care/insurance is really not a bad idea -- but it must not be MANDATORY, and everybody who is a part of it has to pay for their own individual 'participation'!

The single-payer system must be made up by a 'pool' of paying customers who negotiate for the best care, conditions, premiums, etc. It could very beneficial as a "buyers' club" operation, where everyone PAYS FOR HIS OWN INSURANCE, but, enjoys those preferential terms, conditions, and rates that go along with the sheer 'tonnage' of a gigantic customer-base!

It could be a kind of enormous "concierge health care" group, albeit run by the federal government, and the benefits to all persons in the 'group' could be enormous -- BUT... it must not (NOT) be turned into a 'welfare system' with government handouts or "rebates"!

The Medicaid system must be continued for those who don't/can't/won't pay for their own healthcare -- but -- kept TOTALLY SEPARATE from any variety of 'single-payer' healthcare system....

And, lastly, those who want no part of any of those options would remain free to arrange for their own healthcare services, like anything else that people in a free society choose to buy or not buy. What a novel concept: you need a doctor; you get treatment from a doctor; you pay your doctor bill.

 

Oh, hell, let's just be honest about it! We on the Right want a BALANCED Supreme Court for the first time in years -- especially after seeing how much power this 'klatsch' of a mere nine people actually WIELDS!

Judge Barrett would provide the court with the balance it needs -- especially after Obama put two radical, agenda-driven Leftists on the court (Sotomayor and Kagan).

But, please, don't imagine that we on the Right are trying to undo anyone's right to have an abortion! The hyperliberal Left might be astonished to realize how small the Right-wing contingent is to make abortion totally illegal again, as it was so long ago.

Consider: the welfare costs this country faces because of irresponsible people having lots of unwanted offspring are enormous! Thus, we should not only keep abortion legal, but the government should also PAY FOR the abortions if the woman can't or won't pay! I'll bet nobody ever expected to hear THAT from a Right-wing Conservative like moi!

 

I don’t believe abortion should be prompted, instead we need to promote prevention and ‘morning after’ alternatives.

I don’t see how one could say that a 6-3 SCOTUS in favor of one ideology is balanced. I wish we had a three party system with three justices from each party, but instead we have this mess of political games to push partisan ideology which is only going to lead to more and more stunts from each party. I fully expect Democrats to add justices (or at minimum rotate them) after what Republicans have done. Potentially push to add a state or two. Biden won’t, but Harris will absolutely.

 

I see considerable merit in your suggestion about 'morning-after' kinds of solutions. We should hand them out for free to everyone! They should give them out like they do candy mints in bars and restaurants! They should include several inside the envelopes they mail out EBT cards with....

 

Again nothing I have posted has said it would that's your strawman. It is the Democrats who have abandoned rules such as Reid being the one to get rid of the super majority to confirm judges and now you advocate they change rules to change the Constitution then change the rules back, situational partisan rule changing, in order to change the make up of the third branch for purely partisan reasons. The Republican are simply following the rules and Constitution as it exist so stop with the fallacious attempt to conflate them.

 

Yes the United States being the federal government which the Constitution formed including how it would pay for itself and maintain it's welfare so it could operate.

Here it is in it's entirety

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nothing about the PEOPLE all about operating the United States, the federal government and maintaining IT'S welfare.

I look forward to your explaining how they are mutually exclusive.

My comments are the only one considering the spirit in which it was written.

If you think so then quote the part that does, the states have their own Constitutions which deal with it. There is the commerce clause which says they can't impose a tax on another state.

Trust a liberal to have to put words in the mouth of a conservative rather than debate what they actually say.

Thanks to the liberal welfare states you support.

 

Utter nonsense. Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty and justice for all, they go hand in hand. The purpose of justice is to enforce our laws which support a civil society. I act within the law and system of justice which I support in pursuit my happiness, my own self interest and the least government has to be involved the better.

 

They have the right to do so, but I'd object if it happened after the election and the other party won.

 

Where have I advocated the constitution be changed?
Please show where in the constitution Democrats would be prohibited from doing anything they are proposing should Republicans follow through with their hypocrisy?

 

Axiom: liberty for all is incompatible with systemic poverty, since poverty restricts freedom of action.

While liberty and justice for all are compatible, liberty and systemic poverty are not compatible.

Therefore justice for all is NOT compatible with systemic poverty.

You have been at pains to tell me the "general welfare" doesn't mean the welfare of all the people of the US; and that individuals are responsible for their own welfare.

This is because you are defining "justice" solely as it relates to the (naturally self-interested) individual, without recognizing a balance of justice between individuals (plural), all of whom have a Right to liberty.

Hence justice and liberty demand elimination of the systemic poverty that exists, for example, in a system which requires a level of unemployment to control inflation (termed NAIRU in neoliberal economic orthodoxy}

Yes.

The system of justice which you support as a Conservative......not recognizing that universal justice is incompatible with systemic poverty.

 

Sorry I meant to change the SCOTUS and the Republicans are not advocating changing anything your attempt to equate them the Dems CHANGING rules and the make up of the Supreme Court is laughable. But if the did it would NOT be laughable

"We now have a series of prominent political figures who are not merely criticizing the Supreme Court but promising to destroy it, along with a presidential candidate who refuses to say whether he is on board — and still the matter is covered as if it were a minor dispute. Why? There is no honest calculation by which it can be more alarming for a president to rail impotently about judicial decisions than for the core of a political party to threaten to destroy the entire settlement.

And destroy our settlement it most assuredly would. First, the party would abolish the rules that have governed the Senate for more than a century, and then they would abolish the Supreme Court as a useful check on the government — a destructive binge that would kill two branches for the price of one. Surely, this would be the moment that the nation’s guardians have been waiting for? Surely, this would represent the Rubicon? The crossroads? The all-important fork in the road? Only once in American history has a political party been so contemptible as to raise the possibility of destroying the Supreme Court, and, having considered the proposition, it recoiled in horror — not because it lacked the power, but because it recognized that to use it would be to dismantle the American system of government."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/court-packing-would-be-the-biggest-scandal-in-decades/

 

You left out freedom of choice in that liberty to keep yourself out of poverty or not. That is liberty it is up to you to not be in poverty.

Of course they are and when government decides it will control wealth and income to make it fair and equal they everyone sees what truly is systemic poverty.

Therefore yes it can be and is.

In the Tax and Spend Clause as I have clearly demonstrated and you have failed to refute. I asked you to point me out the People part when the Constitution lays out what that welfare of the United States is.

Justice has nothing to do with it, it's about the government providing for itself the means to maintain itself and carry out its responsibilities and pay for things. Justice is is dealt with in Article 3 and the judicial system.

Justice has nothing to do with the level of poverty that is an economic matter. If you have dealing with the judicial branch and seek justice that has nothing to do with taking advantage of the economic opportunities that avail you and not just keeping out of poverty but becoming wealthy yourself. Millions of people have done so without ever having to seek justice for themselves. It merely exist. Your attempts at engaging in the esoteric notwithstanding reality is what it is.

 

Are not the provisions to "borrow money", "regulate commerce", "to establish uniform laws", "to establish Post offices and post roads" etc etc etc provisions - ultimately - to provide for the general welfare of the people of the US? That is: government exists to create a well-ordered community, and with this order, provide a basis for the general welfare of the governed.

See my post #114 above.

Addressed above; what is the purpose of government?

A federation is obviously creating problems for itself, if it allows no control over the tax regimes of the states.

Eg, in our time, red states accusing blue states of profligacy.....

You said it's impossible for government to provide for the general welfare of the people, your "proof" taking the form of a question, namely: "where has it ever been implemented?". Many nations' governments take far more interest in the general welfare of their citizens than the US which is, for example, universally seen as having the least accessible health care system in the world.

See... I already warned this Conservative - Liberal dispute would happen, when I warned of the problems that would arise if the federal government had no control over the separate tax regimes of the states.

But as a matter of fact, I don't support "welfare" in the form of subsistence 'sit-down and shut-up" money. That type of "welfare" is the opposite of 'fairing well', for the individuals receiving it.

That's why I support a Job Guarantee, which absolutely ought to be in the Constitution, as part of the urgent task of amending it and bringing it into the 21st century...........

 

Nonsense. Systemic poverty cannot be dealt with by individuals alone. It's a matter requiring government intervention.
Once again: you are concerned the policies required to eliminate systemic poverty will impinge on your own liberty (or stated in another form; "how will we pay for it"?)

Now your ideology is taking you down-hill fast. "Control wealth and income" etc etc all ideological constructs.... because your are indoctrinated by TINA (economic orthodoxy based on classical economics: "there is no alternative).

I put forward an argument explaining why justice is not compatible with systemic poverty. You have merely stated the opposite without presenting your counter argument.

We are arguing over the interpretation of "the general welfare" in the tax and spend clause.

So...maybe we are making progress in this debate.

Justice does NOT EXIST where there is systemic poverty in the midst of plenty.

Full Stop.

ah..reality "is what it is".....heard recently from another well-known 'survival of the fittest' proponent...

Economic opportunity is merely one part of the puzzle, in eradicating systemic poverty. The other part is the economic system itself.

 

Like I said, shenanigans begat shenanigans

 

There ARE NO shannigans on the Republican side they are following the process and not threatening to play political games and stack the SCOTUS because they are mad they can't get their way.

 

Using a procedure that is never been used before for a Scotus nominee is shenanigans.

Refusing to allow the floor vote in the presidential appointment with the excuse of it’s an election year and then forcing a floor vote during an election year is shenanigans.

Pushing the nominee through at the quickest pace ever seen in the history of the United States because your party is likely to lose the following election is shenanigans.

Not allowing members of a political party to be tested for a contagious virus because they would not be allowed to vote if shenanigans.

All that is occurring is political games

 

President Trump needs one more really good Supreme Court Justice to proceed with the indictments!
Rumour has it that there are 179 indictments that Messiah Yeshua - Jesus wants him to do............. so I think he should appoint the new Supreme Court Justice and turn Attorney General Barr loose to get this started!

That number was given to a near death experiencer..... when I find it again I will send you the link by personal message.....

 

The Republicans stole one from the democrats in 2016 with the excuse that it was an election year. Its only fair the democrats get one back since it is an election year. After this happens, we can go back to normal.

 

Did I claim that anyone is at fault for something? I have, on numerous occasions stated that both parties are hypocritical on this issue. Yet, hypocrisy is the only claim that the Democrats can claim. While the Republicans did blocked Obama from appointing a replacement for Justice Scalia, the Democrats pushed for Obama's selection to be voted on prior to the Presidential election. Now, the Democrats what to block President Trump from making an appointment to replace Ginsburg, and the Republicans are going to go forward with the hearings on Amy Coney Barrett. They clearly have the votes to approve Barrett. In other words, both the Democrats and the Republicans have swapped sides on the issue. Hence, both sides are being hypocritical. As I have also pointed out, the Republicans have not done anything unconstitutional.

I do not know where you got your numbers from, but they are to completely wrong. Hillary Clinton got 65,853,514 votes. President Trump got 62,984,828 votes. That is a difference of 2,868,686 votes. Even if you count if you add in the other candidates, you only get 4,771,644 votes against President Trump. A far cry from the "nearly 10 million votes against President Trump. Further, the US Constitution calls for the Electoral College to be the final authority on the elections. The Electoral College has been the law of the land since May 29, 1790. The DNC never had a problem with that process until the electoral college went against them.

Maybe you haven't heard, but the people voted and kept the Senate in the hands of the GOP. The Senate vote does not rely on the Electoral College to pick a winner. So, as I said, the voters have spoken. They elected the President in accordance with the US Constitution, and left the voters left the Senate in the hands of the GOP.

<COMMENTS EDITED>
Male bovine excrement!!! President Trump was elected in accordance with the US Constitution. The EC was included in the US Constitution because our Founding Fathers did not want to leave the votes in the hands of a small number of states. The EC ensures that every vote is counted, and has a fair representation.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

No one has said what they are doing is unconstitutional, neither will it be unconstitutional when Democrats add 4 justices.

I am not sure where you are getting your “facts” from:

trump received 62,984,828 votes
Hillary Clinton 65,853,514
Gary Johnson 4,489,341
Jill Stein 1,457,218
Evan McMullin 731,991
Darrell Castle 203,090
Bernie Sanders 111,850
Gloria La Riva 74,401
John Kasich 2,684
Plus candidates that received less that 1,000 votes. That comes to 73.7 million people voted against him while 63 million people voted for him. An approximate difference of 10.7 million.

I guess your arithmetic is an example of this alternative facts the right loves so much.

To your point about people not having an issue with the EC:


Looks like only one party changed their view and that was after it showed benefit for their ideology. Strange how the facts are diametrically opposed to what you are stating.

Seems to be a trend.

The people of the individual states did, correct. On the broader scale the voters in general (nationally) voted against the Republicans here again with almost 10 million more votes cast for the Democrats than for Republicans.

I am starting to sense a trend that Republican ideology is fringe and not supported by the American population at large.

I removed your childish insults if you are wondering where your last paragraph went.