The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

Utter stoopidity.

Any viable and modern democracy is so because of its set of laws and courts to administer them. Without a Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter, then cases will never be decided.

And the country stagnates as a result, even with the possibility of states warring with one another ...

 

Sovereignty, me arse ...

Name one issue of this nature! I am waiting with Bated Breath.

Without the US as a central element of governance, the US would be a land-mass of constantly warring states.

One would have thought that the CIVIL WAR finalized that issue. But no!

Some mindless people on the Rabid Right still believe the supremacy of state-rights over National Law ...

 

California is on the rabid left.

Sanctuary policies are the rabid left's policies.

 

THIS SPACE IS A "DEBATE FORUM"!

Only Replicants believe that nonsense outlined in red above.

The American people are deeply disappointed that a venal and ambitious man was forcibly elected to the highest court in the land.

He most certainly would never have attained that level were the position elected. And he did so because he was nominated also by a POTUS WHO HAD LOST THE ELECTION IN TERMS OF THE POPULAR-VOTE!

You people are blind to the facts. Like a religious faction you are fixated only upon the Political Dominance of all the Three Branches of Governance!

Which gives you-plural the right to rule the political decision-making in the US. It is a sad, sad day when ever that happens in any country!

The very purpose at the beginning of the nation was to institute a governing triumvirate (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) to assure that no one person nor only one group should dominate politically the country. And, the worst has happened. The Replicants control all three branches of governance!

Woe betide Uncle Sam. Woe betide Uncle Sam. Woe betide Uncle Sam ... !

 

Losers always make excuses.

The Electoral College was in place well before the election started.

Trump would have easily won the popular vote if he had not been too busy running for President to bother with an irrelevant contest.

Hillary lost because she sucks as a person and as a candidate.

 

You are not reading my arguments.

The Electoral College is a device, along with Gerrymandering, that MANIPULATES THE POPULAR-VOTE in America. (Any nincompoop should see that, it is so obvious!)

And has done so since 1812, when the 12 Amendment was passed (instituting the Electoral College) and the same year Governor Gerry of Massachusetts "gerrymandered a district vote".

Ever take a history lesson regarding the origins of the nation? Methinks not ...

 

Yes, states were individually given collective rights purposely. It's all part of the founder's brilliant idea to decentralise power, which is a significant reason America became the world's beacon of Liberty.

Statism is evil because it will inevitably lead to the loss of America's freedoms, security, and prosperity.

Youthinks far too little.

 

The Court is an 'arbiter'? When has the Court ever acted in a non-partisan manner, able to appreciate and maintain the political facts of the political dispute? The Court has never in its history successfully arbitrated a political case to a proper resolution. We bring to mind such infamous cases as Dred Scott and Plessy V Ferguson. Hell, if we look back with retrospect with regards to improved technology even Brown V Board of Education was wrongly decided(the issue was not segregation, but access and ultimately resources. Which as our society improved, this issue isn't an issue anymore(as proof, see Black colleges.)

The Court is an overseer, not an arbiter. It has never acted in what would perhaps be a vital function. It may have intended to be served in this function, but it has never actually acted in this function. Because as Justice Scalia so eloquently stated: 9 Justices cannot(with a history of served cases as the 'basis' for its argument) decide the political fate of the nation. It could never do so equally and with fairness to both sides.

In reality, political actors must resolve political disputes. The Court is incapable of solving them. The Court is only capable of issuing a fiat. The Court is only capable of competing for political power. Either the Court, or We the People. It cannot be both.

 

Robert said: ↑
I do not see issues that help republicans as harming others. I do see issues helping Democrats as harming a huge number of citizens.
Click to expand...

Not just people.....but also the Security and Sovereignty of the Country.....snip~


This is what I was responding to. Issues that help Democrats and their Collective harming not just the people but also the the Security and Sovereignty of the Country.

So it has nothing to do with States Rights over National Law. But it does.....with political parties.

 

More blah, blah, blah.

Patent lies and defamation are all you are good for and nothing more.

Moving right along ...

 

IOW - You can't refute what I said so you stick your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself.

Got it.

 

You are making claims that you cannot substantiate by cogent evidence. The above is useless blah, blah, blah.

No factual information. No data. No jurisprudence to substantiate it. No nothing.

So, your comments are just so much useless blah, blah, blah. Typical of the Rabid Right on this and most other forums ...

 

Really.....the Demos are weak on Foreign Policy. Weak on Security of the US. This is well known history.

Oh and that doesn't count allowing the Russians, and Chinese to breach our Top Branches of government. Nor the DNC the DCCC and their Donors.

Do study up on that party History. So you have a clue as to what you are talking about

 

Wrong.


The evidence protects the minority from rule of the majority

That has been taught to you before but your partisan brainwashing short-circuits your ability to learn.


Among other things the evidence makes us superior to euro trash wanna be nations.

 

It's not perfect, it's never been perfect and it never will be perfect- it is the work of flawed humans with conflicts in both ideas and values. What it is supposed to do is allow us to come to compromise and resolutions without declaring open war on each other. If that is in jeopardy right now, it is because the left decided that if they didn't win, then the system failed, and that justifies whatever emotional derangement they come up with.

The left lost the election- by the same process that has been determining our leadership and control since the nation was founded. This administration is temporary, as they all are. Shall we degrade to the point that all losers should go berserk and attack winners?

And control- is not in unlimited republican hands. As always, there are people on both sides that straddle the line and the current difficulties of getting anything done easily proves that. Get realistic, one side is not walking over the other unimpeded. If anything, the motivations to block progress are totally emotional rather than rational and clearly not taken to promote the good of the nation. People who normally pretend to be rational but are in fact unfit to be legislators are being exposed by their own tempers, and that is a good thing. Logical voters will hopefully recognize this and remove them. That is the way it is supposed to work.

You lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

I don't know what your talking about. You jumped into a discussion with some wild statements completely unrelated. Why? What do you want to say?

You want me to tell you what the discussion you jumped into was about so you don't have to make an effort and actually read it? Is that it?

Here is a lazy summary for the lazy: The 2nd Amendment says what it says. The interpretation concocted by Scalia is an example of how the Supreme Court legislates. It has no support on what is written in the Constitution.

I have had this discussion about Heller a million times. I know Scalia's arguments. I even know your arguments. But if you want to get something off your chest, just... say it!

 

You must be confused.

My original post went right to your false assertion that 2A did not mean what it says in clear language, that it protects the citizens right to bear arms.

Now if you don't understand something in the future, try asking for help instead of being a smartie-pants.

 

Look, I should agree with what you say. I'm a Yank born, bred and schooled in the US.

But I can't. I live abroad, and - believe me - the Europeans, having been devastated by WW2, also have a better idea (in terms of self-governance) than we do. They had to restart from scratch after WW2!

There is NO stoopid gerrymandering or Electoral College here. The US is the only country on earth with both. The gerrymandering so obviously a manipulation of the popular vote that any court (based upon good reason) would have thrown it out long ago.

The Electoral College has elected FIVE TIMES the looser of the popular-vote. Also impossible in any country that you might want to visit in Europe.

Think about it; especially if you've never been beyond the three-mile limit. And if not, just look at Canada - you know, that country you take for granted because it is soooo efffing cold.

Well, it has a more fair and less manipulated democracy than the one you live in - and, even then, no, it is not perfect. But it is one hellava lot MORE PERFECT than the one we vote in ... !

 

WHAT EVIDENCE!?! Let me SEE IT!

You're up to your old tricks of making references to notions that are NON-EXTANT!

Take a pill, go to bed. Whatever. Stop spouting BS ... !

 

Actually it is the majority opinion....and well settled that we have a unitary executive at the Federal Level...Art II Sect 1 makes that perfectly clear. What's often debated his the strength of that unitary executive over employees...here's a great law review article on teh subject http://www.pegc.us/archive/Authorities/Lessig_Col_L_R_President.pdf

 

There is no popular vote for president Frenchy and never was. You're the one who needs a history lesson.
Have you ever watched an election return on TV? What they flash on the screen is the state vote total and the E.C. count. They never flash the overall popular vote on screen because it's irrelevant.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Moving right along ...

 

Look, this is a debate forum.

Stating as factual evidence that which is not is unacceptable.

Show me the PROOF of what you are saying and we might have an exchange of opinion.

But one-liner nonsense is simply up-to-grade ...

 

Prove when it hasn't!

Then and only then will you have an argument.

In larger terms, we have progressed over the past hundred years in terms of decisions that hone the meaning of our laws. This was done by Supreme Court decisions.

But I have no faith WHATSOEVER - since the Replicants have packed the Supreme Court - that this can continue in the future.

A miselection of Donald Dork and his nomination of Kavanagh to the Supreme Court has cost the US 20 years of delay.

Not to worry, this younger generation coming of age will correct matters. But not for another two decades.

So, nothing for Rightists to be worried about. Go back to sleep ...

 

The states have COLLECTIVE RIGHTS WITHIN THEIR STATES IN MATTERS THAT PERTAIN TO THEIR STATE. That is why they all have state governments.

But in matters regarding the selection of a PotUS, they should have not right whatsoever to manipulate the popular-vote to cater to their own specific tastes ... !