Kavanaugh should not be confirmed but, not because of Ford

Changes are made at the start of the term. If there are any changes, The new Senate will make the changes.

 

@not2serious I'd say it's because people, both men and women, are more conditioned to let men speak out and lead in public.
While women tend to have better abilities at multitasking and networking between different relationships
to do the work behind the scenes that can't always be explained in public. It doesn't fit into convenient sound bytes and party lines!
The work of women crosses over economic, political and religious lines
that's why you only hear about the violent terrorists in the media
and not the work of people in the community collaborating
on both sides of war torn areas to keep going.
A lot of the survivors of war left behind are the women
taking care of the children while men kill each other in wars.

So the microlending programs most successful in rebuilding war torn
areas of poverty tend to focus on WOMEN leading the households
and communities who invest in those relationships. While men
invest in defense to secure and compete with outside interests.

Where I think this is heading with our parties.
The men leaders who are taken more seriously when it comes to national defense
and international security in terms of military forces can focus through the
Republican party on THAT external role of the President and federal govt.

I would use the Vice President position to work through the Senate
with all States on DOMESTIC policies that need to be moved from
federal dependence back to the States and the People. So this is
where the women serve as better representation of that collective
diverse process by means of being more inclusive and less
apt to bully and defend turf as patriarchal politics sets it up.

Since the VP is next in line to the President, we might have to change
the structure where a Domestic/Internal policy leader does not have to worry'
about taking on a role in External Foreign relations or National security.

Either change the role of VP where this CAN be separated and not
succeed the President, or divide both roles of President and VP
into TWO positions each that work together, one role for EXTERNAL
affairs and one for DOMESTIC.

So the two INTERNAL DOMESTIC positions of internal Pres/VP
would not succeed to or interfere with the EXTERNAL SECURITY
positions of external Pres/VP. The domestic positions would be
solely to work with Congress and the States on issues of
domestic policy and social programs that a lot of Constitutionalists
and Conservatives believe belong to people and States. So these
positions would work with Governors and State legislatures to
shift those resources and policies back to local democratic representation.
I would do this through Electoral College districts and involve councils
of reps proportionally by party so all districts and their diverse
populations are equally included and represented in local funding and policy decisions.

Wouldn't it be better if we could have one ticket for EXTERNAL President and VP
and one for INTERNAL President and VP, and agree that one party cannot have
all four. Whichever candidates run for office, there should be room for 2-4 parties
to participate. And voters would reward the partners that come up with the best
plan and placement for the candidates running in teams.

@not2serious if we set this up, even experimentally by first allowing
Republicans to run for the External President position and agreeing
to have the VP position be for internal under a Democratic leader,
we could figure out if we need to separate this more into 4 positions
as I would recommend. The salary can still be the same and split between
4 people while they work other jobs to support themselves, since they
are doing half the work and sharing the other half with a partner.

I believe the women's and social programs interests would flock to the
Democratic party and Internal positions dealing with state programs.
And the Republican, military and men's positions would favor the
External side of federal govt.

For the internal side, I see a split between funding health care
and marriage/social benefits under LIBERAL policies vs.
the conservative focus on paying for Vet care first, then
disabled and elderly, but not abled bodied people who should
be responsible for their own health care independent of govt assistance.

So this would require splitting programs between the federal and state
budgets for military and taxpayers who want to pay to be under that program,
vs. liberal beliefs in universal health care and using prison reforms to
cover provisions for that angle.

Conservatives and Republicans would still get their PARTY representation
by district even if this branch of "social legislation" is under the DOMESTIC
side of govt. but I would focus the national leadership of the GOP on
external issues of national security and foreign and financial relations.

 

The reason the rule changed is because the Republicans were blocking every one of Obama's nominations, on everything.

 

There is no doubt that even a 66% majority - the bar is 75% of states to change the constitution - still represents a violation of rights.

The question I was addressing was not whether or not this would be moral but, whether or not such law would be legitimate within the framework on which this nation was founded.

Slavery was not moral back in the day but, assuming there was at least 2/3rd's approval - it was a legitimate law. Jefferson - even though he owned slaves - worked tirelessly to end the practice. It is not easy to run against a herd of stampeding bulls and if Jefferson was to release his slaves they would have likely ended up with a slave master who was much nastier.

My solution is to start the ball moving the other direction - right now the ball is moving the wrong direction (on this we both agree). Never mind "Tyranny of the Majority" - 50%+1/ Simple Majority Mandate ... we now living in Tyranny of the "Minority".

Laws on the books or new law does not even have support of 50%. Some city council gets voted in by 15% of the people and the next thing you know they are messing with individual liberty. State and Federal elections may have a higher percentage (not even close to 100%) and these folks make law on the basis of Simple Majority Mandate - again which was not 50%.

This is why the founders put individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The bar for messing with individual liberty is supposed to be really high. This is the point of a Constitutional Republic ... the whole point.

We have fallen so far down the slippery slope - we can no longer see the mountain top. This is why I say that ever member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the Constitution on the basis of the founding principles.

I did not get your LGBT community argument - what you were trying to say ? I do not think there is overwhelming majority consent that these folks be silent ?

I find your religious argument puzzling as well - I don't see religious folks being forced to violate their religious beliefs and I do not think 66% agrees with this. What I do see is the religious right trying to force their religious beliefs on others through law.

 

I know - but - this does not justify "Tyranny of the Majority". Totalitarianism would solve many of these problems in a big hurry but this does not make it desirable - is this what we want.

I say let the infighting get more intense such that the people start getting their act together and booting those who engage in blind partisanship out of office.

Right now people are voting on "hot button issues" while ignoring other issues that are very serious. This needs to change.

 

@ImNotOliver cc: @Giftedone
And the reason for both the BLOCKS and the CHANGE
is neither side agrees to have the political BELIEFS of the other group
imposed on them AT ALL. Not by 51% or by 66% but the answer
is NO we object because those beliefs violate our beliefs.

This is what I mean that issues of political beliefs
cannot be decided by ANY type of "majority" except by CONSENSUS
either agreement on a joint solution or agreement to separate.
51% doesn't justify violating beliefs
66% doesn't justify it either.
People only consent to this if THEIR beliefs are in the majority.

I know only a handful of people who truly accept "whatever
comes out of majority rule" and don't feel oppressed if
their beliefs are violated excluded or discriminated against.

We can't make or use rules that only a tiny percent agree to.
the other 70-90% don't believe such a law or ruling should be law.
They put up with it, and merely come back and bully back
using the same flawed system. Because they don't resolve
the conflicts or objections, but just rely on party politics
to bully over them by "majority rule" vote. That isn't helping
but just costs more time and money, and we end up with
garbage legislation like ACA because we don't solve
the problems IN ADVANCE of passing the legislation.

But if we REQUIRE laws affecting beliefs to be
passed by consensus by resolving conflicts in advance,
we'd get better Legislation and better Leaders.
We'd only elect leaders who can get this job done.
Not hiring the bigger bully to talk big to clobber
the opposition by majority force. that doesn't solve
the problem, so it gets worse next time when the
other side comes back and tries to do the same!

 

Ok, My new all time favorite quote by a politician. Mr Kennedy . Quote: "If you believe this investigation is about truth.. put the bong down".

Ta Da..

 

Which makes what mr Reid did so much more egregious and why now folks don't find any real reason to pretend consensus is what we're after.

 

Thanks @Gifteone
1. I understand your proposal to go back to 66% and this would have prevented overstepping in the first place.
If that is the best we can do, I agree to correct it that way.
However I find my argument about political beliefs explains WHY the rules were changed to 51%
and why people are fighting over WHEN to change it back and WHEN to use it as is,
Because they ALL want THEIR political beliefs pushed through while THEY have majority!
This is caused by what I'm saying: they really DO NOT CONSENT
to having opposing political beliefs rammed through AT ALL. not even by 66 or 51%.
But if you believe this would stop if we went back to 66% I'm willing to offer and try that
instead of demanding full separation of political beliefs from govt if that's too much for people to take.

Would you also apply the 66% rule to Supreme Court ruling when it comes to political beliefs.
That it should take an overwhelming majority of a balanced bench to rule in a biased case
such as marriage or abortion where beliefs are on both sides. I would recommend consensus
on policy or up to 80-95% agreement. but you are saying 66% is enough. How about 3/4
is that a good number if people can't handle or believe two sides can agree to separate their beliefs?

2. What I meant by LGBT, they showed by example that even if a tiniest
percentage of people, only a fraction of 1-4% estimated of the population,
has an opinion or "vote" in conflict with the other 90%, then because this
involves personal beliefs, that voice and input should be included and not overruled by majority.

If we only go by 66% then only people whose support or associations happen to AGREE
with the 66% would have their beliefs, their religious freedom and representation protected "equally."

So to me that's not equal.
Only if they CONSENT to put their beliefs up to majority vote,
only if they CONSENT to let a 5-4 vote in SCOTUS decide their laws and beliefs for them,
or what you are saying as 66% would that be constitutional if people BELIEVE that is fair.

If they don't consent and feel their beliefs are violated,
I would not enforce the 66% rule.
I would give them the choice of consensus on policy,
and then from there they could CHOOSE to go for 5-4
or 51% or 66% 2/3 or 75% 3/4.

I used the LGBT argument since the people actually affected are such a tiny minority
and yet people are lobbying to defend that from the majority rule voting against
LGBT policies. So that's why I'm saying give people a CHOICE to go for 100% consent
in matters of belief that affect them as individual persons, regardless of voting numbers.

 

I have often stated that if it were not for abortion the Dem's would have trouble winning another election. The strange thing is that the Dems are not working to educate people in a compromise position - the Left MSM never discusses the abortion issue in any detail - as in discussing the main arguments for and against.

On the other side - the Red does not discuss it either. We are then left with two extremist - and often fallacious sides. "Baby killers" on one side "Women's rights haters" on the other. and that is that.

This then serves as a "hot button" issue that keeps the people divided - along with some other similar hot button issues that could be resolved without much trouble.

The Abortion issue is one in which the religious right is trying to forced their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). It is a direct affront to the individual liberty of the women.

The right claims that abortion is a direct affront to the individual liberty of the zygote/Fetus.

From a legal perspective - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - there should be no issue.

In the case where you have conflicting rights - we weigh the value of each on the scales of Justice. On one side you have the rights of the woman ... these weigh heavy .. respect for individual liberty is the principle on which this nation was founded.

On the other side (I will start with the zygote) we have the rights of a single human cell.

The facts of the case are this: There is no consensus among subject matter experts that this single human cell = a living human. The best the right can get to (and this is giving ground as there are few experts that think a single human cell = a living human) is "Experts Disagree" = "we don't know".

How do we value the rights of "We don't know" against the rights of the woman ? It is simply no contest.

As you move into the later stages of pregnancy things change. There are legitimate arguments that can be made for the personhood of an 8 month old fetus.

These are the facts.. yet - the issue is treated as black vs white - all or nothing. If one is on the religious right pro life side a zygote is a living human and that is that. On the other side an 8 month old fetus is not living human and that is that.

This flies in the face of biology, science, reason and logic. Yet this is where the issue is at and the media refuses to educate people.

 

^^^ the issue here is what are inalienable rights. Those are the rights that cannot be abridged. Meaning, they cannot be effected even by a super majority. Amendments may influence these inalienable rights, but they will or can never overwrite them.

The example of LGBT issues is one of equal protection, and the dis-establishment of protected classes of citizens. The progressive fallacy was the establishment of the reservations in the first place. It violates due process as well as equal protection and doesn't then have legitimacy. It's why we don't want folks voting on it. They can change their minds.

 

I completely disagree with the idea that a small group - such as LGBT - should be able to force anyone to do anything. The only thing I can think of where this happens is the bathroom/ transgender issue and this is a truly strange duck. That said .. it is not transgenders alone - they still have to get a lot of non transgenders to agree with them.

So a man dressed up like a woman walks into a bar - which bathroom does he use ? This goes into the la la land of grey so quick that I do not even know where to begin. There are so many issues that are far more clear cut. Better to start with those than to even try to ponder this one. To me this is on the very extreme end of the spectrum.

Suppose someone has a religious belief that they must sacrifice one of their children .. should these religious beliefs be respected ? That is at the other end.

Here I claim individual rights end where the nose of another begins. Same argument for incest. What about bestiality ? Here is a case where that argument does not apply.

What does apply is that if an overwhelming majority find this act so repugnant - making a law against it is legitimate. The problem I have is in the rule of law. How do we set a punishment that fits the crime ? If the animal some fellow is copulating with is something we regularly kill and eat - where is the crime ?

To be honest I can not find a better framework that than which the founders based our nation. Unfortunately they lived in a time where many of the concepts that were generally understood .. just a given - have long been forgotten.

Because these concepts were so well understood they just did not think to belabor some of the details. They did this in their writings but not in the founding documents DOI and Constitution.

Every educated soul - and many that were not - knew the basics of the enlightenment thinkers. Today we have Supreme court Justices that do not seem to understand the basics.

 

The framers countered the tyranny of the majority as best they could by having only House representatives elected by a majority democratic direct vote. Beyond that every vote in congress is determined by 50%+ except the senates approval of treaties. The 60-vote senate rule (which used to be 67-vote) is nowhere mentioned (or was even contemplated) in the constitution. It is strictly a senate rule, and thereby changeable at the senate's will, and applies only to votes of cloture.

 

I have to disagree "one," (not so "gifted.")

You are letting your own political bias cloud your critical thinking skills and logic as so many posters on your thread have shown you.

Game OVER for dems, watch the upcoming elections. Establishment republicans such as Corker and Flake have already dropped out of upcoming elections. And the lying liberal media has the lowest rating of TRUST by the people in HISTORY. Things are changing right under your nose.

Steve

 

As I have stated previously 2/3rds majority (67%) should be the minimum bar. The reason I claim this is because I am not sure anything lower can be reasonably said to be "overwhelming majority".

I think there may be some confusion on what this bar is for. This is the bar for making law that messes with essential liberty - or in other words - giving some authority (Govt/ "The STATE") power to punish/ use physical violence to force compliance.

This is not about what is in the Constitution so much as it about what is not in the Constitution. It is about the principles by which law is to be made and the Constitution interpreted.

The idea that this was not contemplated is demonstrably false. This is what defines a Constitutional Republic. It is by definition what a Constitutional Republic is about.

The Declaration of Independence outlines the limits to Gov't power - what is illigitimate "illigitimacy of authority". Essential liberty is put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. That is the purpose of the document.

The principles used create the system were taken from Classical liberalism (not to be confused with the modern term liberal) - the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers with respect to what constitutes "Legitimate Authority" and the basis on which this authority is arrived and where this authority comes from.

Where this authority comes from is stated directly in the DOI - "we the people/consent of the governed" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case in the past.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism describe 50+1/ Simple Majority Mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority".

The idea that this idea was not contemplated in the creation of the constitution is not just false. This idea is what the entire Constitution is based.

If we are talking about a spending bill - that is one thing. If we are talking about Law - and in particular law which messes with individual liberty - that is completely different. That is when "overwhelming majority" kicks in. That is the reason for the 67% (now 60%) exists to begin with.

This was the basis for the requirement that a member of SCOTUS have overwhelming majority approval. This is to prevent those with a certain political agenda from forcing their will on the American public by - in effect - "Stacking" the Judiciary.

 

No need to get nasty and name call. No need to make up fallacious nonsense "so many posters" - because you do not understand what a Constitutional Republic is.

This has nothing to do with the Dems. Just because the Dem Establishment hates the principles on which this nation was founded is no reason for me to express hate for those principles. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If you hate the founding principles - you are welcome to your opinion - as are others. That does not mean I have to share your opinion.

Post 65 responds to a post - an intelligent post with legitimate concerns, as opposed to your post which does not even address the issue at had with anything other than fallacy and name calling.

 

There was no name calling. I pointed out that your nickname isn't accurate to your current beliefs.

It has EVERYTHING to do with dems, who happen to be the establishment. They had a chance to change in the 2016 elections and refused to change. In fact, they moved further left after losing elections SINCE 2010.

The first mid-term after a major election loss is when a political party makes meaningful changes in their policies in order to win seats back again. Dems have done NO SUCH thing SINCE 2010. And will continue losing elections until they move toward the CENTER.

If that doesn't get you to thinking, the maybe this will.

Corrupt bureaucrats (FBI) CANNOT let one political candidate off the hook for her crimes (CLINTON), and then turnaround and try to remove the OPPOSING CANDIDATE from office without evidence (TRUMP).

If ever there was a prequel to Orwell's 1984, that would be it.

Steve

 

I agree with much of what you say, but I think this needs to be clarified. There is no such thing as "pure democracy". We are a Democratic Republic. "Republic" simply means that we are not a Monarchy. Democracy simply means that we are not a dictatorship. That's all. There are Democratic Monarchies that have a Constitution (Belgium, Spain, Japan, ....), and there are Republics that are not a Democracy (China, North Korea, Cuba, ...).

This myth about us not being a Democracy has been spread by the extreme right as a way to undermine our Democracy. And we should not allow it.

Our forefathers had no real concept of "Democracy", other than that of the ancient Greek. At the time there were Monarchies (headed by a Monarch) and Republics (not headed by a Monarch) They didn't want a Monarchy, and they didn't want the ancient brand of Democracy (which could be considered "pure Democracy") So they created Modern Democracy! What we now know as "Democracy" was created by our forefathers. Influenced by thinkers of other nationalities, but first put in practice by us. And we should be proud.

 

Calling someone "not so gifted" is name calling - this however is not what bothers me. Call me anything you like but - if you accuse me of something then back it up. If the shoe fits - I will wear it.

The problem with your last post is that you made accusations - but gave nothing to support those accusations. You did not give one example of a claim made in my post that you thought was false - never mind explain why.

Any idiot can sit in the peanut gallery and throw out insults. Don't be that person - is all I am saying.

The Establishment is not just the Dems. The Establishment is both Red and Blue. Did you seriously believe the Establishment is just Blue ?

In relation to the rest of your post you are preaching to the Choir. I have posted numerous times on the mere fact that Mueller is in the high power position he is - is proof of how corrupt our system is - and then detailed Mueller's proven track record of misdeeds and violations of the rules of justice and so on.

1984 - It is like the Establishment is using this as a textbook.

The principle on which this nation was founded (respect for individual liberty) "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death"
Ben Franklin - "Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Fast forward 200 years and all of a sudden it is our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty. The idea that forgoing the main principle on which this nation was founded is our "Patriotic Duty" .. Talk about doublespeak.

Obama then changes the name of the Patriot act to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act" act which takes away freedom is called the freedom act. Doublespeak on Steroids.


My comments have nothing to do with the Dems - other than their complicity in changing the bar from 60% (used to be 67% as Rod pointed out) to 50%.

This was wrong when the Dem's did it - and it is still wrong when Republicans do it. The color of the T-Shirt of someone violating a principle does not change the fact that the principle is being violated.

If can not get SC Justices appointed because of the overwhelming majority requirement - GOOD - this is what that requirement is intended to do. The fact that our system ceases to function - is what is supposed to happen. It is what the founders intended.

It is a red light flashing and a bell ringing "Ding Ding Ding" - the canary in the coal mine of totalitarianism screeching to the top of its lungs.

What removing the bar does is remove one of the safeguards against totalitarianism . The purpose is to stop a group with a political agenda from stacking the court with people that want to force that agenda on US citizens through physical violence (Law)

It takes away the guardrail. I do not want this guardrail removed - regardless of whether or not I agree with that agenda.

I do not give a flying fk about Kavanaugh's activities 35 years ago in high school. Don't care. Who didn't do stupid stuff in high school and if someone didn't do stupid stuff - that is more of a reason in my mind to be suspicious than someone who did.

What I care about is that a SC Justice understands the difference between 1) having a personal or religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

One who understand that the bar for (2) is overwhelming majority consent.

Now you can disagree with this if you like. Perhaps you favor totalitarianism (Tyranny of the Majority) .. and you are welcome to your opinion.

What is not under debate is that the founding principle is - what the founding principle is. Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 .. simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority"

By Definition - a constitutional republic rejects "Tyranny of the Majority"

Perhaps you favor "Pure Democracy" ... Great .. Wonderful .... Good that you would at least know the difference.

The fact of the matter however is that our system was set up as a Constitutional Republic. That "individual liberty" is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't (or so we thought).

The "Establishment" (which consists of both red and blue political and bureaucratic elite and the big money interests - international financiers and national oligarchs who influence or pull the strings) is trampling on the founding principles - trampling on individual liberty. The safeguards against totalitarianism have either been removed or are being weakened to the point of breaking.

That is the issue here.

 

I agree, it was wrong for Harry Reed to monkey with that in order to force a judicial nominee into the court.

If it's a stalemate than people need to start compromising it's the best way to get someone who is non biased or the least biased.

I completely agree. Bring it back up to 60, and codify that so it doesn't just flip flop.

 

You are getting caught up in semantics. It is like when people use the term "Socialism" when they are really referring to wealth redistribution - not State ownership of all resources and means of production.

Bernie Sanders for example is not a Socialist - And as you state there has never been an example of pure Socialism.

The difference here is that pure Democracy is defined. Whether this fits in with your definition is irrelevant.

What is meant by "Pure Democracy" is a 50+1 majority as justification for making law - specifically law that messes with individual liberty.
You can use what ever term you like ... I don't care.

The question here is whether or not 50+1 is sufficient to mess with essential liberty or whether "overwhelming majority consent" - at least 2/3rd majority should be the bar.

This is a question of legitimacy of authority. Meaning what is the legitimate power of Gov't and how is it defined (in our system)

I take it you agree in limitations to Gov't power (that you do not favor totalitarianism or dictatorship).

OK ... Great - What then are the limitations to Gov't power (as per the founding principles) regardless of what you want to call this system. Republic, Constitutional Republic, Democratic Republic and so on.

 

Just like you aren't paying any attention to what I wrote, I'm not going to pay attention to what you wrote.

You can't see the bigger picture. Writing long winded posts doesn't help you either.

Steve

 

Women have never been drafted.

 

It used to be 67% 2/3rd's majority ! That should be the minimum IMO.

The point is to stop some group with an agenda from stacking the court with people who will then force that agenda on the citizens - through physical violence (Law).

This is one of the safeguards against totalitarianism. The system is supposed to come to a halt. This is the red light flashing - the bell ringing "Ding Ding Ding" - the canary in the coal mine of totalitarianism screeching.

Moving the bar is removing that safegaurd.

When Congress is so disfunctional that they can not agree - the solution is not to remove these safeguards and implement "Tyranny of the Majority".

The solution is to boot these people out of office. If someone is so partisan that they will refuse to vote for some bill - simply on the basis that someone on the other side of the fence proposed it and nothing else - we need to vote this person from office and all people of the same ilk.

The solution is NOT to let these kind of people function within Gov't by removing the safeguards against Totalitarianism - but that is exactly what has been done.

 

Well, it wouldn't really prevent a person or group with an agenda from staking the court. FDR threatened to create 20 more seats and stack them if the Supreme Court didn't play ball with his new deal plans.

I think it should be fortified against that tactic as well.