2A advocates should pray for a full recovery

[Deleted member 28227]

Sounds great in theory but Italian and Belgian parliaments (among others) make the change a little less obvious.

touche... I mean alternatively, I'd make a great benevolent dictator.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Regarding multiple parties, I do not think it is viable with the way our federal government is structured. Countries with a parliamentary system routinely have many parties. Then if none of those parties gets a majority of seat, they go to coalition building.

If it was viable, it likely would have evolved that way in the 200+ years we have existed. Parties have come and gone, but it has always ended up with two.

I'd say a bigger problem we have longer term is that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural states. Then to compound that, the filibuster gives 40 senators the power to stop any given bill. That results in the majority of the public frustrated that their political wishes are not taken up.

You can see the same problem that twice in less than 20 years a president won office even thou more citizens voted for some one else. It could have easily happened the last time also.

If we dramatically limited the power of government and both sides showed some humility, I would support a simple 50.0000001% passes all laws approach. But in a world where our government (both sides) would love to rewrite all the rules every election cycle and the govt manages almost every moment of our existence, I think we need some type of super-majority backstop to avoid huge societal swings and disruption. Parlaments get that through fragmentation, we get that through senate rules, two chambers, a significant role for the states, and the electoral college. It is hard to mix and match political systems without lots of unintended consequences.

 

[VikingsGuy]

touche... I mean alternatively, I'd make a great benevolent dictator.

I have always told my kids - our house is not a democracy, it is a benevolent dictator - whose benevolence correlates directly with your behavior

 

[noharleyyet]

If we dramatically limited the power of government and both sides showed some humility, I would support a simple 50.0000001% passes all laws approach. But in a world where our government (both sides) would love to rewrite all the rules every election cycle and the govt manages almost every moment of our existence, I think we need some type of super-majority backstop to avoid huge societal swings and disruption. Parlaments get that through fragmentation, we get that through senate rules, two chambers, a significant role for the states, and the electoral college. It is hard to mix and match political systems without lots of unintended consequences.

How else could our reps earn one of these?

 

[406dn]

If we dramatically limited the power of government and both sides showed some humility, I would support a simple 50.0000001% passes all laws approach. But in a world where our government (both sides) would love to rewrite all the rules every election cycle and the govt manages almost every moment of our existence, I think we need some type of super-majority backstop to avoid huge societal swings and disruption. Parlaments get that through fragmentation, we get that through senate rules, two chambers, a significant role for the states, and the electoral college. It is hard to mix and match political systems without lots of unintended consequences.

Really, the govt manages almost every moment of our lives? They need to pick up the pace with me, I come and go as I please.

Regarding the structural problems with the way the Senate, the four most populous states in the country have 110 million people living in them. The four least populated states have 2.7 million people living in them. Each group of states has equal power in the Senate.

It's a great deal for the low population states, especially with the rules of the Senate. It is a much poorer deal for the people living in larger population states. Instead of a consensus of the majority, the Senate enables a minority to resist anything they do not want.

It is not good government if the views and needs of the minority are not valued. It is also not good government when the majority of the population can have its views and needs so easily denied by the minority.

 

[sapperJ24]

@VikingsGuy Not to put you specifically on the spot, but what are your thoughts on on Thomas' previous lack of recusal with respect to Jan 6th texts involving with wife. Does this constitute a conflict of interest?

 

[Sam Colt]

It is not good government if the views and needs of the minority are not valued. It is also not good government when the majority of the population can have its views and needs so easily denied by the minority.

There's a huge difference between the United States of America and the Peoples Republic of America. Your argument illustrates the distinction is being lost.

 

[OntarioHunter]

@VikingsGuy Not to put you specifically on the spot, but what are your thoughts on on Thomas' previous lack of recusal with respect to Jan 6th texts involving with wife. Does this constitute a conflict of interest?

He should have recused himself when the Court was deciding whether it would hear the fake stolen election claim. I seem to recall the SCOTUS decision was unanimous to not get involved? Nevertheless, legal ethics dictates that he should have removed himself from the discussion if there was a potential conflict of interest. Of course, if he'd recused himself he probably would have to reveal why, i.e. his wife is a flaming idiot who buys into Trump's goofy stolen election bullshit. Maybe we should see what was in Thomas' emails between him and his wife?

 

[sapperJ24]

He should have recused himself when the Court was deciding whether it would hear the fake stolen election claim. I seem to recall the SCOTUS decision was unanimous to not get involved? Nevertheless, legal ethics dictates that he should have removed himself from the discussion if there was a potential conflict of interest. Of course, if he'd recused himself he probably would have to reveal why, i.e. his wife is a flaming idiot who buys into Trump's goofy stolen election bullshit. Maybe we should see what was in Thomas' emails between him and his wife?

"Thomas in January was the only one of nine justices to dissent in a ruling that denied Trump's effort to prevent hundreds of pages of presidential records from being given to the House panel investigating the Capitol riot. Trump had claimed the records were protected by executive privilege."

Decent article from CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/25...-in-trump-january-6-cases-ron-wyden-says.html

 

[OntarioHunter]

"Thomas in January was the only one of nine justices to dissent in a ruling that denied Trump's effort to prevent hundreds of pages of presidential records from being given to the House panel investigating the Capitol riot. Trump had claimed the records were protected by executive privilege."

Decent article from CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/25...-in-trump-january-6-cases-ron-wyden-says.html

Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like grounds for impeachment.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like grounds for impeachment.

It is grounds for impeachment but it is very difficult to impeach a supreme court judge. It would take 2/3 of the senate and we know that would never happen.
Or he could be removed by the other justices but Roberts would never let that happen.

 

[runningmt]

I kinda like your idea. I think a lot of people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal or vice versa. No need to have a crappy economy because you or I don't support abortion or whatever hot social topic.

Agreed, although playing around with Constitutional protections is a slippery slope…..

What one party may do to the 14th, another may do with the 2nd

 

[Sytes]

Jackson board for Day School Georgetown Private school.

And this person has been nominated to sit on the Board of our Supreme Court Of The United States.

An example of teaching as this school:

"The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity," he writes in the book. "If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist."

 

[sapperJ24]

It is grounds for impeachment but it is very difficult to impeach a supreme court judge. It would take 2/3 of the senate and we know that would never happen.
Or he could be removed by the other justices but Roberts would never let that happen.

Some are certainly making the case for impeachment. But as you say, seems unlikely anything will come of it. Hopefully this gives all the justices some pause before weighing in on topics with a conflict of interest.

 

[Jason73]

We honestly could cleanse ourselves of everyone in the congress, white house and Supreme Court. In any given administration. We the people are dog s$#t on their shoes.

 

[Sytes]

"Is it fallacious to believe that responsible citizenship requires casting a ballot for one or the other of two candidates, regardless of how far the candidates have departed from moral rectitude?"

"Does responsible citizenship require voting for irresponsible candidates? To ballot in favor of irresponsible candidates as though it were one’s duty is to misconstrue the meaning of duty. To cast a ballot for a trimmer, because no man of integrity is offering himself, does as much as one can with a ballot to encourage other trimmers to run for office. Can anyone conceive of any element of protest in such balloting? To vote for a trimmer goes further: it would seem to urge, as strongly as one can at the polls, that men of integrity not offer themselves as candidates."

A couple quotes within an introspective review of the "lesser of two evils" syndrome. It ties into SCOTUS for the obvious reasons that we define political parties lesser options each time we vote.

For those who appreciate reading perspective writings - you may find this opens thoughts to ponder. It's a FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) article.

The Lesser of Two Evils | Leonard E. Read

 

[LWC55]

It is grounds for impeachment but it is very difficult to impeach a supreme court judge. It would take 2/3 of the senate and we know that would never happen.
Or he could be removed by the other justices but Roberts would never let that happen.

What is grounds for impeachment?

 

[VikingsGuy]

First of all, recusal gives justices broad latitude, and unless he had actual knowledge of his wife's involvement (which we don't know) and knowledge her texts were subject of the case, his recusal would be unnecessary. Even if he failed to recuse, there is no law that says this meets the standard for impeachment. And as noted, even if it did there is zero chance of getting the necessary votes.

But let's be clear - this will be a well-funded and vocal campaign until the left gets back "their" majority on SCOTUS. They also have teams working up talking points to impeach Kavanaugh for some other college party allegations. Add to this court-packing and the Biden committee on that topic. The left has owned the court for 70 years and they will not respect a conservative majority. It will be an endless flood of well-funded and large media coordinated attacks on all 6 conservative justices, the supreme court as an institution and continued pandering for packing for the next 20 years. If the left can't own the court they will burn it to the ground.

And we are just getting started - odds are that this term sees gun control laws subject to strict scrutiny, and much of Wade/Casey will be shifted in favor of state regulation of abortion. This will invoke a level of vitriol this country has not seen since the Vietnam/60's era. Buckle up.

 

[OntarioHunter]

First of all, recusal gives justices broad latitude, and unless he had actual knowledge of his wife's involvement (which we don't know) and knowledge her texts were subject of the case, his recusal would be unnecessary. Even if he failed to recuse, there is no law that says this meets the standard for impeachment. And as noted, even if it did there is zero chance of getting the necessary votes.

But let's be clear - this will be a well-funded and vocal campaign until the left gets back "their" majority on SCOTUS. They also have teams working up talking points to impeach Kavanaugh for some other college party allegations. Add to this court-packing and the Biden committee on that topic. The left has owned the court for 70 years and they will not respect a conservative majority. It will be an endless flood of well-funded and large media coordinated attacks on all 6 conservative justices, the supreme court as an institution and continued pandering for packing for the next 20 years. If the left can't own the court it will burn it to the ground.

And we are just getting started - odds are that this term sees gun control laws subject to strict scrutiny, and much of Wade/Casey will be shifted in favor of state regulation of abortion. This will invoke a level of vitriol this country has not seen since the Vietnam/60's era. Buckle up.

I think everyone knew what his wife was all about on the fake election stealing BS. She made no secret of it. The man should have recused himself. That is a basic tenant of legal ethics. Given that he knew the rest of the justices, including the conservative ones, would vote to support the investigation, I think we can safely assume 1) he doesn't give a shit about standards for law ethics, or 2) he felt it was more important to keep his domestic situation afloat, or 3) he actually buys into the stolen election fantasy and was doing what he could to support it. Any or all three makes him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the House can succeed in getting an impeachment through the Senate should have nothing to do with their decision to do so. If the man is unfit, then they have a Constitutional obligation to bring charges. If the Senate chooses to fail to convict for purely partisan reasons in spite of the evidence, as they did with the Trump impeachments, then they have failed to do THEIR Constitutional obligation. It's on them. And the voters who put that trash in Washington.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think everyone knew what his wife was all about on the fake election stealing BS. She made no secret of it. The man should have recused himself. That is a basic tenant of legal ethics. Given that he knew the rest of the justices, including the conservative ones, would vote to support the investigation, I think we can safely assume 1) he doesn't give a shit about standards for law ethics, or 2) he felt it was more important to keep his domestic situation afloat, or 3) he actually buys into the stolen election fantasy and was doing what he could to support it. Any or all three makes him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the House can succeed in getting an impeachment through the Senate should have nothing to do with their decision to do so. If the man is unfit, then they have a Constitutional obligation to bring charges. If the Senate chooses to fail to convict for purely partisan reasons in spite of the evidence, as they did with the Trump impeachments, then they have failed to do THEIR Constitutional obligation. It's on them. And the voters who put that trash in Washington.

Purely conjecture and partisan rage . . .