Amy Coney Barret confirmed and sworn in.

[Irrelevant]

The courts ‘ideology’ is supposed to be a constitutional one, not one that changes based on the public’s feelings.

Sure, but if you just go back and look when it was written, even they fought over what it meant. That's why 9 of the best legal minds in our country still disagree on how it applies. Otherwise there would be no need for a court at all.

 

[44hunter45]

So far so good...

I meant it when I said I was not starting this thread to be a political circus. I may be naive in thinking we can actually self regulate. I will be the first one to PM Randy to lock it down if this goes sideways. There are some on HT who seem to have that as their goal sometimes. They should go somewhere else, IMHO. There should be a metric for how many threads a user has hijacked as grounds for ejection. I may be closer to the metric threshold than I really want to know.

SCOTUS discussions are relevant to the mission of Hunt Talk in that their rulings can effect, 2A, ESA, Public Lands, The NA Model, etc. Having said that, I strongly doubt any of the Justices have their clerks reading HT to check the public sentiment. If we as individuals or as part of like minded groups wait until anyone in government asks our opinion, we have already lost.

HT has a political element because there are issues which require us to participate in the political process. That means researching our positions and contacting government officials to voice our wishes. I had written both my Senators to give them my opinion on the confirmation of Justice Barrett. Commentary without participation is Narcissism. If these raucous threads drive us off the sideline and into action on the issues in the HT "Why", they serve their purpose.

As such, political threads are part of the "full experience" of the Hunttalk forums. Hunt Talk is way more than "Grip and Grins", advice, and hunting stories.

I subscribe to the idea that no one ever changed their world view based on a social media post. Having said that - it is good that many viewpoints are voiced, so long as they are civil. If a debate does not have more than one position represented, it is not a debate but a caucus.

It only takes one post to drive a political thread into the ditch. Each thread we create and post write should always have @Big Fin's "Why" in mind.




.

 

[44hunter45]

So far so good...

I meant it when I said I was not starting this thread to be a political circus. I may be naive in thinking we can actually self regulate. I will be the first one to PM Randy to lock it down if this goes sideways. There are some on HT who seem to have that as their goal sometimes. They should go somewhere else, IMHO. There should be a metric for how many threads a user has hijacked as grounds for ejection. I may be closer to the metric threshold than I really want to know.

SCOTUS discussions are relevant to the mission of Hunt Talk in that their rulings can effect, 2A, ESA, Public Lands, The NA Model, etc. Having said that, I strongly doubt any of the Justices have their clerks reading HT to check the public sentiment. If we as individuals or as part of like minded groups wait until anyone in government asks our opinion, we have already lost.

HT has a political element because there are issues which require us to participate in the political process. That means researching our positions and contacting government officials to voice our wishes. I had written both my Senators to give them my opinion on the confirmation of Justice Barrett. Commentary without participation is Narcissism. If these raucous threads drive us off the sideline and into action on the issues in the HT "Why", they serve their purpose.

As such, political threads are part of the "full experience" of the Hunttalk forums. Hunt Talk is way more than "Grip and Grins", advice, and hunting stories.

I subscribe to the idea that no one ever changed their world view based on a social media post. Having said that - it is good that many viewpoints are voiced, so long as they are civil. If a debate does not have more than one position represented, it is not a debate but a caucus.

It only takes one post to drive a political thread into the ditch. Each thread we create and post write should always have @Big Fin's "Why" in mind.




.

Well, that was in the "write now for more thought before posting" zone but somehow I sent it out. I'm not going to call it back, though.

 

[BigHornRam]

Sure, but if you just go back and look when it was written, even they fought over what it meant. That's why 9 of the best legal minds in our country still disagree on how it applies. Otherwise there would be no need for a court at all.

They set it up that way to keep guy's like Vikingsguy gainfully employed.

 

[MO Betta]

I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests."

This isn't even a subtly veiled call by the writer that they want the electoral college abolished.

 

[VikingsGuy]

They set it up that way to keep guy's like Vikingsguy gainfully employed.

If the price of tags keep going up I will need to foment a little discord myself to keep the fees flowing

 

[Dougfirtree]

The courts ‘ideology’ is supposed to be a constitutional one, not one that changes based on the public’s feelings.

Yes, but no one agrees on what that means. Not very helpful.

 

[Dougfirtree]

This isn't even a subtly veiled call by the writer that they want the electoral college abolished.

Well, yeah... Not sure how much contact you have with the progressive part of the country, but there's nothing subtle about it. They're callin' for it!

 

[MO Betta]

Thank god it exists, or else a few metro areas run the country

 

[BigHornRam]

If the price of tags keep going up I will need to foment a little discord myself to keep the fees flowing

Shouldn't be too hard. Everyone is butt hurt over something these days.

 

[TheGrayRider]

She did an excellent job during the hearings. She was assisted in this, by the fact that she had absolutely nothing to worry about. She was able to sidestep/not answer any potentially controversial questions and knew that the Republican Senators had her back no matter what.

It's hard to predict what a justice will do on every case. I'll reserve judgement, but honestly, I'm losing faith in the court's ability to do its job. I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests." You can like this current court, but you cannot pretend that the court's ideology is representative of our country (and you're kidding yourself if you think there's no ideology on the court).

Opinion | How to Fix the Supreme Court (Published 2020)

Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation has tilted the high court's ideological balance. What should the court’s future be, and who gets to decide it?

www.nytimes.com

The popular vote means nothing under our Constitution. Its all about the Electoral College and the bicameral legislative branch. Each state has 2 senators and one congress person at a minimum. Ingenious idea from our founding fathers.

 

[Dougfirtree]

The popular vote means nothing under our Constitution. Its all about the Electoral College and the bicameral legislative branch. Each state has 2 senators and one congress person at a minimum. Ingenious idea from our founding fathers.

It may be, but it means something to the people who's voices are not equal to the voices of others, I can tell you that. I think anyone can understand that rub.

 

[Irrelevant]

At some point, sooner or later, the EC will go away. Those that love it, only love it because it gets them a "w" not because it makes a lick of sense.

 

[BigHornRam]

At some point, sooner or later, the EC will go away. Those that love it, only love it because it gets them a "w" not because it makes a lick of sense.

I like the EC because it makes Presidential Candidates pay attention to the people in the flyover states. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Irrelevant]

I like the EC because it makes Presidential Candidates pay attention to the people in the flyover states. Makes a lot of sense to me.

So some people are worth more than others? 3/5 sound about right?

 

[Western Traveler1]

At some point, sooner or later, the EC will go away. Those that love it, only love it because it gets them a "w" not because it makes a lick of sense.

Maybe it is loved because the views/ideals of the population of smaller States do not mirror or want the values of a couple of populated States dictating how they should live.
Here We hunt, fish, cut and burn wood, trap, eat meat, raise cattle and a glance into any random vehicle whether driven by a youth, old guy or woman may reveal a gun inside and it seems to work just fine.
In theory we are a Republic that guards against majority rules. 50 independent States.
There is always the ability to add another Amendment to the constitution. Just get 35 States to agree.

 

[Irrelevant]

Maybe it is loved because the views/ideals of the population of smaller States do not mirror or want the values of a couple of populated States dictating how they should live.
Here We hunt, fish, cut and burn wood, trap, eat meat, raise cattle and a glance into any random vehicle whether driven by a youth, old guy or woman may reveal a gun inside and it seems to work just fine.
In theory we are a Republic that guards against majority rules. 50 independent States.
There is always the ability to add another Amendment to the constitution. Just get 35 States to agree.

see post #55, and explain why you deserver to be are worth more than me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

see post #55, and explain why you deserver to be are worth more than me.

The EC is not about one person being worth less than another, it is one of a dozen or so elements put in place to protect the minority from the majority. I understand the obvious emotional appeal to a pure and true democracy, but I think history shows that total power given to 51% of citizens over 49% does not end well for either. Frankly if I was going to eliminate one of these, I would punt the filibuster once and for all.

 

[BigHornRam]

So some people are worth more than others? 3/5 sound about right?

Not sure where you are going here. This?

Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience: Legal Rights & Gov't | PBS

Lincoln cleared that up long ago.

 

[Western Traveler1]

see post #55, and explain why you deserver to be are worth more than me.

I just did. Because the founders established a Republic and placed safeguards against majority rules. Checks and balances that thus far have assured that the Pendulum only swings so far left or right before correcting itself and keeping the “train” on the tracks...
What is good/wanted for California and New York is not necessary wanted in a different State.