US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 7.27pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
American independents are not Trump supporters. They are independent! They aren’t half-wits. It’s those who see him as a saviour without any faults, or are prepared to ignore them who are. They fully deserve the contempt of everyone who values democracy. That they will have to make a choice means some will vote for Trump, probably after biting their tongue very hard. I trust it won’t be too many but capturing these people is why I remain convinced that Biden will not be the candidate. It will be someone younger, more energetic and quite possibly female.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 7.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
President's have always appointed judges that they believe would favour their interests. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren because he thought he was a safe pair of hands. Warren of course led the charge on civil rights. The current SC has made several rulings that have upset a great many but if you can step away from the emotion actually make sense. The job of the SC is to interpret the law and protect the constitution. However at what point does interpreting the law become making the law something that is not the role of the courts. If Congress wants to pass legislation it is free to do so if it hasn't done that then why should the SC decide to make law. The current SC has reversed some of these decisions because they have chosen to interpret their role in a narrower manner than previous courts. The current court is only reflecting what has largely been the case since the beginning. It was from the fifties until recently that the court acquired an activist role. Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 4.39pm) That Presidents have always appointed SC Judges doesn’t make it wise. In fact it’s crazy in my opinion to allow it. The judiciary ought to be completely separate from politics. What decisions do you think make sense when stripped of their emotions? Reversing Roe v Wade hardly made sense other than as a gift to the so called “pro-life” lobby. The USSC seems to me to make a lot more law based on particular interpretations of an out of date constitution than is sensible. It’s no longer a system fit for purpose in a modern world. Congress can make new law but need the President on board and then run the risk of the SC declaring it unconstitutional. Not fit for purpose.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Dec 23 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That Presidents have always appointed SC Judges doesn’t make it wise. In fact it’s crazy in my opinion to allow it. The judiciary ought to be completely separate from politics. What decisions do you think make sense when stripped of their emotions? Reversing Roe v Wade hardly made sense other than as a gift to the so called “pro-life” lobby. The USSC seems to me to make a lot more law based on particular interpretations of an out of date constitution than is sensible. It’s no longer a system fit for purpose in a modern world. Congress can make new law but need the President on board and then run the risk of the SC declaring it unconstitutional. Not fit for purpose. Then they should change the constitution. I don't disagree that the system is flawed but until they change it...
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Then they should change the constitution. I don't disagree that the system is flawed but until they change it... Have you ever talked to an American, especially one who is a hard-core conservative, about changing the constitution? They regard it as untouchable. Something akin to having been handed down by God. Their country would need to be in ruins before it would even be discussed. They are, I think, trapped in a vicious circle of inevitable decline.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Dec 23 9.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Have you ever talked to an American, especially one who is a hard-core conservative, about changing the constitution? They regard it as untouchable. Something akin to having been handed down by God. Their country would need to be in ruins before it would even be discussed. They are, I think, trapped in a vicious circle of inevitable decline. Yes I know that which is why your suggestion is never going to happen. We are arguing about the same thing. Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 9.23pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  19 Dec 23 9.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Have you ever talked to an American, especially one who is a hard-core conservative, about changing the constitution? They regard it as untouchable. Something akin to having been handed down by God. Their country would need to be in ruins before it would even be discussed. They are, I think, trapped in a vicious circle of inevitable decline. Untouchable apart from the 27 amendments that have been made.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Dec 23 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Untouchable apart from the 27 amendments that have been made. Fair point. However many were passed in the early years and should really have been part of the original constitution. It's got a lot harder since then. I just saw that 27th and last amendment took 200 years to pass.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 19 Dec 23 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Fair point. However many were passed in the early years and should really have been part of the original constitution. It's got a lot harder since then. I just saw that 27th and last amendment took 200 years to pass. That's true but the number of proposed amendments equates to roughly one a week since the constitution was signed. It's not treated as holy writ.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 11.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yes I know that which is why your suggestion is never going to happen. We are arguing about the same thing. Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 9.23pm) What puzzles me is if we all agree that the USA has peaked and is unable to take the corrective action we think could avoid their inevitable decline, why we thought that tying ourselves to them, and not to our European neighbours, was a good idea. It makes no sense to me. I get that some didn’t like the idea of delegating some decision making, but in today’s world that’s a practical necessity. Something that needs to be swallowed in order to maintain health.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 11.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Untouchable apart from the 27 amendments that have been made. Have you read them and when they were passed? Mostly administrative detail. Not the root and branch radical overhaul that’s needed.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 20 Dec 23 12.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Have you read them and when they were passed? Mostly administrative detail. Not the root and branch radical overhaul that’s needed. So vote for someone who'll bring about this change.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 20 Dec 23 12.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
It seems that unelected justices on the Colorado Supreme Court just decided that the people of Colorado cannot vote for President Donald Trump in 2024. How is this happening in a country that claims to be a "democracy"?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.