Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

19 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

At least you are honest about it - that this is, nor ever was about altruism, but rather a way to simply import more votes.  

 

 

[BabaYaga 15631]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's both, obviously, and it goes both ways. If you look at Mexican immigrants, for example, many of their children and grandchildren vote Republican. 

So, just to keep track of it all - so far just on this thread we've seen you advocate for "changing" our racist constitution, abolishing the electoral college, and importing as many voters as possible.  That's a great platform.  Very "Common Sense".  

[jimmyjazz 47332]

57 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

It depends on who they are stacking them with.

Not stack, "pack".  Do you know what that means?

[David Dennison 19570]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So, just to keep track of it all - so far just on this thread we've seen you advocate for "changing" our racist constitution, abolishing the electoral college, and importing as many voters as possible.  That's a great platform.  Very "Common Sense".  

I agree. It is a great platform and will make America better. 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So, just to keep track of it all - so far just on this thread we've seen you advocate for "changing" our racist constitution, abolishing the electoral college, and importing as many voters as possible.  That's a great platform.  Very "Common Sense".  

This is normal for liberals, they think these are common sense positions. It's scary how blind they are. 

[David Dennison 19570]

5 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

This is normal for liberals, they think these are common sense positions. It's scary how blind they are. 

If we adhere to your ideology we still have slavery. That's what conservatism is. Status quo ante.

[BabaYaga 15631]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I agree. It is a great platform and will make America better. 

Paid troll.  My guess, Shipley & Associates.  

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I agree. It is a great platform and will make America better. 

 You're a few cents short of a dollar.

[jimmyjazz 47332]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If we adhere to your ideology we still have slavery. 

And he's fine with that.  Prefers it, in fact.

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

6 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

 You're a few cents short of a dollar.

Are you ever going to list how the traitor is fighting for individual liberty and is the cause of all the prosperity you are seeing

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Are you ever going to list how the traitor is fighting for individual liberty and is the cause of all the prosperity you are seeing

Appointing gorsuch, eliminating the AHA mandate, less taxes, defending gun rights, closing our borders, etc. 

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

6 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Appointing gorsuch, eliminating the AHA mandate, less taxes, defending gun rights, closing our borders, etc. 

Jesus you are seriously stupid. Holy hell. Please turn in your voter registration immediately. 

[udaydanceparty 33]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not stack, "pack".  Do you know what that means?

Is that prison lingo?

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And he's fine with that.  Prefers it, in fact.

Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a racist/ sexist/ misogynist/ xenophobe,/ bigot. Still resorting to the same tired ass tactics when yalls arguments fall apart. 

[jimmyjazz 47332]

5 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Is that prison lingo?

Well, no.  But it refers to adding more justices to the court, not skewing the current court.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

6 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Jesus you are seriously stupid. Holy hell. Please turn in your voter registration immediately. 

Quite a retort, really deconstructed my argument

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And he's fine with that.  Prefers it, in fact.

My wife agrees. 

 

Wait...

[jimmyjazz 47332]

5 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a racist/ sexist/ misogynist/ xenophobe,/ bigot. Still resorting to the same tired ass tactics when yalls arguments fall apart. 

Au contraire, I don't think hardly anyone who disagrees with you is one of those things.

[udaydanceparty 33]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no.  But it refers to adding more justices to the court, not skewing the current court.

Then we are on the same page.  As long as the SCOTUS judges aren't engaging in judicial activism, their political affiliation shouldn't matter.  Kennedy is a good example of that.

[Fozzz 152]

People itt aren't aware that the electoral college was a compromise made to boost the electoral power of the slave states?

Quote

After this debate, the Convention rejected popular election of the president, with only Pennsylvania supporting it. The next day, the delegates rejected the idea of the legislature choosing the president because if he were eligible for reelection, he would be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. This system would destroy the separation of powers that the delegates wanted to build into the new constitution.

Thus, the delegates had to find another method of electing the president. On July 19, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed “electors” appointed by the state legislatures. Under Ellsworth’s plan these would be apportioned on the basis of population, and thus the small states would have no special advantage.

At this point, James Madison, a slaveholding Virginian, weighed in. The most influential delegate, Madison argued that “the people at large” were “the fittest” to choose the president. But “one difficulty […] of a serious nature” made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the “right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” Thus Madison favored the creation of the Electoral College.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/original-sin-electoral-college-proslavery-tool/#!

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

11 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Quite a retort, really deconstructed my argument

You have no argument. You threw up some vague ideas and presented those as reasons he is fighting for individual liberty and for why there is so much prosperity. You are stupid. and I thought you had a life and can’t post here often? Weird, ever since yesterday you’ve been all over the boards with your moronic posts. Sounds like the poster that said you only show up when your team has some sort of victory might be right. 

[F250 29205]

Walks in expecting an argument on the various theories of constitutional interpretation but nope.

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

And didn’t VMW’s boy Gorsuch dissent in the Carpenter case recently? Oh yeah, Gorsuch sure is for maximizing personal liberty. Like I said, never vote again. 

[homerbonerstoner 1]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

No, he isn't. He's an unfit buffoon who threatens the safety and security of millions of people in this country, many of whom voted for him to their own personal detriment.

this brings me joy

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

14 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You have no argument. You threw up some vague ideas and presented those as reasons he is fighting for individual liberty and for why there is so much prosperity. You are stupid. and I thought you had a life and can’t post here often? Weird, ever since yesterday you’ve been all over the boards with your moronic posts. Sounds like the poster that said you only show up when your team has some sort of victory might be right. 

Argumentum ad hominem, guess you gotta start somewhere when you have no substantive argument

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

VMW the village idiot just keeps posting. So much for that supposed life you have. 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

33 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

And didn’t VMW’s boy Gorsuch dissent in the Carpenter case recently? Oh yeah, Gorsuch sure is for maximizing personal liberty. Like I said, never vote again. 

You obviously didn't read his dissent lol.

"Although Gorsuch also wrote a dissent, his opinion is similar to a concurring opinion because he agreed with the majority’s decision but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning.[40] Gorsuch agreed that law enforcement agencies need a warrant to obtain cell phone data; however, he disagrees that the Fourth Amendment provides the right to a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Instead, Gorsuch argues that cell phone location records are the property of cell phone owners and under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies cannot search a person’s property without a warrant."

Maybe you're the one who shouldn't vote lol

Edited June 28, 2018 by Vince_McCoy_Williams

[Nivek 17426]

8 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

You obviously didn't read his dissent lol.

"Although Gorsuch also wrote a dissent, his opinion is similar to a concurring opinion because he agreed with the majority’s decision but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning.[40] Gorsuch agreed that law enforcement agencies need a warrant to obtain cell phone data; however, he disagrees that the Fourth Amendment provides the right to a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Instead, Gorsuch argues that cell phone location records are the property of cell phone owners and under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies cannot search a person’s property without a warrant."

Red Alert, Red Alert  

[JBJ 3830]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

People itt aren't aware that the electoral college was a compromise made to boost the electoral power of the slave states?

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/original-sin-electoral-college-proslavery-tool/#!

Are people peddling this crap still not aware that the slaves states had less apportionment under the Electoral College than the Articles of Confederation or Virginia Plan?

The real reason we don't have a directly elected president is because Mass had a voter turnout around 20x that of every other state. In the first election Mass cast like half of the votes.  We probably end up with a President Adams and not Washington if directly elected.

Edited June 28, 2018 by JBJ

[Fozzz 152]

You have quotes from Madison from the convention backing up that claim?  He's pretty clear about the advantages of the electoral college here:

Quote

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

[jimmyjazz 47332]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's not entirely defensible to have wholly distinct roles for the House and the Senate yet have huge differences in effective leverage (either per capita or on the whole) in the two different groups.  A better blend seems prudent.  For one thing, the country is nearly 100X the size it was when the Constitution was ratified.  California is 65X larger than Wyoming.  California gets 53 Representatives and 2 Senators, and Wyoming gets 1 Representative and 2 Senators?  How is that gonna play out in an impeachment trial in the Senate?

[JBJ 3830]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You have quotes from Madison from the convention backing up that claim?  He's pretty clear about the advantages of the electoral college here:

Madison was against indirect election.  You should probably read more than a select quote.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Madison was against indirect election.  You should probably read more than a select quote.

Why does it matter at this point?  The Constitution is not ambiguous on the use of electors.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Madison was against indirect election.  

What does that have to do with my original point?  He wanted a direct election but knew the slave states would not go for it given that much of their population was enslaved.  Hence the need for a compromise.  

[Fozzz 152]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why does it matter at this point?  The Constitution is not ambiguous on the use of electors.

You could argue that since the abolition of slavery the electoral college no longer has any purpose to serve.  

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's not entirely defensible to have wholly distinct roles for the House and the Senate yet have huge differences in effective leverage (either per capita or on the whole) in the two different groups.  A better blend seems prudent.  For one thing, the country is nearly 100X the size it was when the Constitution was ratified.  California is 65X larger than Wyoming.  California gets 53 Representatives and 2 Senators, and Wyoming gets 1 Representative and 2 Senators?  How is that gonna play out in an impeachment trial in the Senate?

Still hanging on to that impeachment pipe dream lol

[jimmyjazz 47332]

Your lack of reading comprehension is simply stunning.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You could argue that since the abolition of slavery the electoral college no longer has any purpose to serve.  

Great.  Fine.  Argue it all you want.  You need an amendment to change it though.

[JBJ 3830]

38 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

What does that have to do with my original point?  He wanted a direct election but knew the slave states would not go for it given that much of their population was enslaved.  Hence the need for a compromise.  

1) Because those quotes come from a discussion on Congress appointing the President vs a popular vote, and (2) you are twisting Madison's words to make it sound like he was against popular election.  And (3) it's a non-sequitar conclusion that this particular concern eventually lead to the Electoral College.  (4) Especially because it wasn't Madison nor the convention's primary concern with direct voting - Madison actually gave reasons why this shouldn't be a consideration and (5) that slavery wasn't even why voter participation was so low in the southern states, it was actually one of the less important factors.

So find me an actual argument for the Electoral College, from someone supporting it, that was an important reason for it.

 

...and it still wouldn't change the actual effect of slave states having a reduced apportionment from the status quo.

Edited June 28, 2018 by JBJ

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Before the election a lot of Dems thought Trump might win the popular vote but lose the EC.  None were bitching about the EC then.

[yoladu 4191]

52 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's not entirely defensible to have wholly distinct roles for the House and the Senate yet have huge differences in effective leverage (either per capita or on the whole) in the two different groups.  A better blend seems prudent.  For one thing, the country is nearly 100X the size it was when the Constitution was ratified.  California is 65X larger than Wyoming.  California gets 53 Representatives and 2 Senators, and Wyoming gets 1 Representative and 2 Senators?  How is that gonna play out in an impeachment trial in the Senate?

California has a population size equal to that of 22 other states.

California  =  Connecticut, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Nevada, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, yoladu said:

California has a population size equal to that of 22 other states.

California  =  Connecticut, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Nevada, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

And?

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

And didn’t VMW’s boy Gorsuch dissent in the Carpenter case recently? Oh yeah, Gorsuch sure is for maximizing personal liberty. Like I said, never vote again. 

 

2 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

You obviously didn't read his dissent lol.

"Although Gorsuch also wrote a dissent, his opinion is similar to a concurring opinion because he agreed with the majority’s decision but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning.[40] Gorsuch agreed that law enforcement agencies need a warrant to obtain cell phone data; however, he disagrees that the Fourth Amendment provides the right to a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Instead, Gorsuch argues that cell phone location records are the property of cell phone owners and under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies cannot search a person’s property without a warrant."

Maybe you're the one who shouldn't vote lol

Crickets

[jimmyjazz 47332]

13 minutes ago, yoladu said:

California has a population size equal to that of 22 other states.

California  =  Connecticut, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Nevada, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

And so an individual Californian is ALMOST as well represented in the House as an individual Wyom . . . ian.  And in the Senate it's crazy skewed.

I get the idea, we need a balance between the individual and the group, among other things, but I think it's way out of whack.  I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a Senate comprised of more than 100 Senators, with a range of representation that is somewhat dependent on state population.  The two chambers are too different in their charters to be so radically split, in my opinion.

[yoladu 4191]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And?

[EMAWesome 101]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Of course I do. That's politics. Liberals will be in charge of the Court again. And that's when this country makes progress. Your side impedes progress by design. But you can't stop it.

That's a good thing.

Falling off the top of a cliff makes progress to getting to the bottom of the cliff.  Is that also a good thing?

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

If we adhere to your ideology we still have slavery. That's what conservatism is. Status quo ante.

Slavery to the government is still slavery.  Big government is the ultimate slave owner because the entire country is its plantation and everyone on the grounds is its slave.

[sheeeit 129]

Mojo- Your arguments about the popular vote and electoral college are sort of the epitome of Aggie. 

 It is like Aggie arguing after the football game that they had more offensive yards and therefore they were the better team and should be considered the winner. 

 You have absolutely no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote if that was the way the election was set up.   The candidates would have campaigned differently.  They would have rallied in different states. They would have spent their advertising money in different ways.  How many Hillary supporters in Texas did not vote because  they knew that Hillary would not win Texas? How many Trump supporters in California did the same thing? 

 If you want to argue the popular vote should be the way we choose going forward, then that is a decent argument. But to suggest the will of the people  was different than the outcome is just very flawed.  The contest was not to get the most popular votes it was to get the most electoral votes and that  was the goal of the candidates and that is what determined their campaign strategies. 

[zork 629]

Tyranny of the majority FTW?

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

1 hour ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

 

Crickets

It’s called being at work, try it. 

Ok I’m wrong about that instance, but for you to truly believe that trump is somehow fighting for individual rights by nominating Gorsuch, you’re an idiot. He chose from a list that others gave him. The other points still stand. How you think getting rid of the individual mandate will somehow increase prosperity is hilarious. We’ll see when everyone premiums are higher this time next year