| There are 50 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
keep dreaming
|
|
|
Why do people on left always want to tear down and change things that are working?
Leave this country and its structure alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Senators for DC...bullshit
Term limits for Supreme Court....bullshit
Packing the court...bullshit
Maybe the left might need to get some better policies and then people will vote for them.
|
|
|
Rahcrener = No Mail and No Chicks !
Yet Rahcrener feels privileged to spew his Ultra- Liberal viewpoints while not investing in the very platform that provides him such a forum. What a piece of shit cheap fuck Rahcrener is !
|
|
|
False accusations of sexual harassment and assault didn't work, protests in front of a Justice's home didn't work, leaking a ruling ahead of its release (and then never finding the source of the leak) didn't work, so this is what's next?
The Supreme Court is not and was never meant to be an extension of the legislative branch, but that's what the Democrats want when they are in power, so they can just ram through their thoughtless and ruinous policies. And OP doesn't care about what the American people want. He and others like him want the Supreme Court to be accountable to the PROGRESSIVES, who claim to know what's best for the American people.
How about term limits for Congress? Let's start there. There's also a bill in Congress to ban stock trading by current members. That bill has genuine support from the American people. Let's see if Congress actually cares. I'm skeptical.
|
|
|
Rahcrener unfortunately specific language in the Constitution can not be changed by legislation. Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS would require an amendment which 2/3 of the states would need to approve.
But this is a harmless error. Trump voters think they can change the Constitution by storming the Capitol and killing cops. So no biggie.
|
|
|
Sheldon Whitehouse is the Lefty version of Sydney Powell.
Batshit crazy, just watch him live trying to explain all the conspiracies that he imagines occur. Guys a complete nut job and a disgrace to the fine incredibly TINY state of Rhode Island.
According to to this whackjob Whitehouse, there is a difference between "original" jurisdiction and "appelate" jurisdiction, such that these morally bankrupt people suggest that we can circumvent the Constitutionally set terms for SCOTUS. Since this legislation would immediately be unconstitutional .....guess who would have to adjucate its constitutionality?
If you guessed SCOTUS, you win a gold star.
So, what's all this noise about?
It's called "Political Grandstanding"
Democrats have completely lost their minds that they no longer have a friendly SCOTUS that they can depend on to "legislate" when they don't get what they want thru Congress and the Pres.
They then do something, I've not seen the Reps do regardless of how unhappy they were with SCOTUS decisions over the last 60 years, ( same thing that FDR did).......they threaten SCOTUS, make up completely unfounded garbage accusations, get a willing media to print them in a direct frontal attack on the third branch to heel them like a dog. In FDR's case it worked, SCOTUS did an about face and allowed all his bullshit thru after having just previously declaring it unconstitutional.
Same mechanism at work here now.
By the way, Sheldon Whitehouse and Sidney Blumenthal are OLD RICH WHITE GUYS, lol.
Why do you trust them at all? At least they included a token poor brown guy in Alex Padilla. 
|
|
|
OP, is really SeyMourButz.
…and I like the dude.
Anyone but Do Nothing Don.
|
|
|
Term Limits for SCOTUS but what about Term Limits for Congress, look how many POTUS McConnell , Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler and just about every other person in Congress has outlasted
|
|
|
Exceptions, the 'grandfather clause' in the case if term limits, always ensures that the fuckup happens long after the assholes who pass a new law are gone and pensioned.
|
|
|
Kinda funny how they want term limits for everybody but themselves
But nothing to see here, move on
|
|
|
Assholes in the House and Senate who serve 40-50 years each with no term limits, seek to place term limits on another branch of our Constitutional government. What a laugh.
It took the 22nd Amendment for a President to face term limits after FDR was elected to four terms in office, he did not survive his last term, and spent much of his presidency infirm and in similar condition to Joe Biden.
Now to the Supreme Court:
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says that judges shall remain in their position so long as they follow good behavior. This has long indicated that judges, including Supreme Court justices, have lifetime tenure.
There would have to be a constitutional amendment in order to create term limits.
Democrats want to play semantics, as usual and say, "Oh, you have lifetime tenure, but we're going to pull you off the Supreme Court after 10-12 years. You will still be a Federal judge with lifetime tenure, but you would be relegated to serving back down in a District Court or Court of Appeal.
Yeah...let's see what Federal Judge will go along with this interpretation, and which of the SCOTUS judges would affirm a law like that. Won't happen!
|
|
|
"OP, is really SeyMourButz"
The force must not be with you, Vince.
Butz doesn't know how to copy/paste
Plus, this OP posts from a padded room
Butz is unhoused
|
|
|
In order for Democrats to accomplish this, they have to get the majority for both Senate and House, and getting rid of senate filibuster rule, which is supermajority rule/minority right that requires 60 votes to pass any legislation.
The problem with this nonsensical senate filibuster is solely abused by GOP, which never have a chance to win popular votes in each presidential election. The last time Democrats had the slight majority in both Senate and House, they tried to get rid of the filibuster rule, but Manchin and Sinema blocked the passage unfortunately.
|
|
|
"unfortunately specific language in the Constitution can not be changed by legislation. Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS would require an amendment which 2/3 of the states would need to approve."
There is an answer for that. After 18 years, a phase of active service will end, and a senior phase lasting for the remainder of a justice's life term. Under this system, senior justices would no longer decide cases on the Court's docket. That is it, you don't have to apply a new amendment to the current US Constitution.
Remember, US is the only country which maintains life tenure for the Supreme Court, and the framer never thought in modern age, those judges serve the judiciary for 30-40 years as they do now. They become "out of touch" with the realities, and with what the majority of US citizens want. And the worst of all, the current judiciary system in the US is totally politicized for the minority's (GOP) advantage.
It seems impossible to change the current dysfunctional system, but we have to start from somewhere, otherwise, we get stuck in this oldest written constitution, which simply became out of date now.
Getting rid of Senate filibuster rule (supermajority rule) is the first thing Democrats have to achieve, in order to pass more useful legislations, that minority party/GOP is keep blocking. It is easier to accomplish because it is NOT in the US Constitution.
The current Electoral system for presidential election is totally useless as well. US is the only country that uses it, and all other democratic countries rely on the popular votes. Of course, we need to change the constitution first.
US Constitution is the most difficult to change, and we have to make it easier to do so,
|
|
|
that's called dreaming...stop it
|
|
|
"Why do people on left always want to tear down and change things that are working?"
Because GOP became openly anti-Democratic party, and all they want to accomplish is to serve their donors and special corporate interests & what Evangelicals want. Supreme Court became a mere politicized weapon for far-right extremists who wish to bring this country to an Authoritarian state.
"False accusations of sexual harassment and assault didn't work, protests in front of a Justice'shome didn't work, leaking a ruling ahead of its release. The Supreme Court is not and was never meant to be an extension of the legislative branchâ"
On the contrary, we believe conservatives are the ones who leaked an intention to overturn Roe v Wade. You are not reading what I wrote in the past blogs. Making the judiciary to become GOP hacked legislative branch is what is going on now, just like Orban in Hungary accomplished it. We are merely to prevent this from happening in this country.
"They then do something, I've not seen the Reps do regardless of how unhappy they were withSCOTUS decisions over the last 60 years"
I already explained in my past blogs why overwhelmingly partisan decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Shelby County v. Holder, and Citizens United v. FEC. Are all anti-democratic and purely political decisions by far-right extremist judges chosen by Trump and Bush.
"By the way, Sheldon Whitehouse and Sidney Blumenthal are OLD RICH WHITE GUYS, lol.
Why do you trust them at all?"
It doesn't matter. I went thought so many articles by pro-democratic organizations and by professors, they are all essentially talking about what this new bill is trying to accomplish.
"Term Limits for SCOTUS but what about Term Limits for Congress, look how many POTUSMcConnell , Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler and just about every other person in Congress hasoutlasted"
Right now term limits or mandatory retirement ages for our Supreme Court is crucial than doing the same thing on politicians, because Supreme Court decisions by far-right judges affect our lives for a long time to come. Look at the mess created by overturning Roe in each state. If you can't comprehend this, you are utterly ignorant.
"Kinda funny how they want term limits for everybody but themselves"
Wrong, this bill will bring more fairness to our supreme court, by not politicizing Supreme court judges with backup from far-right billionaires. Nominating judges became political circus and political campaigns now.
"Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says that judges shall remain in their position so longas they follow good behavior. This has long indicated that judges, including Supreme Courtjustices, have lifetime tenure."
Like I said earlier, the framers thought the life tenure at their time, they never thought it will be 30 to 40 years as it is now.
"There would have to be a constitutional amendment in order to create term limits"
I already wrote the solution for that above. No need to set another amendment to US constitution.
|
|
|
Changing US constitution requires 2/3 votes from both Senate and House + acknowledgement by 2/3 of all the states, and that makes it changing US constitution to be the most difficult task to be accomplished, as compared with other Democratic nations in the West. We have to get rid of at least 2/3 states approval from the process.
When framers came up with US Constitution, their initial idea was to make a republic against foreign adversaries, and they had to compromise with mostly what the Southerns states want, such as slavery, and minority rights (filibuster rule, two senate from each state etc), and now we are having constitutional crisis because of the far-right extremists forcing us their preference version of White Chrisitan doctrines, which the most of US citizens oppose. And every time Democrats try to pass useful legislations that the most US citizens want, due to senate filibuster rule, nothing passes (gun reform/federal protection of abortion etc).
|
|
|
Far right extremists' adherence and their reactionary views on Biblical Literalism and Constitutional Originalism are the total opposite of what the framers'intentions, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Those farmers knew the US constitution is far from perfect, and they hoped that the later generation change and improve the Constitution.
|
|
|
Far left extremists had no problem with the Supreme Court when it was creating law from the bench and was far to the left. Even RBG argued that the Roe decision was not based in law and could be overturned with the right case. Ever since it happened, the court needs to be changed. If Democrats had ever been more worried about solving problems than creating issues to get elected, they would have dealt with abortion when they controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. Instead, they sat on their asses and kept the political issue. There are no term limits for the Supreme Court in the Constitution and Congress does not have the power to impose them. The majority of the people can't stand either party enough to change the Constitution.
|
|
|
+10000000000000000000000
physicsguy
|
|
|
Rahcrener
Will be conducting a limp wrist throwing technique seminar at the corner of :
Sunset & Doheny in his favorite friend group part of town WEHO this weekend !
10 am - 3 pm Saturday & Sunday
Liberals are guaranteed to learn how to tap the wrists full flexibility levels - Known as the Rahcrener technique !
|
|
|
Raw Creamer....................you're a complete idiot that does nothing but "parrot" the talking points that you like, even while they make little sense.
Have you NO ability to research, analyze, check historical records.......anything at all, prior to your incessant copy/paste?
Well, here you go...........Since you like copy/paste so much
"The problem with this nonsensical senate filibuster is solely abused by GOP, which never have a chance to win popular votes in each presidential election. The last time Democrats had the slight majority in both Senate and House, they tried to get rid of the filibuster rule, but Manchin and Sinema blocked the passage unfortunately."
"In 1946, five Democratic senators, John H. Overton, Richard Russell Jr., Millard Tydings, Clyde R. Hoey and Kenneth McKellar, filibustered a bill (S. 101)[25] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though a majority of senators supported the bill."
"Then-Democratic senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[26] during which he read laws from different states and recited George Washington's farewell address in its entirety,[27] although the bill ultimately passed."
One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern senators attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for a continuous 75 hours, including a 14-hour-and-13-minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. After 60 days of consideration of the bill, cloture was invoked by a 71–29 vote on June 10, 1964. This was only the second successful cloture vote since 1927.[29]
PLEASE NOTE MISTER RAW CREAMER THAT ALL OF THESE WERE DONE BY DEMOCRATS AND ALL AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS BY RACISTS.
Wake the fuck up before you waste everybody's time parroting the same bullshit over and over again. Much appreciated................
|
|
|
Strom Thurmond would be a modern day Steve Scalise lol. And "southern senators" are ALL today's GOP. Not sure your point really makes sense to blame today's modern Democrats for those filibusters
|
|
|
Steve Scalise = "David Duke without the baggage"
|
|
|
Don't know about the other example, well before my time. But definitely familiar with Strom's historical context and definitely the southern senators lol
|
|
|
Triple stackin?
|
|
|
You can get more recent ones yourself, I know you're more than capable.
Those just seemed relevant.
Filibuster, racist, white guys.......all rash creamers hot buttons
|
|
|
@ EdmondDantes
Lmao that wrist flickering GIF is hilarious.
|
|
|
I was only responding to your post. I can go on and on for days about how the "democrats" were what are now modern day republicans. I don't see you refuting my post so I give you credit for knowing when to accept your error. I am a democrat but I'm also an independent thinker. I see how some parts of what you're saying about FJB sound true re: him being corrupt. I just don't have enough actual evidence to completely agree. I do agree that if he's guilty then he deserves the same treatment as FJDT. I'm just not sure I've seen enough real evidence to prove that.
As an aside I can from personal experience attest to multiple levels of the justice system. My first ever charger, which was a multiple felony charge lol, for drug trafficking was issued a $1,000,000 CASH ONLY bond. Which for fucks she their were murderers on a 100k or less bond. Justice swings towards the wealthy and well connected. Luckily I was the former, wealthy because of my father, and got much more favorable terms then the initial 60+ years they wanted to give me. I know from personal experience how having means backs you up in court proceedings.
In the end I can't stand trump for all he stands for and all his followers willingly believe. But I have a bit of hope that this is his end times. It's written all over the walls that he's about to fall forgive me for enjoying that lol
|
|
|
I'm also not rahncrener or the rest of these progressive libs that believe in fairy dust, MSNBC, and whatever other blog they're currently sucking dick over lol. I tend to be more cautious and especially when it comes to trump. He's a lifelong career criminal that has beat the system every time he's faded it. I am more optimistic with the last two plea bargains, mainly because I think they will lead to guilliani flipping. Guilliani flips it's game over for trump. Until then I take it with a grain of salt. He could very well beat all 4 cases. Although I think the MAL case is a slam dunk but judge Cannon is truly in his pocket so who knows
|
|
|
Rahcrenner,
Let me correct your version of history with facts.
You are correct that the southern states wanted slavery.
The idea of having 2 senators from each state came from the states with little population not wanting to be bulldozed by the large population states.
Also one of the reasons the founding fathers wanted a republic was to temper the idea of majority running roughshod over the minority.
In addition the founding fathers could never have gotten the Constitution approved without the first 10 amendments to the Constitution commonly known as The Bill of Rights being passed with the Constitution. If you do your research I think you will find a good number of those amendments were for northern states that would not approve the Constitution without them.
Attached is a 1790 census and you can see that the state with the biggest population by far is Virginia (a slave state ). The states with little population included states like Rhode Island and Delaware.
|
|
|
I already mentioned earlier in other blogs that Rs and Ds are the same coin flipped over in the course of history (White Americans to be exact), and you don't have to tell me that now. And all the examples of filibuster by Democrats shown by GDB are from pre-Civil Rights Act era, and GDB is totally ignorant and nonchalant (as always with his Trump like self-confidence about his ignorance) about the fact that until 20th century, the rule was never abused with the frequency as it is after 20th century.
Now, I have to explain (to these bunch of "fake" conservatives here) that some liberal Democrats learned their mistakes (excluding the core racist/conservative Southern Democrats who converted to Rs now, and still remains the same in their core belief, which is White Supremacy) after they lost election to Rs and after the massive wave of immigration starting from 1960's. During 1950's non-white population was just 10%, and it became 38% by 2014. Whether it was Ds' political decision for their survival or not, they decided that switching the party direction from White Supremacy to democracy based on multi-race, and they started to embrace it. In fact, it was as Democrat Lyndon Johnson who passed Voting Rights Act.
That is when Rs switched their direction with their Southern Strategy and started appealing to Southern Evangelicals, and it is called "Great White Switch". Now that Rs are stuck with declining population of Whites and White Christians, and they know as long as abusing "minority rights" allowed by Constitution (2 senators by each state, and it does not reflect the number of populations and their vote counts at all, and filibuster rule being abused in order to block any legislation proposed by the Majority party D) they can win some election and with hijacking Supreme Court, though they know they will "never" win popular votes.
Rs is becoming more and more anti-democratic, and it definitely became an Autocratic party, supported by bigot- billionaires' "dark money" and their racist policies (such as gerrymandering, and almost Apartheid like policies in Southern States).
|
|
|
Rs=Their eyes going more and more inward are destined to death knell spiral to the bottom of humanity
|
|
|
Bitter much?
|
|
|
"I don't see you refuting my post so I give you credit for knowing when to accept your error."
).gif)
Nice "arguing".........I suppose that type of bullshit works for you, I conceded nothing and made no errors. Just put it on you to do your own homework, Mister Independent.....lol
|
|
|
The nice thing about Dems now is that they're not racist anymore.
Being anti-semite is ok though, of course!
Hating those fucking Heebs doesn't count!
|
|
|
You still haven't refuted my main argument with your point, that southern Dems, Strom Thurmond = today's republicans. So whetger you technically "conceded" anything or not your dumb fucking point was still wrong and you are at least smart enough to realize that. Despite your inability to articulate it lol
|
|
|
And as I mentioned in my post up above. I already KNEW Strom Thurmond and the southern senators were today's republicans. Didn't need to do any homework lol
|
|
|
"Being anti-semite is ok though, of course!"
That is a wrong assumption. How do you come up with the idea?
Iwan T
I can loosely agree with what you are saying here, but I don't see your points at all.
|
|
|
My only point was that GBD used a dumb example. Intentionally I assume because he's smart enough to know that Strom Thurmond and the southern Dems he used as an example of the only three times in history of a filibuster being used against pro civil rights were made by democrats. They were clearly what would be considered mainstream republicans. Just called Dems back then. Kind of like Lincoln always being touted by today's GOP as their standard bearer but in reality he would have been a democrat today. Northern liberal.
|
|
|
My only point is that RAHCRENER :
Has no mail
Has no chicks
Yet feels compelled to spew his liberal propaganda when he really doesn't support the site at all !
He is an expert at throwing liberal limp wrists though !
|
|
|
When is the meet up for Starbucks ?
Rahcrener
MA1
Hey1
Sherkahn
Lngbdsr
Surfer44
Reaper_1
SonOfAdams
Reedboy
May I suggest the Starbucks at Imperial Highway & Brea Blvd in Brea ?
We can all sit in their private room area and discuss :
Mortgage rates at 8 %
Gas prices at $ 7 a gallon
Grocery prices up 35 %
Water & Electricity prices up 27 %
People leaving California in record numbers
The " Unhoused " scenario in liberal states - just waiting for someone to take a dump on MA1 's lawn
The fact that the world no longer fears the USA cuz of weak leadership
The possibility of Terrorists executing their plans on USA soil
Biden being substituted by Gavin Newsom for 2024
|
|
|
Special session to be held in Hillcrest by the Liberal Mayor of Hillcrest : Mr.Horndog
Time & Date to be determined , please send Mr.Horndog a p.m. for further details.
|
|
|
Desantis / Haley 2024 !
It will happen - Mark my words !
RNC will come to their senses and realize that Trump is un-electable - Too much baggage !
Neither Trump nor Biden will be on the ticket in November 2024 !
|
|
|
Also wanting to attend the special Brea Starbuck's Meet Up for the Liberals :
Eulogy
TomTraubert
TheAlterEgo
Hunterbee
Whitelight
They will just be present in a purely observation mode only !
|
|
|
Trump MIGHT not be on the ticket but Biden definitely will be. The dem establishment will make sure if it. I personally don't think it's the strongest ticket to run but the powers that be have decided that's what they're going for and Gavin Newsome won't change anything. He's too liberal for a national ticket anyways. Personally think he's unelectable for POTUS.
|
|
|
biden may not be on any ticket. By then he might have a foot tag. He doesn't look too spiffy.
|
|
|
Is there a scenario where they put Biden on the stage without a teleprompter to debate
his Republican foe ?
I think not !
2024 will be the first election that has zero party vs party debates - Mark my words !
|
|
|
Rahcrener has no mail and no chicks !
Rahcrener does not support the site !
Rahcrener is a blood sucking leach to society !
|
|
|
Rahcrener hurt his wrists this weekend - he threw so many limp wrists !
|
| There are 50 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
