NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
SCOTUS is already an illegitimate institution.

how?

It is an un-elected body composed of people that serve for life with a mandate that effectively allows them to overturn the will of the people on the grounds that it interferes with their own personal interpretation of the constitution. It is the pinnacle of unjustified authority.

Or if you'd prefer there is the angle that they can't actually enforce any of their mandates meaning that they are toothless body that cannot justify its existence.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:how?

It is an un-elected body composed of people that serve for life with a mandate that effectively allows them to overturn the will of the people on the grounds that it interferes with their own personal interpretation of the constitution. It is the pinnacle of unjustified authority.

Or if you'd prefer there is the angle that they can't actually enforce any of their mandates meaning that they are toothless body that cannot justify its existence.

By that logic all federal courts are. What is your proposed reform?

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Indeed. Though they will scream cheated no matter the amount. Add in donnie egging them on to violence......

You guys do know our votes mean nothing whatsoever?

Aw, little muffin, did someone give you the idea that you would be the deciding vote and since that didn’t happen you’re having a snit? Did no one explain collective action to you?

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
It is an un-elected body composed of people that serve for life with a mandate that effectively allows them to overturn the will of the people on the grounds that it interferes with their own personal interpretation of the constitution. It is the pinnacle of unjustified authority.

Or if you'd prefer there is the angle that they can't actually enforce any of their mandates meaning that they are toothless body that cannot justify its existence.

By that logic all federal courts are. What is your proposed reform?

Ideally I'd abolish the judiciary.

More realistically impose term limits across the board at the barest minimum. While electing all judges seems a poor idea, implementing some measure of holding the judiciary directly accountable to the people should also be up for consideration.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Heloin wrote:He's posted the exact same thing plenty of times before. It's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing but single that he refuses to listen to anything anyone else has to say.

Stop being a typical liberal and listen to the other side's perspective for once.

HAHAHA! You're seriously calling me a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've read that same post by GMS so many times it's unbelievable. He has parroted the same slogans over and over and then say's he's having a "lol attack" if you actually respond to it.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
By that logic all federal courts are. What is your proposed reform?

Ideally I'd abolish the judiciary.

More realistically impose term limits across the board at the barest minimum. While electing all judges seems a poor idea, implementing some measure of holding the judiciary directly accountable to the people should also be up for consideration.

You want no judges at all?

Why should judges be accountable for their decisions? At that point you don't have an independent judiciary.

This is would be an ideal America. (All jokes. No offense meant to anyone.)

Autocracy
No contraception
Euthanasia
Parental Licensing
Prudism
No Zoos
Capital Punishment
Corporal Punishment
Conscription
Capitalism
Child Labor
Cannabis Legal
Slavery Legal
Feudalism
ID Chips
WMDs
No Emigration
Human Sacrifice
Devolution
Pledge of Allegiance
No Adultery
No Judiciary
Gun Control
Compulsory Organ Harvesting
No Gambling
Permanent Marriage
No Immigration
No Automobiles
No Computers
Metricism
State Press
Universal Health Care
Climate Treaty
Space Program

Heloin wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:Stop being a typical liberal and listen to the other side's perspective for once.

HAHAHA! You're seriously calling me a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've read that same post by GMS so many times it's unbelievable. He has parroted the same slogans over and over and then say's he's having a "lol attack" if you actually respond to it.

That's all cool but did I ask?

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Ideally I'd abolish the judiciary.

More realistically impose term limits across the board at the barest minimum. While electing all judges seems a poor idea, implementing some measure of holding the judiciary directly accountable to the people should also be up for consideration.

You want no judges at all?

Why should judges be accountable for their decisions? At that point you don't have an independent judiciary.

I want no appellate judges. The problem is judicial review.

We already don't have an independent judiciary, the past day of this thread has been 80% about how the Republicans will put one of their stoolies in a lifetime appointed position. At least if they were made accountable you could fucking get rid of them if they consistently made dogshit decisions.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Well, only 46% of Americans identify as pro-choice, compared to 49% who identify as pro-life

You're right about the 60% in regards to 60% of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. Compared to 33% who want to see it overturned.

On abortion overall, we see a different breakdown:

39% - support it being legal in only a few circumstances
25% - support abortion being legal in all cases
21% - support it being illegal in all cases
13% - support it being legal in most cases
2% - no opinion
1% - support it being legal with restrictions (respondent didn't specify what level of restrictions)

If my calculations are correct, that adds up to 101%.

That's common. Those percentages weren't originally just those numbers, they were probably something like 38.781% - hence rounded them up could add out to 101%

For example, say we sample nine people - 4 respond one way, 4 respond the other, and one is indifferent. That's 44.4444%; 44.4444%; and 11.1111% - which, if we round to whole numbers, comes out to 99%

It's irrelevant really, since most polls have margins of error of at least 4-5% anyway.

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Not like we the people have any power to stop them, what are you proposing?

not sure but it would not be a good thing.

There are lots of things that aren't good that we don't have any power to stop. Welcome to American government.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You want no judges at all?

Why should judges be accountable for their decisions? At that point you don't have an independent judiciary.

I want no appellate judges. The problem is judicial review.

We already don't have an independent judiciary, the past day of this thread has been 80% about how the Republicans will put one of their stoolies in a lifetime appointed position. At least if they were made accountable you could fucking get rid of them if they consistently made dogshit decisions.

A supreme court only? Judges shouldnt be able to strike down laws?

No judges should not be able to removed for their decisions. Judges should be independent, if they are not then you don't have a true democracy.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Heloin wrote:HAHAHA! You're seriously calling me a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've read that same post by GMS so many times it's unbelievable. He has parroted the same slogans over and over and then say's he's having a "lol attack" if you actually respond to it.

That's all cool but did I ask?

You praised someone for in so many words saying nothing then called me a liberal for pointing this out. You don't have to like it but if your here people will engage with your posts.

Kannap wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
If my calculations are correct, that adds up to 101%.

That's common. Those percentages weren't originally just those numbers, they were probably something like 38.781% - hence rounded them up could add out to 101%

For example, say we sample nine people - 4 respond one way, 4 respond the other, and one is indifferent. That's 44.4444%; 44.4444%; and 11.1111% - which, if we round to whole numbers, comes out to 99%

It's irrelevant really, since most polls have margins of error of at least 4-5% anyway.

I didn't mean to give a hard time or anything. I was just trying to point it out and help you if you messed up.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Heloin wrote:HAHAHA! You're seriously calling me a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've read that same post by GMS so many times it's unbelievable. He has parroted the same slogans over and over and then say's he's having a "lol attack" if you actually respond to it.

That's all cool but did I ask?

Kind of did, actually.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Heloin wrote:He's posted the exact same thing plenty of times before. It's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing but single that he refuses to listen to anything anyone else has to say.

What?

Stop being a typical liberal and listen to the other side for once.
I may be wearing a green shirt, but I ain't no grasshopper.

Hmmm? Ok. Stop being a typical conservative and actually research things. GMS is nothing more then a canned response poster. The problem with perspective claims? They usually lack source and data.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Ideally I'd abolish the judiciary.

More realistically impose term limits across the board at the barest minimum. While electing all judges seems a poor idea, implementing some measure of holding the judiciary directly accountable to the people should also be up for consideration.

You want no judges at all?

Why should judges be accountable for their decisions? At that point you don't have an independent judiciary.

Why shouldn't they be held accountable for their decisions? You were just complaining about a majority conservative court being able to overturn LGBT rights or abortion against the will of the American people - why should the American people not be allowed to hold them accountable?

Heloin wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
That's all cool but did I ask?

You praised someone for in so many words saying nothing then called me a liberal for pointing this out. You don't have to like it but if your here people will engage with your posts.

Wow, really. You just saved the world with that very obvious post. Thank you for the info that I have already learned. I'll stick it in my back pocket for later use.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
I want no appellate judges. The problem is judicial review.

We already don't have an independent judiciary, the past day of this thread has been 80% about how the Republicans will put one of their stoolies in a lifetime appointed position. At least if they were made accountable you could fucking get rid of them if they consistently made dogshit decisions.

A supreme court only? Judges shouldnt be able to strike down laws?

No judges should not be able to removed for their decisions. Judges should be independent, if they are not then you don't have a true democracy.

Yeet SCOTUS too. Its just a bigger court. They shouldn't be able to strike down laws no. History has demonstrated that 9 times out of 10, judicial review has been counter to justice.

I fail to see how you can be so fucking blind. JUDGES ARE ALREADY NOT INDEPENDENT. How the fuck can you watch this thread for the past 24 hours and not notice that?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
Stop being a typical liberal and listen to the other side for once.
I may be wearing a green shirt, but I ain't no grasshopper.

Hmmm? Ok. Stop being a typical conservative and actually research things. GMS is nothing more then a canned response poster. The problem with perspective claims? They usually lack source and data.

Conservatives are very educated. Liberals just can't handle the facts and call it fake news for their gain.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
A supreme court only? Judges shouldnt be able to strike down laws?

No judges should not be able to removed for their decisions. Judges should be independent, if they are not then you don't have a true democracy.

Yeet SCOTUS too. Its just a bigger court. They shouldn't be able to strike down laws no. History has demonstrated that 9 times out of 10, judicial review has been counter to justice.

I fail to see how you can be so fucking blind. JUDGES ARE ALREADY NOT INDEPENDENT. How the fuck can you watch this thread for the past 24 hours and not notice that?

Who should be able to review the constitutionality of laws, then?

Saint Sche Batose wrote:This is would be an ideal America. (All jokes. No offense meant to anyone.)

No Zoos
Cannabis Legal
No Judiciary
Metricism
Universal Health Care
Climate Treaty
Space Program

Removed all the nonsense and there's some good stuff here.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Hmmm? Ok. Stop being a typical conservative and actually research things. GMS is nothing more then a canned response poster. The problem with perspective claims? They usually lack source and data.

Conservatives are very educated. Liberals just can't handle the facts and call it fake news for their gain.

Source?

Actually “fake news” is a conservative epitaph. If you have evidence of libs using it; by all means!

Kannap wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:This is would be an ideal America. (All jokes. No offense meant to anyone.)

No Zoos
Cannabis Legal
No Judiciary
Metricism
Universal Health Care
Climate Treaty
Space Program

Removed all the nonsense and there's some good stuff here.

You really think I meant all that?

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You want no judges at all?

Why should judges be accountable for their decisions? At that point you don't have an independent judiciary.

I want no appellate judges. The problem is judicial review.

We already don't have an independent judiciary, the past day of this thread has been 80% about how the Republicans will put one of their stoolies in a lifetime appointed position. At least if they were made accountable you could fucking get rid of them if they consistently made dogshit decisions.

Recall elections?

Recall elections