NationStates

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.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
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!

The Black Forrest wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
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!

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.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Post War America wrote:
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?

Kannap 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.

News flash: America is nowhere close to being a true democracy. Nonetheless, you're regularly against making it closer to a true democracy (recall elections, electing judges)



There's nothing remotely democratic about nine people who are appointed for life being able to decide what's what in this country based on their interpretations of the Constitution.

Shrillland wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Source?

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

Well, the first I remember the phrase being used was actually against conservatives when it was cited as one of the reasons Trump won in '16.

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?

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Heloin wrote: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.

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.

Post War America wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Who should be able to review the constitutionality of laws, then?

If reviewing the constitutionality of laws is a must, then it should be done by a nonjudicial council as part of the process of passing a law.

Heloin wrote:

Saint Sche Batose wrote:
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.

I don't get why you seem annoyed but right on. I told you something and you screamed liberal, not my problem.

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

The No Cars one is pretty good but that only comes with the caveat of more trains, boats, and busses.

Kannap 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.

News flash: America is nowhere close to being a true democracy. Nonetheless, you're regularly against making it closer to a true democracy (recall elections, electing judges)

There's nothing remotely democratic about nine people who are appointed for life being able to decide what's what in this country based on their interpretations of the Constitution.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
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?

If there was no judicial review just about every landmark case from Brown to Ogberfell would not have happened

Shrillland wrote:

Kannap wrote:
News flash: America is nowhere close to being a true democracy. Nonetheless, you're regularly against making it closer to a true democracy (recall elections, electing judges)

There's nothing remotely democratic about nine people who are appointed for life being able to decide what's what in this country based on their interpretations of the Constitution.

No other nation elects judges without making it an exclusively political process, either. Judges should be appointed, yes, but closer to what many in Europe do by having the President choose from a list drafted by an independent body of judges.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Post War America wrote:
If reviewing the constitutionality of laws is a must, then it should be done by a nonjudicial council as part of the process of passing a law.

And that is above abuses in what way, rather than just changing the name on the door and the qualifications for the position?

Shrillland wrote:

Kannap wrote:
News flash: America is nowhere close to being a true democracy. Nonetheless, you're regularly against making it closer to a true democracy (recall elections, electing judges)

There's nothing remotely democratic about nine people who are appointed for life being able to decide what's what in this country based on their interpretations of the Constitution.

No other nation elects judges without making it an exclusively political process, either. Judges should be appointed, yes, but closer to what many in Europe do by having the President choose from a list drafted by an independent body of judges.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Shrillland wrote:

No other nation elects judges without making it an exclusively political process, either. Judges should be appointed, yes, but closer to what many in Europe do by having the President choose from a list drafted by an independent body of judges.

European politics is just as broken as America's. Why? Because America was built on their politics.

Shrillland wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:Biden is on record as saying he is against packing the US Supreme Court with Democrats, because then when it is the Republicans turn they do it to us. But if he wins the election he could change his mind. Which Democrats and Democrat supporters wish Biden to win the election, and Republicans and Republican supporters wish President Trump to win the election.

Yes, it will be the Republicans turn to pack the court, and then the voters will realise what a mess this all is and demand a constitutional amendment for structural court reform that both sides will readily agree to to deny given the other too much power including hard limits on how many justices there are, term limits, and mandatory retirement ages.

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.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Shrillland wrote:

No other nation elects judges without making it an exclusively political process, either. Judges should be appointed, yes, but closer to what many in Europe do by having the President choose from a list drafted by an independent body of judges.

European politics is just as broken as America's. Why? Because America was built on their politics.

Post War America wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:And that is above abuses in what way, rather than just changing the name on the door and the qualifications for the position?

SCOTUS isn't?

Shrillland wrote:



No other nation elects judges without making it an exclusively political process, either. Judges should be appointed, yes, but closer to what many in Europe do by having the President choose from a list drafted by an independent body of judges.

I mean that's not a terrible idea.

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

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

You really think I meant all that?

Saint Sche Batose wrote:

Post War America wrote:
SCOTUS isn't?



I mean that's not a terrible idea.

But it will take a long time for our government to change that dramatically if the US even considers it.

The Black Forrest wrote:

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

l

Hmmm. I am ok with Zoos. They just need to be designed with the animal in mind.
Cannabis: Yes.
No Judiciary? As in court duty? It’s only so many times in your life time. I nearly sat on one trial. Other then that its annoying but a small price.
Metrics? I can see it. I was the part of the generation which tried it. There was no plan and it was basically “here is the metric system...Go!
UHC/Climate/Space: Yes

Post War America wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:And that is above abuses in what way, rather than just changing the name on the door and the qualifications for the position?

SCOTUS isn't?

San Lumen wrote:

Shrillland wrote:Trump's now saying his nominee will most likely be a woman and be announced next week: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/19/us/live-rbg-death-supreme-court/trump-says-he-expects-to-nominate-a-replacement-for-ginsburg-most-likely-a-woman-next-week

All who bet on Amy Barrett may come up and receive their winnings.

She would pull the court far to the right. I worry about LGBT rights, women's rights and the environment if she gets on the court.