American Politics X: Is There A Reset Button Around Here?

[Cannot think of a name]

(Image)

Presented without comment

I would boycott his pizza, but I've been doing that anyway just because it's bad.

I've really lucked out in having tried both Papa John's and Chick f...however they spell it and found both super gross. Then I found out they were run by shitty people. Now I can pretend I'm boycotting them instead of just thinking they're gross.

My gross game is way stronger than my boycott game

[Antipatros]

Presented without comment

Click of the mouse, and papa's in the house.

[Cannot think of a name]

(Image)

Presented without comment

Didn’t they want to ban Sesame Street characters because Big Bird supported getting vaccinated and didn’t they want to defund the show because of a Korean American character was on there?

Also why don’t the Democrats have a CPAC thing?

They'd keep breaking it up into smaller groups that just talk about how the other groups aren't left enough.

[Cannot think of a name]

What was that about being fair and balanced? Bad pizza is bad regardless of politics.

Little Caesar's is the worst.

Tangent over.

Dominos enters the chat.


Am I meming right fellow teenagers? God that felt awkward. I assure you I'm more embarrassed than you are, but I'm hitting submit anyway.

[The Jamesian Republic]

So what would happen if we put term limits on Supreme Court Judges say One Term of 10 years, plus making the Chief Justice position a rotatable position. For two years some serves as Chief Justice and then someone else takes their place. Appointed by a lottery held by the President.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Little Caesar's is the worst.

Tangent over.

Dominos enters the chat.


Am I meming right fellow teenagers? God that felt awkward. I assure you I'm more embarrassed than you are, but I'm hitting submit anyway.

What makes you think we are teenagers?

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Hmpf. I thought you did once. Ok. My bad……

I've quite often pointed out that it hasn't been possible to be a conservative AND a republican for quite a few years, now.

I'm conservative. I'm definitely not a republican.

Ok fair enough, you are a conservative, you are not a Republican, but you are anti Trump conservative. But I am a Conservative Republican, Trump supporter like millions of us are, you can read my GMS political manifesto if you wish to, The Black Forrest stated, it sounds like the Republican Party Platform. But you and I strongly disagree at least 99 % Percent of the time and on CRT and those Conservatives strongly agree with me on CRT. You have not proven to me you are a Conservative. But you don't have too.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Hmpf. I thought you did once. Ok. My bad……

I've quite often pointed out that it hasn't been possible to be a conservative AND a republican for quite a few years, now.

I'm conservative. I'm definitely not a republican.

Ok fair enough, you are a conservative, you are not a Republican, but you are an anti Trump conservative. But I am a Conservative Republican, Nationalist,Trump supporter, with a slight Libertarian, Economic, streak, like millions of us are Conservative Republicans, you can read my GMS political manifesto if you wish to, The Black Forrest stated, it sounds like the Republican Party Platform. But you and I strongly disagree with you at least 99 % Percent of the time and on CRT and those Conservatives strongly agree with me 99 % Percent of the time and on CRT. You have not proven to me you are a Conservative. But you don't have too. Dispatch Number 9 .

[Cannot think of a name]

*loads gun* say that again, motherf-
*We'll be Right Back*

Little. Caesar's. Is. The. Worst.

I'd rather eat Dominos, and that isn't even my favorite. My favorite is more local, but it's spread across SoCal.

I am intrigued because since moving to SoCal I have yet to find a palatable pizza. Those Subway-style assembly personal pizzas are alright, but they're no Pleasure Pizza from Santa Cruz. Even the Round Table down here is sub-par for Round Table up north.

[Deblar]

Dominos enters the chat.


Am I meming right fellow teenagers? God that felt awkward. I assure you I'm more embarrassed than you are, but I'm hitting submit anyway.

What makes you think we are teenagers?

Imagine being a teenager, heh... *sweats nervously*

[Antipatros]

So what would happen if we put term limits on Supreme Court Judges say One Term of 10 years, plus making the Chief Justice position a rotatable position. For two years some serves as Chief Justice and then someone else takes their place. Appointed by a lottery held by the President.

I'd support 18 year terms, with appointments occuring every 2 years. A President who served 2 full terms would get to make 4 appointments.

I would be open to different court sizes/term lengths if someone could explain why their system would be better.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... ississippi

Nissan to build two new EV models in Mississippi

[Cannot think of a name]

Dominos enters the chat.


Am I meming right fellow teenagers? God that felt awkward. I assure you I'm more embarrassed than you are, but I'm hitting submit anyway.

What makes you think we are teenagers?

First of all, when you're old enough everyone is teenagers. That's why casting agents keep thinking people pushing 30 can play high schoolers.

Second, I was misquoting this.

[The Jamesian Republic]

So what would happen if we put term limits on Supreme Court Judges say One Term of 10 years, plus making the Chief Justice position a rotatable position. For two years some serves as Chief Justice and then someone else takes their place. Appointed by a lottery held by the President.

I'd support 18 year terms, with appointments occuring every 2 years. A President who served 2 full terms would get to make 4 appointments.

I would be open to different court sizes/term lengths if someone could explain why their system would be better.

I would be fine with that but I think a decade is good enough. It is better than serving to the day you die. The people who serve till the day they die are monarchs and dictators. No monarch or dictator shall serve in the United States government.

[The Jamesian Republic]

What makes you think we are teenagers?

First of all, when you're old enough everyone is teenagers. That's why casting agents keep thinking people pushing 30 can play high schoolers.

Second, I was misquoting this.

Lol. Anyway I knew what you were quoting.

[Kowani]

There isn’t a “constitutionality regardless of parties” existing out in the ether you can appeal to

Interesting thought.

Explain?

There isn’t a “constitutionality regardless of parties” existing out in the ether you can appeal to

Interesting thought.

Explain?

The Court interprets what is and what is not constitutional. Their rulings stand as long as they say they do or until they are overturned by acts of Congress. They are not the Supreme Court because they are always right, they are right because they are the court of last resort. It is trivial enough for the Court to go against the plain text of the Constitution-one merely has to look at how the Reconstruction Amendments were zeroed out for a systemic example of this, rather than a one-off created by a stacked court of Federalist Society appointees.
When the 2064 Barrett Court rules that "black lives matter" is "immediate incitement to violence and thus not protected by the First Amendment" because "Cthulu Fhtagn" or whatever, God doesn't come down from Heaven to set the record straight.

But Kowani has a point, a non-partisan court is impossible

It's possible, just not under the current rules. Rewrite them, and impossible things all of a sudden become possible

Not that there are a significant amount of politicians on the Hill who really wants to make the Court non-partisan, so any such change is just not in the cards.

you can make the current court less lawless
you cannot make The Court a non-political body because its rulings are inherently political things

[Grave_n_idle]

Ok fair enough, you are a conservative, you are not a Republican, but you are anti Trump conservative.

Trump is not a conservative. Hell, he didn't even pretend to be a 'Republican' until he ran for office - and Republican was his SECOND choice after he failed as a Reform Party candidate.

For someone who claims to be a 'conservative Republican Trump-supporter', you don't seem to have ANY positions that are actually conservative, you don't seem very aware of how far Republicans have gotten from conservatism, and you don't seem to know ANYTHING about Trump.

[Grave_n_idle]

Interesting thought.

Explain?

Interesting thought.

Explain?

The Court interprets what is and what is not constitutional. Their rulings stand as long as they say they do or until they are overturned by acts of Congress. They are not the Supreme Court because they are always right, they are right because they are the court of last resort. It is trivial enough for the Court to go against the plain text of the Constitution-one merely has to look at how the Reconstruction Amendments were zeroed out for a systemic example of this, rather than a one-off created by a stacked court of Federalist Society appointees.

That doesn't answer the question.

You're arguing for a belief that there's no such thing as a "constitutionality regardless of parties". Nothing you just said supports that.

[Salus Maior]

The Court interprets what is and what is not constitutional. Their rulings stand as long as they say they do or until they are overturned by acts of Congress. They are not the Supreme Court because they are always right, they are right because they are the court of last resort. It is trivial enough for the Court to go against the plain text of the Constitution-one merely has to look at how the Reconstruction Amendments were zeroed out for a systemic example of this, rather than a one-off created by a stacked court of Federalist Society appointees.

That doesn't answer the question.

You're arguing for a belief that there's no such thing as a "constitutionality regardless of parties". Nothing you just said supports that.

The Constitution doesn't exist outside of its interpreters is Kowani's point. Which is true.

[Grave_n_idle]

That doesn't answer the question.

You're arguing for a belief that there's no such thing as a "constitutionality regardless of parties". Nothing you just said supports that.

The Constitution doesn't exist outside of its interpreters is Kowani's point. Which is true.

That's not true. Like, at all.

I've literally seen it.

Are you arguing against originalism? That what the constitution means can be changed without amendment, just by deciding it MEANS something else?

[American Legionaries]

The Constitution doesn't exist outside of its interpreters is Kowani's point. Which is true.

That's not true. Like, at all.

I've literally seen it.

Are you arguing against originalism? That what the constitution means can be changed without amendment, just by deciding it MEANS something else?

Yes, it can.

[Salus Maior]

The Constitution doesn't exist outside of its interpreters is Kowani's point. Which is true.

That's not true. Like, at all.

I've literally seen it.

Are you arguing against originalism? That what the constitution means can be changed without amendment, just by deciding it MEANS something else?

Seen...The physical constitution? I mean, yeah it exists. And like any written work it can be interpreted by its readers, or exploiters as the case may be.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's not true. Like, at all.

I've literally seen it.

Are you arguing against originalism? That what the constitution means can be changed without amendment, just by deciding it MEANS something else?

Yes, it can.

That's an interesting - and honestly, somewhat terrifying - argument.

It basically renders the constitution meaningless, and that's worrying, because we have a LOT of stuff tied up in it.

It was designed to be amended, not ignored. I guess we can say goodbye to little things like free speech and the right to bear arms - you just rendered them optional.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, it can.

That's an interesting - and honestly, somewhat terrifying - argument.

It basically renders the constitution meaningless, and that's worrying, because we have a LOT of stuff tied up in it.

It was designed to be amended, not ignored. I guess we can say goodbye to little things like free speech and the right to bear arms - you just rendered them optional.

*shrug* The world is a pretty terrifying place.

[American Legionaries]

Yes, it can.

That's an interesting - and honestly, somewhat terrifying - argument.

It basically renders the constitution meaningless, and that's worrying, because we have a LOT of stuff tied up in it.

It was designed to be amended, not ignored. I guess we can say goodbye to little things like free speech and the right to bear arms - you just rendered them optional.

I didn't do this, It's just like that.

And you're right, it is worrying. Hence we have come full circle back to "We should worry about the beliefs of the people with this power."