Dumbass Republicans Trying to Start a Civil War in Texas

#226
#226
MontyPython said:
Roe v. Wade overturned.

Not cool. Defies public opinion bigly.
Click to expand...
I know i am going to hate myself for this...

I can understand how you determine that ruling is right wing. I can appreciate you don't think it is cool. What does "defies public opinion" have to do with constitutionality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, Vol8188, 85SugarVol and 4 others
#227
#227
McDad said:
I know i am going to hate myself for this...

I can understand how you determine that ruling is right wing. I can appreciate you don't think it is cool. What does "defies public opinion" have to do with constitutionality?
Click to expand...

“Constitutionality”

So if 90% of the American public thinks X, but the SC says “Y”…

What happens?

The Supreme Court can only get so far out of touch with public opinion and the pulse of where we are as a nation.
 
#229
#229
MontyPython said:
“Constitutionality”

So if 90% of the American public thinks X, but the SC says “Y”…

What happens?

The Supreme Court can only get so far out of touch with public opinion and the pulse of where we are as a nation.
Click to expand...
Your whole premise is askew. What is the concept for a supreme court? Is it deciding what is popular or what is constitutional?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, TrumpedUpVol, UT_Dutchman and 8 others
#230
#230
MontyPython said:
“Constitutionality”

So if 90% of the American public thinks X, but the SC says “Y”…

What happens?

The Supreme Court can only get so far out of touch with public opinion and the pulse of where we are as a nation.
Click to expand...

So you think SCOTUS should ignore the constitution when it conflicts with public opinion? Also, how are the 9 supremes supposed to judge public opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol, UT_Dutchman, Vol8188 and 3 others
#234
#234
CobbVol said:
It looks like they took the nominee under advisement , but did not provide consent. Given his tenure as AG, it is a good thing for our country that he did not make a SC Justice. Jack Sekulow explains it pretty good in the article I linked.
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly concerned with Sukelow's opinion on the matter. Especially so since since it was unprecedented to refuse to entertain a President's nomination, and the reasoning for doing so was shown to wholly without merit 4 years later when Amy Comey Barret was nominated 2 months before an election.
 
#237
#237
Septic said:
You can't run away and hide when the ball doesn't bounce your way. This isn't governance, it's theater and it should be embarrassing for them as public officials. I imagine all of these same people would be clutching their pearls if the shoe was on the other foot. I hope Abbott gets to the point where he can declare the seats abandoned and vacate them.
Click to expand...

We all know that 1) in the end, they will successfully gerrymander the five districts in question so as to eliminate five potential Dem seats in 2026; and 2) the Dems will do the same thing somewhere else; and 3) the GOP will do it some more elsewhere.

As long as state legislatures control the drawing of Congressional lines, and can do so arbitrarily, and can brazenly do so in a manner that changes the composition of the Congress, this will remain a problem. It is fundamentally wrong to have state legislatures control federal office battle lines.

Personally, I'd prefer that we have a system whereby Congressional districts are based entirely on objective measures such as population and geography. Square districts (accommodating geographical boundaries), not accounting for weakening the opposition by splitting their votes into tiny fractions.

Take the politics out of it, completely.
 
#238
#238
BigOrangeMojo said:
Garland should have got a vote.

At least ACB has proven not to be a total partisan hack. 6 others on the SC could take a cue from that....
Click to expand...

Garland's overconcern about being viewed as too partisan would have handicapped him as much on the USSC as it did as AG.

Barret is Roberts lite, but they're both adherents to the 'unitary executive theory', and she doesn't really believe in a true separation of church and state. In the long run she'll have as many naked 'partisan hack' rulings as anyone else that currently sits on the court.
 
#240
#240
BeardedVol said:
Garland's overconcern about being viewed as too partisan would have handicapped him as much on the USSC as it did as AG.

Barret is Roberts lite, but they're both adherents to the 'unitary executive theory', and she doesn't really believe in a true separation of church and state. In the long run she'll have as many naked 'partisan hack' rulings as anyone else that currently sits on the court.
Click to expand...
Garland was never concerned about being overly partisan, his time as AG proved that.

With that being said, he should have gotten a vote but we as a country dodged a bullet with him not getting one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Orangeburst and volfanhill
#242
#242
lawgator1 said:
We all know that 1) in the end, they will successfully gerrymander the five districts in question so as to eliminate five potential Dem seats in 2026; and 2) the Dems will do the same thing somewhere else; and 3) the GOP will do it some more elsewhere.

As long as state legislatures control the drawing of Congressional lines, and can do so arbitrarily, and can brazenly do so in a manner that changes the composition of the Congress, this will remain a problem. It is fundamentally wrong to have state legislatures control federal office battle lines.

Personally, I'd prefer that we have a system whereby Congressional districts are based entirely on objective measures such as population and geography. Square districts (accommodating geographical boundaries), not accounting for weakening the opposition by splitting their votes into tiny fractions.

Take the politics out of it, completely.
Click to expand...


I agree, but the rules are the rules for NOW.

California republicans have been getting the gerrymandered shaft for decades but that's what the California R's get for living in a State ruled by dems. Same with the Dems in Texas... I believe that the district lines should be drawn by a non-partisan third party - THAT would be the only way to fairly ensure that districts were fairly represented for all constituents.

The system is fu*ked but the optics of the dem officials dipping out of town to avoid doing their jobs is dogsh*t awful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ETV
#243
#243
hog88 said:
Garland was never concerned about being overly partisan, his time as AG proved that.

With that being said, he should have gotten a vote but we as a country dodged a bullet with him not getting one.
Click to expand...
Lol, which of course is why all of the litigation against Trump went at Pam Bondi pace and Trump was actually taken to task.

Oh...wait....
 
#244
#244
Septic said:
I agree, but the rules are the rules for NOW.

California republicans have been getting the gerrymandered shaft for decades but that's what the California R's get for living in a State ruled by dems. Same with the Dems in Texas... I believe that the district lines should be drawn by a non-partisan third party - THAT would be the only way to fairly ensure that districts were fairly represented for all constituents.

The system is fu*ked but the optics of the dem officials dipping out of town to avoid doing their jobs is dogsh*t awful.
Click to expand...


It is political theater by them to call attention to it, just like its political theater by the GOP House to create a smokescreen on the Epstein files to avoid releasing bad info on Trump.
 
#245
#245
MontyPython said:
“Constitutionality”

So if 90% of the American public thinks X, but the SC says “Y”…

What happens?

The Supreme Court can only get so far out of touch with public opinion and the pulse of where we are as a nation.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Why don't we place 9 Gallup Technicians on the court to poll for public opinion and rule on cases.
 
#250
#250
BeardedVol said:
Garland's overconcern about being viewed as too partisan would have handicapped him as much on the USSC as it did as AG.

Barret is Roberts lite, but they're both adherents to the 'unitary executive theory', and she doesn't really believe in a true separation of church and state. In the long run she'll have as many naked 'partisan hack' rulings as anyone else that currently sits on the court.
Click to expand...


Right now we have 3 on each side that are blatant partisan hacks.

I think she and BK have shown they wont be a SS or CT level of fringe...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top