The Supreme Court can strike down anything that Congress or the President does as being unconstitutional and they have the final say in the matter, this includes any healthcare policies.Yea, the election is going to have more impact on the future of healthcare than a scotus ruling.
Would you rather give the legislative or executive branch more power than they currently have?The Supreme Court can strike down anything the Congress or the President does as being unconstitutional and they have the final say in the matter, this includes any healthcare policies.
People seem to not understand just how powerful the Supreme Court and it's lifetime appointments are in our country.
Buying into the irrational belief that any somewhat intelligent and "decent" human being should be confirmed to the Supreme Court eliminates the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
An unchecked Supreme Court is the most dangerous thing to our democracy. The justice system is the second thing that tyrants subvert or abolish when dismantling a democracy. The first things are the police and the military.
Now think about those historical facts in context with what's being going on here from Nixon through to this hearing.
It's easy not to be alarmed by potential tyranny and oppression if you feel like you are on the same side as the tyrants and oppressors. Empathy requires putting yourself in the shoes of those who will be the targets of tyrants and oppressors.
As it stands now, most of the undercounting has taken place in "Democratic" states and in "Democratic" areas in "Republican" states. It will help the Republican minority keep it's majority control over government and won't have much impact on them losing federal funds for their states and districts.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, batting aside a lawsuit that warned the truncated schedule will lead to minorities being...apnews.com
I can't imagine why stopping it early would be what republicans would want. Can anyone think of a reason?
Meanwhile, I wonder how this will turn out
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to put on hold an appeals court ruling that Trump's accountant must immediately turn over tax records to a New York...apnews.com
isn't it fun having a stacked court that is tilted in your favor?
That's a false choice. No extra power has to be given to the executive or the legislative branches to provide effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.Would you rather give the legislative or executive branch more power than they currently have?
We need more stability, not less.
The legislative branch has been ceding power to the executive for 30 years.That's a false choice. No extra power has to be given to the executive or the legislative branches to provide effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court currently has too much power over our country, because the only check and balance over the Supreme Court is not and will never work as intended. We need to change how Supreme Court justices get appointed to the court and the lengths of their appointments.
As to the need for more stability, authoritarianism is a notoriously stable form of government. We don't need more stability for the sake of stability, just like we don't need more security just for the sake of security.
What we need is a government that is much more representative of the actual majority of the citizens than it currently is. This Supreme Court is going to do the opposite of that. If that is more "stability," then we actually need less "stability."
I don't know how you can't be sure what that means.Not sure what this even means. Why the need to put one before the other. As a pro-choice, pro-LGBT+ Catholic, I use the teachings of the Bible to help me make the right decisions for myself AND everyone else. Those teachings are why I'm pro-choice and pro-LGBT+.
Two distinct things...
No, @Mr. Blue Sky didn't say that merely being Catholic is disqualifying criteria, but the imposition of ones beliefs on others is. I though he was clear:Sure, but he was arguing that being Catholic was the disqualifying criteria.
First, i want to be clear- i dont have a problem with her beliefs ‘in a vacuum’.. Life is hard, and i think if something like religion helps you get through day to day, while doing good works- then it is generally a good thing... But when we are discussing a possible Supreme Court justice, i only have problems with her specific beliefs,
For what it’s worth, there’s definitely apologetics that argue that most of the anti-LGBTQ verses in the Bible are either Old Testament guidelines for the Levitical priesthood, rather than ordinary citizens, or New Testament mistranslations against male adult/male child pedophilia.I don't know how you can't be sure what that means.
If you are using the teachings of the Bible to be pro LGBT+, according to Leviticus, letters to Romans, Corinthians, Jude, etc. you are doing it wrong, unless "abomination" and "shall surely be put to death" have different meanings I am not aware of.
I can list a number of instances in which people put Bible before anything else: Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis, people being fired for being gay, and so on, to the detriment of others and/or the infringement of their rights, but I would think you know about them.
So I don't understand how you can say you are not sure what that even means.
I agree which is another argument supporting the need to reform the way we appoint justices to the Supreme Court and do away with lifetime appointments. If there is such an abundance of judges qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, what's the harm with them having limits to how long they serve? Why so much resistance to that idea? There's no shortage of qualified judges, right?The legislative branch has been ceding power to the executive for 30 years.
The Supreme Court has not gotten more powerful. It has always had this power. It has always had the final word on what is or is not constitutional. No other government entity has the power to overturn the Supreme Court. That's not true of the executive and the legislative branches.Our current imbalance of power involves the executive and legislative branch. The reason the judicial branch seems too powerful is because the legislative branch has become impotent and consumed by politics.
So being falsely imprisoned is acceptable because it's better than being falsely executed? Not having equal rights is acceptable, because it's better than not having any rights at all?We need to get back to the idea that a bad deal is better than no deal.
I agree and the long slow march in the direction of tyranny started decades ago. Staying on the same path that got us to this point is going to march us all the way into the societal collapse of what remains of our representative government and into a fully tyrannical government.I believe that we are closer to societal collapse than we seem to think.
What is "extremist" about wanting to reform the process by which we appoint justices to Supreme Court and limiting how long they serve? There's nothing extreme about fixing a broken system.Extremism is our primary enemy at the moment.
But, her specific beliefs are assumed becuase she's Catholic. At least that's what seems implied. Otherwise why bring it up in the first place?
None of the people you are responding to have assumed any of what you said there.Fwiw, I'm not Catholic, but it seems like the assumption is that because she's Catholic, it's assumed that she'll impose her faith onto her legal arguments.