Posted on 10/09/2018 10:10:21 AM PDT by nikos1121
We are in, it seems, for decades of misery for labor unions, voting rights, regulation of businesses and all the rest.>>>>>>
Translated: We are in, it seems, for decades of misery for labor unions who want socialist rule of the Corporations they work for, voting by illegal aliens and open border immigrants, high regulation of businesses to end the the present economic boom underway.
Why is any pof this a so called ‘misery?”
I guess the Brits at the Socialista Guardian are down for having a nanny state like theirs and think that is “misery?’
Hey , thats not misery, its freedom and liberty for America!
We are reminded that the Brits still have not had their 1776.They do not have government for and by the People in Britain.
All this is obvious when they call Making America Great Again “misery.”
This is a far different America
And far different Democrats then quite contrary to the steady stupidity here that sees all democrats historically as the same and issues the same more or less
There have been in the past regional democrats more socially conservative than regional GOPe
That is so dumb and talk radio loves to ape it too
FDR had major resistance in the democrat party to packing the court
Today we have in my estimation after fifty years of following politics the most radicalized populace as a percentage we’ve ever had
Most democrats are today radicals or close
Trump peeled of those who were not with populist rhetoric
If they have the power they would do this or try
I blame this on demographics mostly
The culture second
Those are good ones.
Don’t forget that we pack the electoral college with 100 more to represent California, and 125 more for New York and 25 more for Illinois.
At the same time we take away 1/2 Electoral College for
Utah
Idaho
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
Indiana
KS
Nebraska
Georgia
Alabama
MS
Eventually, we can expand the Supreme Court so we can all fit on it, with Andy Warhol as posthumous Chief Justice emeritus.
That’s the wrong attitude to take, my FRiend.
Sorry, I disagree.
Life is too short to be worked up all the time.
The American Left, if they gain sufficient power, would become latter-day Beriya’s.
The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail on this because their activist judges have been legislating from the bench for years. Look at the Obama appointee who recently ruled the Commander and Chief cannot restrict “visitors” and immigrants from terrorist hot spots because he reportedly called the places “shithole countries”, and she determined this to be “racist”.
This is just one abuse of the court system, but there are so many rulings from activist courts just waiting to be reversed. The entire house of cards could fall down and they know it.
If the midterms go our way... President Trump could easily get three more appointments in his first term. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the obvious one because whatever meds she is taking or booze along with her advanced age cause her to fall asleep at inopportune moments.
Justice Sotomayor is a type 1 diabetic. She is 68; the average life expectancy for a female type 1 diabetic is 68. She has had recent problems keeping her blood sugar under control after an entire life living with type 1 diabetes... she lost consciousness and has had to be transported to the hospital in the last year. She has also gained a lot of weight and her face is swollen which is not a good sign.
Clarence Thomas has said that he wants to retire and travel the country in a motorhome. I assume that if the midterms go our way that he will be doing that in the next year or so.
Hmmm! Pretty sure “the guardian” isn’t impacted by OUR scotus decisions. I suppose the writer decided he/she/they couldn’t get it published by the nyt?
To the modern day Democrat the solution is much more simple. The next time you have a rat president just bump off a few conservative justices. 20 years ago I would have laughed off the suggestion that Scalia was assassinated but not now.
The left keeps sayimg the court isn’t political, yet they want to up the number and appoint open liberals.
Channeling FDR.
When the rules work they are for the rules. When they dont they cry about the rules.
When precedent works for them its settled, when it doesnt they cry about precedent.
These are ends justify the means people and can never be put in trusted positions of power. They demand accountability from everyone but exempt themselves and their special protecred classes.
The Democrats are now the Communist Party of the USA.
I don’t think it occurs to this guy that two can play that game, Republicans could pack the court later in retaliation. He should probably have a conversation with Harry Reid, ask him how well it worked out for the Democrats when they changed the rules about approving judges.
Some Democrat is promoting a constitutional amendment idea I have proposed:In effect, elevation to SCOTUS would constitute a 22 year term.
- Allow each newly elected POTUS 2 SCOTUS justice picks without Senate confirmation provided that they are named at least 3 weeks before the election.
- Constitutionally limit the size of SCOTUS to 11 seats. Senior justices retire (or return to the bench if a vacancy occurs), as necessary to keep the size of SCOTUS at 11.
Of course, the devil would be in the details of how many conservatives are on the court to start out. And who you think will win the very next election.
What, incidentally, is a "well-socialized adult"? And whose voting rights are the professor talking about? And what it the threat to unions whose members helped elect the current majority?
He does not say because these are the flimsiest of excuses for "my side gets to cheat to win". Nor does he answer the objection that if the Dems do it, the Republicans will do it as well, or the objection that it turns the nominally nonpartisan court into a tennis court, he merely sneers at both of them. He challenges opponents of it to come up with a better idea. I've got one: elections have consequences, now sit down and shut up.
The legal steps that must be taken to change the number of members on the Supreme Court make the likelihood very low. Obama MIGHT have been able to get the job done in 2009, if he had not poured all his reservoir of political and moral capital into “universal health care”, a chimera that can never be achieved with any degree of equity or effectiveness.
It is incumbent upon the rest of us to not permit this set of circumstances to arise again, that a Democrat President holds compliant Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate.
(1) The GOP could pack the court right now using the same process?
(2) The GOP could create immediate vacancies right now by passing a law requiring judges to retire at the age of 80?
Mega correctness. And least one other person understands the left. This type of tripe is being served up in hopes of intimidating Roberts. And it will probably work.
Many Freepers typically fall for the headline and miss the true goal.
I don’t think this guy is all there. Like I said, dumbest article I’ve read in a long time...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.