Hey Lefties, can we talk about this yet?

a reply to: DOCTORNO

Your point? Are you a big fan of the Deep State? I hope not, because if Donald Trump is elected and the Republicans enact their Project 2025 agenda, civil servant positions will become political appointments, depending on a worker's political leanings.

Republic means a government of the "public". America is a self-governing republic, in which the power of the government is derived from The People.

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

Ronald Reagan

But like I said earlier in this thread, the American Experiment is over. RIP American Experiment

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DOCTORNO

Your point? Are you a big fan of the Deep State? I hope not, because if Donald Trump is elected and the Republicans enact their Project 2025 agenda, civil servant positions will become political appointments, depending on a worker's political leanings.

Republic means a government of the "public". America is a self-governing republic, in which the power of the government is derived from The People.

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

Ronald Reagan

But like I said earlier in this thread, the American Experiment is over. RIP American Experiment

You really believe anything you just wrote? Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is? Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this ORG. They’re more akin to an extreme right fantasy wish list than anything else.

Nice hyperbole though

No, sook, Agenda 2025 is not a Republican Party “thing”. 🙄

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think it’s pathetic that you wrote it out the way you did when it has nothing to do with the Trump administration or the Republican Party. Fear mongering is all you’re doing. Reeks of desperation.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I agree with poor Clarence, the workload needs to be redistributed. Seems like a good start would be the expansion of court.

I don’t think you agree with Clarence because of his workload. You’re just wanting what every dem politician wants which is to eventually control every single branch of government we have. That’s what you agree with.

I’ve been listening to all these dem politicians complain recently about getting shot down and not getting their way in the SCOTUS including Justice Sonia Sotomayor who cries in her chamber. It’s ridiculous. Boo hoo…you can’t control every aspect of ones life like you’d like.

Should we pack it with more Republicans maybe?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Well, for one thing, most of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected. And, there is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, so there's that. www.heritage.org...

Control — Control — Control

Less government my ___________.

I wouldn’t be ignorant and gullible to buy into anything the Heritage Foundation has to say Annee. You’re being gaslit.

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Well, for one thing, most of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected. And, there is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, so there's that. www.heritage.org...

Control — Control — Control

Less government my ___________.

I wouldn’t be ignorant and gullible to buy into anything the Heritage Foundation has to say Annee. You’re being gaslit.

I’m not.

Can’t wait to look back in 10 years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: watchitburn

And the WSJ pointed out that the only way Biden's campaign funds can be transferred to another candidate is if that candidate is Kamala Harris.

God Damn, would I love to see old Kamala step in ...lol

The left needs to just take the L this round and work on 2028 where Trump/Biden etc are long gone out of it all.

They have pooped on the families single parent or not who want to raise a normal child that can get a job when they graduate HS. They want their children to be able to read and comprehend, do math, balance their checkbooks, and clean up after themselves. The insane asylum they have to grow up in at school has to be dismantled or this is nearly impossible. The teachers are making pacts to teach BJ's to elementary school kids behind their parents backs in some states. Not to mention the pedo like tranny shows at a local library.

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

The American experiment is over. Like I said; The stage has already been set.

Yeah, we won't go gentle into that dark night, thank you very much.

Oh, so it’s freedom for some eh?

Well the Democrats have proven that they are they way the last 12 years or so. Have they not?

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RazorV66

Did Trump destroy your way of life in his 1st term?

Not me. But he did for a lot of people.

Other than your hurting feelz, what is all the hysteria for?

No hysteria here. I've known that the American experiment has been over since 911. We're just watching the plan unfold. The stage has already been set. It doesn't matter what party wins the Oval Office, or Congress.

Who’s lives did Trump destroy?

I mean WTF?

If he did, I would love for that poster to name any of them and give details. It will be hard to do.

Now later, when those criminal swamp critters end up on that list. I won't count that. Piglosi and Hilldog, with the squad and Nadler will be getting justice served ice as cold in a slammer and then they get the heat of Gitmo and if they stay or course as they have, Hell.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

no. the court should interpret the Constitution. The legislators should represent the will of the people. I think I'm starting to understand your confusion.

If the composition of the Supreme Court was not meant to reflect the will of the people, why are they appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate? Why not just have the Judicial Branch promote from within?

The Constitution isn't the Bible. It is a document that is interpreted through the lens of a changing court, appointed by and confirmed by elected officials.

The Supreme Court isn't the final word because they're always right. They are the final word because the people consent to being governed by the people they elect and the justices those elected officials' seat.

Justices and judges of all types, are supposed to interpret the law, and in the SCOTUS case, the constitution as it relates to the law. They aren't supposed to be partisan bitches. We aren't supposed to have justices rule in favor of their political party all the time. If that's what your understanding of the courts are, you are really lost.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

No, No, No............................................

Do you realize if the Court represented the "will of the People" we would have no interracial marriage, almost no civil rights, almost no rights of criminal defendants and no gay marriage?

We have the Supreme Court so Democracy doesn't trample people's rights.

Yes, this means we sometimes have to accept Supreme Court decisions we don't like and never had before. No one liked all the left leaning decisions of the 60s and 70s. But you were ok with it back then.

The alternative is to have the Supreme Court basically be another Congress.

If you think left leaning rights are in jeopardy now, just imagine what a right leaning Congress and Present would do unchecked.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

The Judicial Branch and Congress, in their infinite wisdom, divided the United States of America into 13 legal districts. These are the 13 Circuit districts that 9 Supreme Court Justices oversee, as mandated by Congress.

I agree with poor Clarence, the workload needs to be redistributed. Seems like a good start would be the expansion of court.

Exactly how would expanding the Court reduce the workload? They all still have to hear the case and do research. Which is the majority of their work.

a reply to: Daughter2v2

Do you realize if the Court represented the "will of the People" we would have no interracial marriage, almost no civil rights, almost no rights of criminal defendants and no gay marriage?

But we do. We do because the court has been appointed by presidents, who were elected by The People, and confirmed by Senators, who were elected by The People, and therefore, the composition of the court represents the will of the people.

In other words, they aren't appointed from within the Judicial Branch, they're appointed by elected officials, politicians, to address the pressing issues of the times. Also, SCOTUS justices can be impeached by Congress.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

An honest question for you.

If you get your wish and The SCOTUS is driven by the "will" of the people but, just maybe there are 57% conservative voters compared to the 43% liberal voters.

These 57% want to end most civil right laws and make it illegal for any State to allow abortions or birth control.

Would you still be cool with the "will of the people"?

originally posted by: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

The Judicial Branch and Congress, in their infinite wisdom, divided the United States of America into 13 legal districts. These are the 13 Circuit districts that 9 Supreme Court Justices oversee, as mandated by Congress.

I agree with poor Clarence, the workload needs to be redistributed. Seems like a good start would be the expansion of court.

Exactly how would expanding the Court reduce the workload? They all still have to hear the case and do research. Which is the majority of their work.

Like the circuit courts, there would be a lottery system, if I had my way. The full court would only be summoned for certain cases, the way is in the circuit courts.

Right now, all these justices fall under the jurisdiction of 9 SCOTUS justices.

a reply to: Daughter2v2

If you get your wish and The SCOTUS is driven by the "will" of the people but, just maybe there are 57% conservative voters compared to the 43% liberal voters

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the COMPOSITION of the court should represent the will of The People. Not that the court should be swayed by popular opinion.

Right now the court is composed of a majority of conservative, because the presidents and the congresses who sat them, that The People elected, wanted conservative justices. Because the court's justices have lifelong appointments, that timeline of representation is stretched to represent generations of Americans. And that's also why I propose at least 3 decades make the transition.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

So at what point would ya'll like to talk about your plans going forward? Gavin Newsome? Hillary? Mikey Obama? What does your bench look like? Who do you call up from the minors in this case? What's your plan?

I'll vote for Biden, even if he's in a coma! Whoever the Democrats put on the ticket; I'll vote for. I'm voting for the machine, not the person. I'm voting against the other machine, and the person.

But I'm pissed off, because they've had 8 years to figure this out, after Hillary lost. They ran Joe Biden as a Hail Mary, last resort, because, I don't know why. It was his turn, I guess.

When Joe was campaigning, he made it clear that he would only serve 1 term, because you know, he's old! But the Democrats coasted, beating off attacks while never addressing the war. Now they say there's nobody else. It's almost like TPTB want it this way!

I'll vote Democrat because a vote for a Republican is a vote for Project 2025, and in my opinion, Project 2025 trashes the American experiment in favor of a fascist theocracy. But, the stage is already set.

Which begs the question…. why would you vote fur either the machine or the man ???????

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

The Judicial Branch and Congress, in their infinite wisdom, divided the United States of America into 13 legal districts. These are the 13 Circuit districts that 9 Supreme Court Justices oversee, as mandated by Congress.

I agree with poor Clarence, the workload needs to be redistributed. Seems like a good start would be the expansion of court.

Exactly how would expanding the Court reduce the workload? They all still have to hear the case and do research. Which is the majority of their work.

Like the circuit courts, there would be a lottery system, if I had my way. The full court would only be summoned for certain cases, the way is in the circuit courts.

Right now, all these justices fall under the jurisdiction of 9 SCOTUS justices.

What… you mean so that Democrat kangaroo judges can pick their favs and not deal with the conservatives? You are more transparent than you think.

originally posted by: Daughter2v2
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An honest question for you.

If you get your wish and The SCOTUS is driven by the "will" of the people but, just maybe there are 57% conservative voters compared to the 43% liberal voters.

These 57% want to end most civil right laws and make it illegal for any State to allow abortions or birth control.

Would you still be cool with the "will of the people"?

The abortion issue is in the States now sooo not likely to involve SCOTUS.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

no. the court should interpret the Constitution. The legislators should represent the will of the people. I think I'm starting to understand your confusion.

If the composition of the Supreme Court was not meant to reflect the will of the people, why are they appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate? Why not just have the Judicial Branch promote from within?

The Constitution isn't the Bible. It is a document that is interpreted through the lens of a changing court, appointed by and confirmed by elected officials.

The Supreme Court isn't the final word because they're always right. They are the final word because the people consent to being governed by the people they elect and the justices those elected officials' seat.

Justices and judges of all types, are supposed to interpret the law, and in the SCOTUS case, the constitution as it relates to the law. They aren't supposed to be partisan bitches. We aren't supposed to have justices rule in favor of their political party all the time. If that's what your understanding of the courts are, you are really lost.

Yes. What you said.