Is it a court, or our new junta? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15236783
late wrote:
They're making it so they can cheat enough at the state level that they won't need to.



'They' -- ?

Aren't you some kind of *insider* -- ?

You're merely going along with the establishment hand-wringing over this, instead of being more like Liz Cheney, at least.
#15236785
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a risk I take *every time* I write. (grin)



late wrote:
A lot of the guys can't.

I can, but it's a waste of time.



Everything that can be expressed, can be fully depicted in either words or pictures -- Wilde, as I recall.
#15236790
ckaihatsu wrote:It's a risk I take *every time* I write. (grin)

It wasn't like that the last time, you were comprehensible. What's changed since then? Maybe you take something else than risk too sometimes? Or rather regularly perhaps.
#15236792
Beren wrote:
It wasn't like that the last time, you were comprehensible. What's changed since then? Maybe you take something else than risk too sometimes? Or rather regularly perhaps.



Hey, you're not laughing-along, so *whatever* to you.

If you want a *specific* response from me you're going to have to provide *specifics*. All *you're* doing is belly-aching over wording, for friction (to make 'political hay').

Back on-topic, it's obvious now that there's *no representation* in the (bourgeois) government for any abortion rights or anti-fascism.
#15236796
late wrote:They're making it so they can cheat enough at the state level that they won't need to.



Oh? Tell me more about this cheating. :D


Several NYC Election Sites Had 'No Republican Ballots' During Last Week's Primary

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyc ... y-election
#15236797
ckaihatsu wrote:And now you're proving my point.

If you'll *excuse* me, please.

What's your point? I only mean to convince you to use plain human English. Are you able and willing to do that?
#15236800
Beren wrote:
What's your point? I only mean to convince you to use plain human English. Are you able and willing to do that?



I'm going to have to call you 'Mister' now.

Okay, Mr. Beren, I am able and willing to use plain human English.

Where are you going for your victory party?
#15236802
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm going to have to call you 'Mister' now.

Okay, Mr. Beren, I am able and willing to use plain human English.

If you need to call me mister for that, so be it. You should rephrase your previous posts in plane human English perhaps.
#15236803
Beren wrote:
If you need to call me mister for that, so be it. You should rephrase your previous posts in plane human English perhaps.



As I said before, the possibility of your not-comprehending is a risk I'm willing to take. Have a seat.
#15236806
Beren wrote:
If you need to call me mister for that, so be it. You should rephrase your previous posts in plane human English perhaps.



Doubt he could, if he wanted to. He likes his castle in the cloud..
#15236807
Beren wrote:
If you need to call me mister for that, so be it. You should rephrase your previous posts in plane human English perhaps.



late wrote:
Doubt he could, if he wanted to. He likes his castle in the cloud..



At least you're both taking a stand. It's more than *many* do these days.

Here's the purported 'castle in the cloud' (Miyazaki, right?) (grin), in black-and-white:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15236817
ckaihatsu wrote:
the three branches of the U.S. government are quite *detached* and *institutionalized*, away from the political sentiment / demands of the people



viewtopic.php?p=15236605#p15236605



---



Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito said of the disparity between the people's needs and the SCOTUS decision, "The judicial branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights."



https://mailchi.mp/fightbacknews.org/20 ... de79fb44fe
#15236911
ckaihatsu wrote:ckaihatsu wrote:

the three branches of the U.S. government are quite *detached* and *institutionalized*, away from the political sentiment / demands of the people

viewtopic.php?p=15236605#p15236605

---

Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito said of the disparity between the people's needs and the SCOTUS decision, "The judicial branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights."

https://mailchi.mp/fightbacknews.org/20 ... de79fb44fe


While I sort of agree with Alito when it comes to new issues that he needs to vote based on his best view of the case, I totally disagree with him when it comes to overturning precedents and throwing out stari decisis. He is just asserting that all the Repub Justices who voted for those precedents were totally wrong when they voted in what Alito asserts was an agregiously wrong way.

Besides which, those 3 to 5 all stated under oath to get that lifetime job that they would not think like that. And then the 1st chance they got, they did think like that. They should be impeached. Convicted. And, replaced.

Or, since that is impossible, the court should be unpacked.

.
#15237022
Steve_American wrote:
While I sort of agree with Alito when it comes to new issues that he needs to vote based on his best view of the case, I totally disagree with him when it comes to overturning precedents and throwing out stari decisis. He is just asserting that all the Repub Justices who voted for those precedents were totally wrong when they voted in what Alito asserts was an agregiously wrong way.

Besides which, those 3 to 5 all stated under oath to get that lifetime job that they would not think like that. And then the 1st chance they got, they did think like that. They should be impeached. Convicted. And, replaced.

Or, since that is impossible, the court should be unpacked.

.



'Unpacked' is a bit *vague*, though -- you're suggesting *reformism* of some kind, as though a little turn of a screw or bolt here or there would put everything back as it should be.

*I* happen to read this treatment as 'justices can be reactionary idealists once appointed, if they like', so obviously it's a *systemic* issue. I don't think there's any real reformist way-forward at this point, despite your vague reformist sentiments.

It's a *class institution*, representing *class* interests, to oppress women (etc.), so there has to be a *class* response -- anything else now, as from international populist movements, is just too lacking for historically-underdeveloped countries, and now demonstrably for the U.S. as well. (Banana-republic-type realities in the First World.)


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image
#15237154
ckaihatsu wrote:'Unpacked' is a bit *vague*, though -- you're suggesting *reformism* of some kind, as though a little turn of a screw or bolt here or there would put everything back as it should be.

*I* happen to read this treatment as 'justices can be reactionary idealists once appointed, if they like', so obviously it's a *systemic* issue. I don't think there's any real reformist way-forward at this point, despite your vague reformist sentiments.

It's a *class institution*, representing *class* interests, to oppress women (etc.), so there has to be a *class* response -- anything else now, as from international populist movements, is just too lacking for historically-underdeveloped countries, and now demonstrably for the U.S. as well. (Banana-republic-type realities in the First World.)


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image


I'm surprised that you don't know the history of "packing" the USSC. FDR threatened to do it, and the court improved. And, he didn't have to votes to do it.

OK, "packing the court" refers to adding Justices to the SC to change the majority vote when you don't like the current majority for some reason. I'm following those who have asserted that the Repuds have packed the court by violating norms to steal 2 Justice's seats from Dem Presidents. And, every Repud Justice on the court now lied to the Senate to get confirmed.

Sir, unpacking the court will be hard enough. Rewriting the Constitution is totally off the table.

However, I'm open to ideas. I have suggested that we return to the system that required a 2/3 vote to confirm Justices and maybe Judges. There would need to be a tiebreaker rule. though. The Repuds have already shown a willingness to refuse to confirm anyone. There needs to be a way around that somehow.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 06 Jul 2022 14:58, edited 1 time in total.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So, Coca Cola reported loss of cca 200M USD due to[…]

https://youtu.be/9Gp-_ZsUagc https://youtu.be/8-J[…]

Why is Ireland so rich?

Because it’s full of smart Irish people.

Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

The DOJ and FBI should release the affidavits they[…]