Meanwhile Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital.
@Sexy Homunculus, The crone should hurry up and make her way to the grave. She's a walking corpse at this point.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, hey man thats not nice. You shouldnt wish death upon your political enemies
@CocoasBro, You're right that's a little harsh. The Democrats need to stop propping up a corpse and bury it already.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, i agree with the sentiment and the feelings but we have to be better than them. More tactful.😃
@Ze Grammar Nazi, she is the only thing keeping this country together, when she goes this country will plunge into fascism
@Landrover, Lol. What a farce. Fascism is a far left ideology along with socialism, Nazism, and communism. Trump is a capitalist, farthest thing from any form of centrally planned economy. If you wanna see fascists, look at antifa. They are the useful idiots of the far left. They dress in black, they threaten injury or destruction if they don't have their ideological way, the very same things that happened in Italy. If Trump loses we really will fall to fascism.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, wooooow you know antifa means anti fascist you moron! And trim is clearly fascist, he is trying to be like Hitler, I don’t think you have any understanding about politics, you only know what faux news tells you to know
@Landrover, Names do not make the people. They claim anti fascism but practice it themselves. Trump is nowhere close to fascistic. You drank a little too much cool aid. And I don't watch mainstream news, they all lie. I go through and research everything on my own, and come to my own conclusions. Unlike some people who can't seem to see past their TDS. Trump was only called fascist and racist and bigoted by the corporate news media AFTER they figured out he could actually win. If you honestly think that a president trying to restore law and order into cities that have fallen to far left rioting is fascist, you are so ignorant it borders on willful stupidity.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, if you support trump then you are a racist white supremacist, and you are ok supporting a pedophile and a rapist
@Landrover, Drank the cool aid indeed. Those insults have been thrown around so much they have lost all meaning. And the only pedophiles and rapists I've seen in politics are on the left. How about stepping out your far left echo chamber, and actually talking with someone you disagree with. It will expand your horizons a bit. And stop insulting people just because they don't agree with you. That's never a good way to try and change minds.
@Landrover, And next time, actually address my points and not go straight to insults. You're making that NPC meme into reality.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, political views can be two dimensional. You can be an authoritarian socialist (Hitler), which means yes he was technically a leftist with his economic ideas, but he was fascist with his government rule.
@shake n blake, But economic freedom is inherently free of government tyranny.
@CocoasBro, Just browsing random. This conversation did not age well.
Cuck it is!
@Finndogs, something stupid, I'm sure.
@Finndogs, From The Hill, “Conservative lawmakers blasted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after he sided with the court's liberal wing in a 5-4 decision Friday that rejected a Nevada church's request to block the state government from enforcing a cap on attendance at religious services.”
Maybe it’s that? Justice Roberts is usually the swing vote now on the US Supreme Court.
@wtninja, I wonder how the state plans on enforcing that
@wtninja, Its crazy to me that judges are put in place via political means. Apolitical Judiciary is one of the foundations of democracy imo.
@bonja, the idea is to prevent aristocracy. In England powerful families would be able to afford the law training and scholarship that others couldn't, cementing their hold as they would have one branch of the family be the lord, the other the judge (sometimes both) to rubber stamp him. Because of that we decided to make it passed by the Senate, where they must be approved, and selected by the executive, who must be elected. Better it be stacked by political fortunes that rise and fall than families that dominate for generations. Nowadays it makes less sense since you now have the same legacy families in all of them of course, but it was also meant to just hold it off as long as possible and provide an IN for new blood, which it still does. Example Trump, who no insider was predicting.
@thrawnfett, I'm from Scotland and our law system is different from the British system mostly... however can say that thankfully now that the issue of "dynastic judges" hasn't been a thing for an extremely long time well over 100-200 years. Exectuative, legastive and judiciary should always be seperate otherwise you risk corruption.
I think that by allowing political forces to be the deciding factor in the weight of the judiciaries descion making on political lines is frankly an abuse of power.
Its interesting to see though how other countries do things. A thing that really bothers me though in both my country and others is how our system of government are antiquated yet we cling onto them as if they are some sort of gold standard.
@bonja, to the first that's true, the main issue being the system was set up 244 years ago, firmly when they WERE a major issue. The solution was to break them up immediately, then hold them off long enough to reassemble some fairness. The long term goal was also accomplished by permanently forcing a mechanism to allow outsiders into the tent, one of the ways that power consolidation even happened was by them all keeping it in the same aristocracy. As to political forces, thats a perfectly rational end position to have. The only real arguments are how do you get there from here without opening up new avenues of abuse? The current system of Check and Balances isn't so much to stop abuse as to make it impossible for one to completely win, when one can't run roughshod over the other 2, the others can balance them back out. As to the last, there's another reasonable discussion there of course. But when talking about millions of lives, tradition is of course safest since it worked already.
@thrawnfett, Problem is though while i conceed that the checks and balances keep a relative balance... it still is unequal. Now a while pure equilibrium between these "bodies" is essentially impossible it could be done better. We have new tools, ways of thinking and technology that allow us to move closer to have a more stable strong foundation for governance.
As for tradition. Its true we seek safety in what we know, its fair to want that. But overall it impeads progress. The reason why humans are the most evolved species and are able to live anywhere is because of our intelligence and adaptability. We have to not cling to things that we know we can improve otherwise we impead progress and inveitably stagnate and fail. I know it seems a bit conveluted and contrived for this argument but it holds merit. Progress and change is success, we should always seek to improve.
@bonja, thats true, and the entire discussion can best be summed up by "perfect is the enemy of good". Things can and should be improved, the problem is perfect is a shifting target no one will ever completely agree on. Massive changes towards perfect for some would be drastic disasters for others. When you change a piece at a time, though slow it gives the best chance of upholding stability. When you're building a house of cards for an example, do you try to do 5 cards at once, or one or two at a time? 5 would reach the goal of your perfect house quicker, but each time you must get all 5 perfect or the entire thing comes down. One or two will be slower, and it can still all crash down anyway, but your odds are increased since you don't have to worry about card 4 knocking down card 1. On the national scale, those cards are all each millions of lives though. Its also hard for someone that wants to do 5 at a time or even more to see anything less than 5 as even building the same house.
@thrawnfett, oh totally agree you can't do it all at once that just creates instabilty. My issue is I feel that well certainly for the UK and USA governance improvement has stagnanted. While things like technology, civil rights and standard of living has constant been moving in the right direction our governance change had been either lackluster or non-existant. The issue now is its starting to fall behind the rest of the afformentioned improving factors. This is how we are facing major issues of political discontent/ apathy especially by the youth in these highly developed countries because it just isn't keeping up. The more it lags behind the more obvious it becomes it is not fit for purpose and in an ironic twist that creates the instabilty that holding onto tradtional practices aims to eliminate
“... any questions?”