2020 Election MEGAthread

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that is where Jibartik and I differ as well. I enjoy the founding fathers vision and don't think it needs to be altered yearly.

You're making it up, because I have said not one thing that is even remotely close to that.

I have said:

1. if you are anti abortion and anti mask you are just as dumb as me for being anti shutting down the economy during every flu season.
2. if you think that the democrats use the scotus to legislate but you want to elect a scotus to repeal every amendment after the 10th(idk where you stand but it sounds like that's your position?) you are 100% using the scotus to legislate.

[Pretzelle]

Imagine caring about the opinion of people who lived 300 years ago to make decisions about today's society.

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by Pretzelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine caring about the opinion of people who lived 300 years ago to make decisions about today's society.

Go watch Fiddler on the Roof you child

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by Pretzelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine caring about the opinion of people who lived 300 years ago to make decisions about today's society.

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that ‘We might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy as expect future generations to live under’ — what he called — ‘the regime of their barbarous ancestors,'” Buttigieg added.

“So even the founders that these kind of dead hand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today’s judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.”

[Pretzelle]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gay Pete would win this election in a landslide. The DNC is really, really, really bad at their job.

Pete contends The Constitution is a living document. This is a split in the road for many, I do not believe it is a living document, he does. He's entitled to that and that is where Jibartik and I differ as well. I enjoy the founding fathers vision and don't think it needs to be altered yearly.

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go watch Fiddler on the Roof you child

You're the one believing in fairy tales, buddy.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If one political party, packs the court with their ideology, we need balance, we need the other side.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point that was being made was the democrats were trying to pack the courts because they believe in legislating with the SCOTUS: However if you think the SCOTUS should vote to overturn roe v wade, then you are the one that is trying to use the court to legislate, not the other way around. In this case, it is the Democrats that are trying to uphold the constitution.

I also think the ultimate irony is that one would think a fetus should be protected by re-interoperating the constitution, but not think Americans should be asked to wear masks during a national emergency.

None of the ideas are consistent. And yall make post after post after post about how the left is hypocritical because it doesn't want to make everyone live in prisons for all eternity to avoid the flu.

Ok so for consistency's sake let's first agree on what court packing is.

Court stacking is where you appoint judges that favor your ideology and/or party affiliation. So your claim is that the Republicans are trying to stack the courts. The point about Democrats trying to pack the courts refers to their declared gambit of expanding the court size and then stacking it.

Packing is much worse than just stacking. If you stack you're still playing by the rules both sides established. Like everyone agrees on nine and then tries to appoint their judges when they can. But if you pack it's like you're saying when it's my turn, I'm going to expand the court size and then stack it with my judges so you won't have a chance in hell of getting any decisions your way. Like instead of waiting for a justice to die, you just appoint more because you can.

Both parties stack the courts when they can. It's the privilege of power to appoint judges and for a long time it's been understood that's what you do when you can. By throwing the whole court-packing hissy fit, the Democrats painted themselves as destructive children kicking the game table over. Embarrassed they are now using the word "packing" to mean something else so they can accuse Republicans of doing something the Democrats do under another name.

Propaganda examples:

"The American people have watched the Republicans packing the court for the past three and a half years," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"It constitutes court-packing," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation

"The only court-packing that's going on right now is going on with Republicans packing the court now, it's not constitutional what they're doing," Biden said. "The only packing going on is this court that they packed now by the Republicans."

All these people know exactly how the term court-packing has been used for a hundred years and they try to change it to blame others.

Wow language can sure be dynamic in a hurry!

So to recap:

Republicans and Democracts = court stacking = eh.
Democrats = court packing = super bad!

Now that we established that the prime mouthpieces of the Democrat party are conniving and inveterate liars, let's move on to abortion.

Or specifically legislating from the bench. What Republicans object to is exactly that. The judges we want are originalists. This means that the judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the intent of the original writers of the law and if they have to go that far back, what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. We don't want textualists, who interpret the law as if written contemporaneously, according to what the words mean now. Democrats like those because Democrats are cowardly and lazy. Allow me to explain:

If you have a originalist judicial system, that forces the lawmakers to be on the ball. They have to carefully consider their legislation and they have to update it. Very importantly they have to debate it and take a public stance. That's because the Supreme Court isn't going to go hmmm well they could have meant this or that and then jump through some hoops to keep the law valid. They're going to say your law is defective and now rewrite it or it doesn't apply.

Let me give you an example; just this year the idiot Gorsuch joined the majority in writing this garbage:

“In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

He equates "sex" with being gay or transgender. When Congress instituted Title VII – which prohibits employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin – as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1975, the word "sex" in very clear in the language of the day was used meaning biological gender, nothing more, nothing less. But the Court redefined "sex" essentially changing the law or legislating from the bench. It sure works for cowardly and lazy legislators who spend 85% of their time fundraising anyway but principled people oppose it.

In the Republican-favored originalist scenario, the Court would have rejected Gorsuch's stance and rejected Title VII protection for gays and transgenders and that would have been the case until Congress decided to specifically change the language of the law.

Because we oppose legislating from the bench we are portrayed as hating on the gays or whoever the courts are trying to 'help-out'. But we love the gays! We just want Congress to write the laws and write them clearly and often. We want the Courts to limit themselves to good dog/bad dog criticisms, we don't need them to teach us new tricks.

Oh abortion, right!

So yeah same thing. I mean I am glad that my personal view on abortion aligns with my principled stand against judicial activism, meaning fighting against the latter will make the former much harder to obtain. Don't think that I would stop fighting against textualism or juridical legislation even if it meant advancing abortion's cause, as distasteful as that might be as long as the Constitution was upheld and the framework under which this nation has been working under is honored.

[Pretzelle]

Stacking and Packing is the only thing that will save this country from a generation of regression. Hope that helps.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok so for consistency's sake let's first agree on what court packing is.

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once your opponent sinks to semantics, you know you’ve reached the depth of their ability. Take note kids.

lol I win again. OT is easy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fact: Court packing in this context, and the reason it was brought up, why it was asked during the debates, and everything releated to the phrase in conversation = increasing the scotus to 11 judges.

[Jibartik]

I'm skimming your post BB because its very long!

One thing you claim is that court packing is bad and we all agree on 9 judges?

Whos we? Nobody has agree'd to that. Weve changed the number from 5 to 10 many times. John Addams Didn't agree. TD Roosevelt didn't agree. The constitution doesn't say either. And and it's been as low as 5. They passed an act to lower it to 7 but never did and then just bumped it up to 9.

You say stacking is less bad than packing, but you're going to have to explain that, because you dont. If you ask 9 republicans if we should enforce prayer at school theyre going to enforce prayer at school. If it was all democrats in there yall would be at re-neducation right now. So why would you think a court stacked by evangelicals is a good idea too?

The power becomes imbalanced and one political ideology is able to take control of the country, to the dismay of half the country. It's not right, its far worse than "packing" even they way you define it.

You need to defend the claim that packing = worse than stacking, because Im calling you out, it's not true.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or specifically legislating from the bench. What Republicans object to is exactly that. The judges we want are originalists. This means that the judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the intent of the original writers of the law and if they have to go that far back, what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. We don't want textualists, who interpret the law as if written contemporaneously, according to what the words mean now. Democrats like those because Democrats are cowardly and lazy. Allow me to explain:

If you have a originalist judicial system, that forces the lawmakers to be on the ball. They have to carefully consider their legislation and they have to update it. Very importantly they have to debate it and take a public stance. That's because the Supreme Court isn't going to go hmmm well they could have meant this or that and then jump through some hoops to keep the law valid. They're going to say your law is defective and now rewrite it or it doesn't apply.

OK so you also affirm that we should repeal all amendments besides the first 10? Or are you against the bill of rights too?

Although I find any of these arguments to be dubious because just a few pages ago you said the opposite of ALL of this, and said that you wanted the republicans to appoint judges because they are the ones that protect the sanctity of life.

This stands in stark contrast to everything you wrote in your recent post :

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is why I and other Republicans object to Roe v. Wade. Not because it legalized abortion. No one in their right mind understands abortion can be completely banned. It's because it legalized abortion for convenience as a matter of privacy and said yes this is Constitutional and proper. We disagree. If you want to have your abortions you need to come up with a better reason