Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope. I want no part of what Biden and his crew have to offer....SERIOUSLY! All you that think old man joe is the best, go follow him and do what he dictates. That's not how I want to live.
Split the country 100%. Let all the illegal border jumpers go with old man joe. He can also take all the riff raff that came in with all of them. I want nothing to do with the corrupt old geezer.
You think they will let you and people like you exist after they have total power? Look at how someone gets destroyed just for saying something that they don't like.
But now, with this radical left-wing dem party we have - which is not the same dem part we used to have - the fear is that the dems will pass legislation, which will then be approved by SCOTUS.
Repealing the 2nd A, repealing right-to-work laws, cutting/defunding police (we already see what affect this has had), reparations for slavery, open borders, DC statehood, giving people who are here illegally the right to vote, and on. Some of these things can/will lead to one-party rule, and there is the problem. Goodbye to balance.
You mention repealing the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court can't do that. It has only been done once when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It would require a new amendment. The Constitution requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
How would the Supreme Court defund police? They are funded by local governments.
We will never have an open border with Mexico.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with making Washington D.C. a state. It will take 60 votes in the Senate.
I could go on, but none of these things have anything to do with one party rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yspobo
You think they will let you and people like you exist after they have total power? Look at how someone gets destroyed just for saying something that they don't like.
Who is the "they" you are referring to? Who got destroyed?
You mention repealing the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court can't do that. It has only been done once when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It would require a new amendment. The Constitution requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
How would the Supreme Court defund police? They are funded by local governments.
We will never have an open border with Mexico.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with making Washington D.C. a state. It will take 60 votes in the Senate.
I could go on, but none of these things have anything to do with one party rule.
You make it sound as tho I said the courts would do these things. I never said that.
It has long been the thought, if not in practice, that there should be one Justice for each Circuit for emergency appeals and such.
We have nine Justices, and thirteen districts.
Either we 1) raise the number of Justices to meet the number of districts, or 2) we reduce the current districts to nine.
Laymen don't realize that each Justice is in charge of a district; a few Justices are in charge of two or more (since we have nine justices for 13 districts).
I have not heard of one attorney that is in favor of reducing the number of districts. Indeed, you often read of attorneys hating that, for instance, the ninth district covers such a large, disparate part of the western coast, as well as Alaska and Hawaii.
You make it sound as tho I said the courts would do these things. I never said that.
You stated, "the dems will pass legislation, which will then be approved by SCOTUS." SCOTUS does not approve legislation. They only rule on the constitutionality of laws.
Slim to none is correct - as long as 60 votes is needed. If that changes...
It's not the number. It's the fact that Biden will nominate four justices, and if they get confirmed (I think it's a simple maj) that gives the maj to the dems/left. Which in olden times (just a few years ago) would be fine. SCOTUS dem/left maj or SCOTUS rep/right maj; not that big a deal. Maybe on a few issues/cases here and there, but overall, no. Balance is a good thing.
But now, with this radical left-wing dem party we have - which is not the same dem part we used to have - the fear is that the dems will pass legislation, which will then be approved by SCOTUS.
Repealing the 2nd A, repealing right-to-work laws, cutting/defunding police (we already see what affect this has had), reparations for slavery, open borders, DC statehood, giving people who are here illegally the right to vote, and on. Some of these things can/will lead to one-party rule, and there is the problem. Goodbye to balance.
The expectation is they’ll use the argument there are 13 circuits and should be 13 judges to abolish the filibuster so they only need 51 votes for this to pass.
If this passes and goes to the Senate and becomes law . . .
Goodbye to what wasthe United States of America.
The country is already gone. But this bill would make it more obvious that it was gone.
In reality, it doesn’t matter. It’s over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.