Right, one can't ever forget that there are 4 leftist ideologues on the Supreme Court right .
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Filibuster broken: Props to McConnell and the Senate for saving the High Court
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
Right, one can't ever forget that there are 4 leftist ideologues on the Supreme Court right .
What I'm asking is, can Trump still appeal some of the latest judgments against his travel restrictions? With Gorsuch, it's likely he get every one of those judgments overturned, assuming he still has the option to appeal.
He can appeal and he has a much better chance of getting the left wing judges overturned than he would with 4 leftist idealogues on the bench who have a tendency to ignore the law, the constitution , and their own precedent to rule on how they want it to be instead of ruling on what is legal and constitutional.
Got ya. Misunderstood your previous post. Thought you were referring to Sotomayor and the other 3 on the high court.
Gorsuch is supposed to take his position tomorrow at 11:30. Wonder if Trump will appeal those decisions at 11:31.
It is good news that at last the vain US Senate will be subject to majority rule. It is a step forward for Liberty and a freedom long overdue in a Republic!
Brent W
Active Member
People in this country confuse me greatly. Do people want majority rule or not? It seems it depends on which way the wind is blowing for their party. Simple majority rule was something that Republicans do not want in a Presidential election but it is ok in the Senate? Do you wish for one party to control everything, as is the case now, or do you wish to have a system that tries to find bipartisan support for issues so that all of Americans have a chance to be represented.
Americans constantly contradict themselves on what kind of political system they wish to have and it boils down to their political bias getting in the way of consistency.
The Constitution established our electoral system. It is what it is and I, for one, am happy with it.
The Senate cloture rule was just that, a Senate rule, not outlined in the Constitution at all. It was an artificial filibuster for lazy legislators. Real filibusters are still possible.
That rule has now been changed and can be changed again at the whim of the majority in the Senate.
The constitution also outlines the times when a super majority are required in Congress. I'm happy with that as well.
No confusion here at all.
The Senate cloture rule was just that, a Senate rule, not outlined in the Constitution at all. It was an artificial filibuster for lazy legislators. Real filibusters are still possible.
That rule has now been changed and can be changed again at the whim of the majority in the Senate.
The constitution also outlines the times when a super majority are required in Congress. I'm happy with that as well.
No confusion here at all.
Sounds like you're bummed Hillary didn't win. You should thank God for the electoral collage. It keeps 1 state from choosing a president for all.
Brent W
Active Member
I am trying to not take this personally because I have stated to you at least once if not twice that I did not vote for either Trump nor Hilary and support neither. Continuing to insinuate any other way is coming close to calling me a liar and I am not going to tolerate that from anyone here.
I have done my best to be respectful to everyone here in these discussions but from a select few continue to receive the kind of responses that I am quoting, which ignore statements that I have made so that continued in order to continue to goad others.
Please take the time here to review our Statement of Purpose for the political forum: Political Debate & Discussion Statement of Purpose specifically these portions as they pertain mostly to your type of posting here:
- Members who participate in the General Politics forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other. Always remember that you are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of your personal political ideology.
- When you disagree, address the context of the post and not the poster.
As per this reply:
I am against the electoral college and a popular vote. You, again, seem to come at discussions in a binary format because as with most Americans they have been conditioned to accept that things are either right or left, black or white, on or off in this country.
I personally prefer a ranked voting style system but you wouldn't know that because you assume in binary.
Oh stop with the sanctimony. I don't care who you voted for. What I see is you continually complaining that Hillary didn't win. You're even complaining about the electoral collage, now.
Maybe your emotions are betraying you. Gorsuch just got the nomination. And instead of rejoicing like a conservative you're whining about the process. What else am I supposed to conclude?
In my book, you're a political liberal. Maybe my book's wrong. Maybe my criteria is wrong, but it's my book. If that bothers you, what do you want me to do? Lie and say I believe you're a conservative? Sorry, I don't. You could try to explain why you're a conservative but you refuse. So what is it you want me to do? I'm not allowed to think or say you're a liberal? I have to use your criteria for what a conservative and a liberal is?
Or maybe you want the words conservative and liberal outlawed on the forum?
Brent W
Active Member
Unfortunately you do not understand that being unhappy with someone winning the election does not automatically mean that the other person was the one I wanted to win. This is something you must understand.
I dislike it and the popular vote. Again, you sit here and act like a computer. You accept only 1 or 0. Any other input or possibility is ignored.
My emotions are completely in check. I am not celebrating Gorsuch because of the way he was nominated. I feel like the country took the wrong path to having him elected. I dislike the way it happened. You are more than welcome to agree or disagree. I happen to take a bit less of an excited approach here because I think long term harm was done to our political system. That is my stance and opinion on the matter.
I want you to stop thinking right and left when you approach any and all discussions. It is very simple to do. When you see someone that has a different opinion on an issue than you, do not automatically assume that because that difference exists that they are opposite of you in every other way. Do not put labels on them because of a differing opinion. Hey, sometimes you might be right. Maybe they are a liberal because of x or y. However, there are some of us out there that don't fit into this conditioned political box of left or right.
Why do you believe I am a liberal? So far this is what you know of me: I did not vote for Trump or Hilary. I believe the nuclear option will do great harm long term. I do not like either the Electoral College nor the Popular Vote.
This makes me a liberal? Or does it make me a liberal I am not falling over myself to attack? I do not believe that this country should be ruled by one political ideology. It is dangerous. I believe in checks and balances. I do not agree with excessive use of executive orders that Bush, Obama and now Trump or using to promote their agendas without congressional oversight. I see this country being torn apart by Left and Right, 1 and 0, black and white and I do not support it with my vote. When I do vote, I tend to vote Libertarian or as close to it as I can get if it is a local election where our options or limited. In Alabama, sometimes I don't even get a second choice. Sometimes one person is all that managed to make the ballot.
So if me not supporting either Democrats or Republicans somehow makes me liberal, I guess I will just have to accept not understanding that.
There is nothing wrong with those words. There is something wrong with believing that those two words are the only words that can exist in a political discussion.
If that doesn't help clear it up then I don't know what will. However, if you continue to want to engage with me, at least show me the respect I deserve and stop goading me with labels. Especially labels that you deem as lower than yourself or not of a quality that you can support. It is demeaning and childish, in my opinion and not productive to any conversation to result in goading others.
That begs the question...just how do you think elections should be held? Or should there be an election at all?
Brent W
Active Member
I prefer a ranked voting system over popular and electoral college.
He answered that question in his post. He says he is for a ranked voting system which I could see benefits too. In some ways that is closer to what the founders intended, before political parties.
Now I have no problem with the electoral college, but I do think it could be tweeted a bit. I also think we should go back to states assembly electing Senators, instead of the popular vote. It would bring back one of the checks on the power of the federa lgovernment.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
How would that work?
Brent W
Active Member
Interesting.
Looks like all you need is enough support for a Constitutional Amendment. Until then, we have the system the Constitution set up and has worked pretty well for over 200 years.
Brent W
Active Member
I disagree it has worked well. Maybe better than a straight up popular vote, yes, I agree. However, it hasn't worked well. It does end up electing someone, I will give it that. Well, except for that one time the Supreme Court had to decide who won.
A presidential nomination and a senate majority vote bothers you? That steals your joy for religious liberty and a step closer to protecting the unborn. Sorry, this doesn't add up.
The only conclusion I can come to is, you're struggling with moral issues. Many of the major political issues of our day are moral issues. If you want to be apolitical, that's akin to being amoral. Becoming apolitical is probably the biggest mistake the Church has made in the last couple decades. I see the movement everywhere.
Of course, you disagree. That's a given.
Otherwise you wouldn't be advocating a new system.
And under our Constitution, you can have your way when you have enough support for that change.