SCOTUS replacement for RBG

Ivy Mike

Member
After the Kavanaugh hearings I wouldn’t care if Trump dug up the corpse of Pol Pot and nominated it for SCOTUS. The rules of normal conduct are out the window Democrats need to be punished.
So you're going to forget that Mitch McConnell held up a supreme court nominee despite the constitution requiring him to bring it to the senate, for more than 9 months?
That Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans declared they would acquit Trump before even receiving the articles of impeachment?

You have to be joking with your nonsense about Kavanaugh (who perjured himself btw)
The Republicans are desperate because they know a sweep will change the electoral map in 2021.
 

Elkins45

Member
So you're going to forget that Mitch McConnell held up a supreme court nominee despite the constitution requiring him to bring it to the senate, for more than 9 months?
That Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans declared they would acquit Trump before even receiving the articles of impeachment?

You have to be joking with your nonsense about Kavanaugh (who perjured himself btw)
The Republicans are desperate because they know a sweep will change the electoral map in 2021.
You must not have comprehended the part where I said the rules all went out the window. And do you have some sort of inside information to know that Kavanaugh did in fact perjure himself or are you just parroting the DNC/CNN narrative?
 

Ivy Mike

Member
You must not have comprehended the part where I said the rules all went out the window. And do you have some sort of inside information to know that Kavanaugh did in fact perjure himself or are you just parroting the DNC/CNN narrative?
I watched the hearing. I heard him contradict earlier statements.
But I guess that raises the pertinent question:

If the rules went out the window and you don't care who threw them out, it seems you're happy to use this new rule-set to punish democrats. But are you OK with the Democrats engaging in the same behavior to punish Republicans? Because it goes both ways when elections turn majorities.
The reason for rules is to stop punitive behavior and keep functional government.

I mean, I'd be happy to see American conservatism go the way of the bronze axe. It's really the only reason the USA has fallen into being a post-capitalistic joke and a 2nd rate power. But I won't support disenfranchisement or discrimination against a group because of their personal political beliefs. That's the reason we maintain rules and protections so that American democracy is actually functional.
Ignoring rules leads to civil war.
 
Last edited:

Elkins45

Member
I watched the hearing. I heard him contradict earlier statements.
But I guess that raises the pertinent question:

If the rules went out the window and you don't care who threw them out, it seems you're happy to use this new rule-set to punish democrats. But are you OK with the Democrats engaging in the same behavior to punish Republicans? Because it goes both ways when elections turn majorities.
The reason for rules is to stop punitive behavior and keep functional government.

I mean, I'd be happy to see American conservatism go the way of the bronze axe. It's really the only reason the USA has fallen back into being a post-capitalistic joke and a 2nd rate power. But I won't support disenfranchisement or discrimination against a group because of their personal political beliefs.
From your earlier post it seems like you’re perfectly OK with discriminating against groups because their personal religious beliefs.

American capitalism was the reason we became a first rate power to begin with. It was only with the rise of post World War II liberalism that America began to decline.
 

Ivy Mike

Member
From your earlier post it seems like you’re perfectly OK with discriminating against groups because their personal religious beliefs.

American capitalism was the reason we became a first rate power to begin with. It was only with the rise of post World War II liberalism that America began to decline.
Not voting for someone because of their religious beliefs is not discrimination. Not allowing them to practice those beliefs is. Barrett is free to practice her radical christianity all she wants. But pushing it on others via judicial decisions is not OK. It's a similar reason I don't vote for conservatives in most cases, because their policies are bad for the average citizen and do not represent the desires of most American voters. We as a people, do not want to live in a theocracy.

Yeah, all that rugged individualistic capitalism sure did a lot. From building railroads on land granted by government, using taxpayer dollars. Spending trillions of tax dollars on R&D projects and giving the technology away to private firms (see: nuclear power, aeronautics, radar, chemistry, medical science, the internet, etc.)
And what did that evil post war liberalism get us? Only the social programs that lifted millions out of poverty, and the longest period of economic growth the country had ever seen.
 

Elkins45

Member
Not voting for someone because of their religious beliefs is not discrimination. Not allowing them to practice those beliefs is. Barrett is free to practice her radical christianity all she wants. But pushing it on others via judicial decisions is not OK. It's a similar reason I don't vote for conservatives in most cases, because their policies are bad for the average citizen and do not represent the desires of most American voters. We as a people, do not want to live in a theocracy.

Yeah, all that rugged individualistic capitalism sure did a lot. From building railroads on land granted by government, using taxpayer dollars. Spending trillions of tax dollars on R&D projects and giving the technology away to private firms (see: nuclear power, aeronautics, radar, chemistry, medical science, the internet, etc.)
And what did that evil post war liberalism get us? Only the social programs that lifted millions out of poverty, and the longest period of economic growth the country had ever seen.
LBJ’s great society didn’t lift anyone out of poverty. Poverty rates are virtually unchanged since the 60’s. I grew up in one of those places that supposedly benefited from these programs you admire so much. My hometown actually appeared in a British newspaper article entitled “America’s Poorest White Town” so don’t try to sell me the BS that the War on Poverty has been anymore successful than the War on Drugs. Poverty won.
 

Ivy Mike

Member
LBJ’s great society didn’t lift anyone out of poverty. Poverty rates are virtually unchanged since the 60’s. I grew up in one of those places that supposedly benefited from these programs you admire so much. My hometown actually appeared in a British newspaper article entitled “America’s Poorest White Town” so don’t try to sell me the BS that the War on Poverty has been anymore successful than the War on Drugs. Poverty won.
You don't think heavy state subsidies in higher education lifted anyone out of poverty? And while I guess it was prewar, social security was responsible for cutting senior poverty in half. One single social program, 50% cut in poverty. And seeing as Medicare covers seniors in the years of their lives where they have the highest medical expenses, I'd say LBJ's great society has some pretty rousing successes to its credit.
You also have items like the National School Lunch Act signed by Truman in 1946.

Like it or not, many of the modern things we take for granted, came from heavy government spending. Nearly every major drug on the market today, has public funding and/or research attached to it. Right now, at this very moment, the US government and foreign governments are dumping buckets of money into Coronavirus vaccine research. Anyone who has taken SSRIs for their mental health, has the NIH to thank for it.

Why do you think we spend so much on defense? You think a private company was going to pay to develop, test and launch a couple dozen satellites into orbit just so the US (and later the whole world) can locate themselves anywhere on Earth, for free? The US DoD did that, and GPS has become critical to our lives. Biofuels that make up and ever-increasing part of our fuel supply are here thanks to ARPA-E and public money. We wouldn't even have nuclear power if the US Navy hadn't paid the first mover costs to make it happen. Even today, the reactors that produce 20% of our electrical power while emitting no CO2, CO, Methane or NOx are larger scaled up versions of submarine reactors.

Decry the evil socialism all you like, but everyone's lives are better because of it.
 

Elkins45

Member
You don't think heavy state subsidies in higher education lifted anyone out of poverty? And while I guess it was prewar, social security was responsible for cutting senior poverty in half. One single social program, 50% cut in poverty. And seeing as Medicare covers seniors in the years of their lives where they have the highest medical expenses, I'd say LBJ's great society has some pretty rousing successes to its credit.
You also have items like the National School Lunch Act signed by Truman in 1946.

Like it or not, many of the modern things we take for granted, came from heavy government spending. Nearly every major drug on the market today, has public funding and/or research attached to it. Right now, at this very moment, the US government and foreign governments are dumping buckets of money into Coronavirus vaccine research. Anyone who has taken SSRIs for their mental health, has the NIH to thank for it.

Why do you think we spend so much on defense? You think a private company was going to pay to develop, test and launch a couple dozen satellites into orbit just so the US (and later the whole world) can locate themselves anywhere on Earth, for free? The US DoD did that, and GPS has become critical to our lives. Biofuels that make up and ever-increasing part of our fuel supply are here thanks to ARPA-E and public money. We wouldn't even have nuclear power if the US Navy hadn't paid the first mover costs to make it happen. Even today, the reactors that produce 20% of our electrical power while emitting no CO2, CO, Methane or NOx are larger scaled up versions of submarine reactors.

Decry the evil socialism all you like, but everyone's lives are better because of it.
Oh, so you’re one of those “if you drive on public roads or have a fire department you’re a socialist” types. The Manhattan Project wasn’t done for the public good unless you consider winning WW2 a social program.

We’re wasting our time here. We aren’t going to agree or sway each other.
 

Ivy Mike

Member
Oh, so you’re one of those “if you drive on public roads or have a fire department you’re a socialist” types. The Manhattan Project wasn’t done for the public good unless you consider winning WW2 a social program.

We’re wasting our time here. We aren’t going to agree or sway each other.
Not at all. I wouldn't even consider myself a socialist. But I'm not going to deny the good that hefty social spending provides for society. We can see the benefits of socialized medical insurance schemes in other 1st world nations.

I mean, we have watched China go from a poor nation that was barely industrialized and still heavily agrarian in the 1960s, to an industrial and technological powerhouse just 30 years later. It's a world leader in all sorts of manufacturing, technology, medicine, etc.
Russia pulled the same trick. Russia was the world's only remaining feudal system before WW1. By WW2, it was an industrialized nation. By the end of the 1940s, they built their own atomic bomb (albeit with our designs) and by the end of the 1950s they were the first in space. They built their first electronic computer in 1950.

I consider the US Military a massive social program, the largest single such program.
 

Selena

Member
Not at all. I wouldn't even consider myself a socialist. But I'm not going to deny the good that hefty social spending provides for society. We can see the benefits of socialized medical insurance schemes in other 1st world nations.

I mean, we have watched China go from a poor nation that was barely industrialized and still heavily agrarian in the 1960s, to an industrial and technological powerhouse just 30 years later. It's a world leader in all sorts of manufacturing, technology, medicine, etc.
Russia pulled the same trick. Russia was the world's only remaining feudal system before WW1. By WW2, it was an industrialized nation. By the end of the 1940s, they built their own atomic bomb (albeit with our designs) and by the end of the 1950s they were the first in space. They built their first electronic computer in 1950.

I consider the US Military a massive social program, the largest single such program.
While I will not deny the huge leaps of both the Soviet Union in the 40's or China since the 60's keep in mind that advancement came at the price of the blood of their citizens. Germany in the 30's was also an economic wreck until they embraced the National Socialist party.
 

Ivy Mike

Member
While I will not deny the huge leaps of both the Soviet Union in the 40's or China since the 60's keep in mind that advancement came at the price of the blood of their citizens. Germany in the 30's was also an economic wreck until they embraced the National Socialist party.
This is also true. Hence the reason preserving democracy is so important and why fascists absolutely hate it.

I hear about the tyranny of the majority a lot but as your example points out, it's more often than not, the minority powers that inflict the most damage. The USSR and China could not have risen the way they did without the ability to just do whatever the hell the powerful few in government wanted to do.
 

ZeeM

New member
My 2c piece - from the outside. I would like to think that the point of a court is to resolve disputes in a fair and unbiased manner. Not leaning to the left or to the right. The laws as they are written. The laws may be faulty but that is no fault of the judiciary. Any person that allows their religious (or other biases) to dictate their judicial opinions should not be a judge. Hell, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. In any country. It's as simple as that. But life is never simple is it??
 

Ivy Mike

Member
arbiter.gif
 

Selena

Member
This is also true. Hence the reason preserving democracy is so important and why fascists absolutely hate it.

I hear about the tyranny of the majority a lot but as your example points out, it's more often than not, the minority powers that inflict the most damage. The USSR and China could not have risen the way they did without the ability to just do whatever the hell the powerful few in government wanted to do.
Keep in mind that despite Hitler's "dirty tricks" the majority of Germans approved of his government. He provided employment and made the trains run on time. Also keep in mind that it was a minority that was opposed to the excesses of Lenin and Stalin. In those minorities were dealt with quickly. As I said before, socialism – even democratic socialism – can only be maintained by violence. Every country is going to have its equivalent of the kulaks in each country can find a gulag suitable for reeducation. We need to get away from the idea of democracy and back to the reality that we are a constitutional republic. It is our Constitution that protects our freedoms, not the ballot box. Once democracy is declared, the Constitution is no more legal effect than the Declaration of Independence.
 

Ivy Mike

Member
Keep in mind that despite Hitler's "dirty tricks" the majority of Germans approved of his government. He provided employment and made the trains run on time. Also keep in mind that it was a minority that was opposed to the excesses of Lenin and Stalin. In those minorities were dealt with quickly. As I said before, socialism – even democratic socialism – can only be maintained by violence. Every country is going to have its equivalent of the kulaks in each country can find a gulag suitable for reeducation. We need to get away from the idea of democracy and back to the reality that we are a constitutional republic. It is our Constitution that protects our freedoms, not the ballot box. Once democracy is declared, the Constitution is no more legal effect than the Declaration of Independence.
Hitler was not voted in by a majority though and enacted a number of parliamentary rules to exclude opponents from government. You can't really call his party and its tactics, democratic. Hitler combined the offices of chancellor and president, effectively appointing himself supreme leader of Germany. Hitler knew the only way to secure his power was to eliminate the checks on that power, provided by democracy.

I don't get why people keep pushing this view that Democracy and a Republic are somehow opposing forces. They aren't the same things. A republic is a nation that does not have a hereditary head of state. That is the most simple definition; we are a Republic because we are not a Monarchy. Our head of state is elected to the job instead of being determined by which vagina they fell out of.
You can add things to Republic to control the ways it functions. You can have a Federal or a Unitary Republic. We have states that share considerable power with the central government, which makes us a Federal Republic. Unitary Republics have a supreme central government with only minor roles being allocated to lower governments. France, Italy and Ireland are unitary republics.
You can have a constitution that lays out the way government works. This makes the US a federal, constitutional republic. Our constitution has elected officials who make policy for the nation. Representatives chosen to serve in government make the US a Federal constitutional, representative republic. But this doesn't make the USA unique by any stretch. We tend to push Federalism to an extreme not seen elsewhere but lots of other nations are Republics of some type. And other nations like the UK and Belgium are monarchies with these same terms, the former being a Unitary constitutional monarchy and the latter being a Federal constitutional Monarchy. In fact, our own Republic and its constitution are heavily influenced by the original English constitution; the Magna Carta.

But the whole thing relies on the Democratic process. Without Democracy, the USA doesn't function. The very wording of our constitution requires the judicious use of democracy to make the country function. We vote for almost everything. Local races, state races, federal races, etc. Our legislation often includes ballot measures the people decide. All legislation introduced in the states and federal government has to be voted on. Even the few positions that are appointed by the president are generally subject to approval by the Senate and are put to a vote. Democracy is the process by which the people decide, it literally means People (demos) Rule (kratos). The US government could not function without democracy.

If a republic is a bicycle, democracy is the wheels and tires. The bike simply doesn't work without them and arguably couldn't be called a bike.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Hitler was not voted in by a majority though and enacted a number of parliamentary rules to exclude opponents from government. You can't really call his party and its tactics, democratic. Hitler combined the offices of chancellor and president, effectively appointing himself supreme leader of Germany. Hitler knew the only way to secure his power was to eliminate the checks on that power, provided by democracy.

For anyone interested in learning more about how Hitler took power, and in a way that won't make most people fall asleep, there is a movie. 'Hitler: The Rise of Evil'. It's dramatized but I believe follows the true history quite well.
 

Selena

Member
For anyone interested in learning more about how Hitler took power, and in a way that won't make most people fall asleep, there is a movie. 'Hitler: The Rise of Evil'. It's dramatized but I believe follows the true history quite well.

That sounds familiar... isn't that the one based on the Ian Kershaw book that the author was so disgusted by the "historical inaccuracies" he decided to have no dealings with the production company?
 

Selena

Member
Hitler was not voted in by a majority though and enacted a number of parliamentary rules to exclude opponents from government. You can't really call his party and its tactics, democratic. Hitler combined the offices of chancellor and president, effectively appointing himself supreme leader of Germany. Hitler knew the only way to secure his power was to eliminate the checks on that power, provided by democracy.

I don't get why people keep pushing this view that Democracy and a Republic are somehow opposing forces. They aren't the same things. A republic is a nation that does not have a hereditary head of state. That is the most simple definition; we are a Republic because we are not a Monarchy. Our head of state is elected to the job instead of being determined by which vagina they fell out of.
You can add things to Republic to control the ways it functions. You can have a Federal or a Unitary Republic. We have states that share considerable power with the central government, which makes us a Federal Republic. Unitary Republics have a supreme central government with only minor roles being allocated to lower governments. France, Italy and Ireland are unitary republics.
You can have a constitution that lays out the way government works. This makes the US a federal, constitutional republic. Our constitution has elected officials who make policy for the nation. Representatives chosen to serve in government make the US a Federal constitutional, representative republic. But this doesn't make the USA unique by any stretch. We tend to push Federalism to an extreme not seen elsewhere but lots of other nations are Republics of some type. And other nations like the UK and Belgium are monarchies with these same terms, the former being a Unitary constitutional monarchy and the latter being a Federal constitutional Monarchy. In fact, our own Republic and its constitution are heavily influenced by the original English constitution; the Magna Carta.

But the whole thing relies on the Democratic process. Without Democracy, the USA doesn't function. The very wording of our constitution requires the judicious use of democracy to make the country function. We vote for almost everything. Local races, state races, federal races, etc. Our legislation often includes ballot measures the people decide. All legislation introduced in the states and federal government has to be voted on. Even the few positions that are appointed by the president are generally subject to approval by the Senate and are put to a vote. Democracy is the process by which the people decide, it literally means People (demos) Rule (kratos). The US government could not function without democracy.

If a republic is a bicycle, democracy is the wheels and tires. The bike simply doesn't work without them and arguably couldn't be called a bike.

*sigh* I don't recall ever seeing the Wetlands initiative on a ballot anywhere. Nor the so-called Assault Weapons bill and never once the minutia of the federal or state budget. In a democracy that would be required for them to became the law of the land. Keep in mind that the old Soviet Union and the National Socialist German Workers' Party also had elections. It's been said that even the residents of hell are allowed to vote... at least voting absentee for the city of Chicago... They must have all been democracies as well.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That sounds familiar... isn't that the one based on the Ian Kershaw book that the author was so disgusted by the "historical inaccuracies" he decided to have no dealings with the production company?
Interesting. https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-c...fter-row-over-historical-accuracy-2511897?amp

I have yet to find out exactly what (if anything) is drastically different, other than certain figures standing on the wrong side of him, and how he really hot his medal. I wonder if those differences are significant enough to really matter.

Perhaps you have an alternative that is more historical accurate?
 
Top