Debate & this morning

[PozBearWI]

boolean is an either or choice.  Think of it as opposite choices.  In the instant case one will let us operate under our current constitution and potentially amend it as it was designed.  The other choice is to rip up the whole thing and start over.  While starting over is what humans have done over time; in our case I submit it is unnecessary and definitely ill advised.  

[hntnhole]

Thanks, PozBearWI.  

That's understandable (the either/or choice), and I agree.  Better to massage the existing a bit than to try all over again from nothing.  

[DallasPozzible]

I understand the desire to fix the parts of Constitution that are most needed. However I agree with @BootmanLA that it’s virtually impossible to pass any amendment through the two houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states. I seem to remember there being a method to call a new constitutional convention but I’m not sure how that would work. And we could end up with something even worse.

Given the vast new powers the SC appears to be taking for itself in light of its overturning the Chevron deference, it may be the perfect time to start moving to dramatically increase the number of justices and appellate courts. It wouldn’t be easy either, but expansion could lead to a political rebalancing of courts. 

[verslut]

Biden looked like a feeble old man, so he failed his top goal. In Between Trump's incoherent rambling, he affirmed he wouldn't accept an election loss.

Lol.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, verslut said:

Biden looked like a feeble old man, so he failed his top goal. In Between Trump's incoherent rambling, he affirmed he wouldn't accept an election loss.

Lol.

Granted. But Biden will be surrounded by competent people who are loyal to the country, and if it becomes necessary, I think he'd step down during a second term to let his VP take over.

Trump will be surrounded by true belieber MAGAts and the cynical anti-government forces (Stephen Miller, et al.) who will be given free rein to do whatever they want as long as Trump's in power.

Even IF Biden's feeble - and I believe he had a bad night, not that he's going to fall apart soon - he's still a safer bet for the country.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

I seem to remember there being a method to call a new constitutional convention but I’m not sure how that would work. And we could end up with something even worse.

Given the vast new powers the SC appears to be taking for itself in light of its overturning the Chevron deference, it may be the perfect time to start moving to dramatically increase the number of justices and appellate courts. It wouldn’t be easy either, but expansion could lead to a political rebalancing of courts. 

A convention requires 2/3 of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention, and if one is called, ratification requires 3/4 of those same state legislatures. So practically speaking, not any easier. If there's a push among red states for a convention, the blue states will refuse to sign on; and vice versa.

As for increasing the number of justices: first, we'd need to capture both the House and the Senate; and then we'd have to jettison the filibuster to pass legislation in the Senate with a bare majority, to change the law specifying the number of justices. It would be great, but as long as there's a GOP House, or a GOP Senate, or a GOP President, it won't happen (unless there are all three, in which case they might pack the court to ensure that there are 10 conservatives to 3 liberals). 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

I sincerely hope that folks here remember that how you vote in November literally affects the rest of the world. If Trump wins, there will be a number of countries that won't exist by this time next year.

[hntnhole]

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Granted. But Biden will be surrounded by competent people who are loyal to the country, and if it becomes necessary, I think he'd step down during a second term to let his VP take over.

I agree.  The President is more concerned with the continuance of the Republic than his own career.  I'd trust Kamela with the job over almost anyone, and certainly over some magaroid idiot.  

Which, in an ancillary way, brings to mind the question of which craven magaroid sycophant the walking, constantly talking disgustment will choose for his running mate.  Maybe Stormy ???   Karen ???   Some other tart?

Nah - they've already got their careers well in hand.  After all - look how much they've earned already from the Pervert-In-Chief when he was in office.  

[hntnhole]

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

first, we'd need to capture both the House and the Senate; and then we'd have to jettison the filibuster to pass legislation in the Senate with a bare majority, to change the law specifying the number of justices

From your fingers to Whatever's ears. 

I don't see that kind of "house-cleaning" happening in November either.  That said, I'll be thrilled when the WOMEN (and their male friends) generate a blue tsunami that flushes these magaroid nutjobs down the john. 

I'll put a penny under my pillow on Election Eve anyway ..... 

[NWUSHorny]

It won't happen, but based on today's SCOTUS ruling Biden should be able to order the biggest threat to our national security to be immediately and indefinitely detained at Guantanamo.

[hntnhole]

I think Biden could justifiably order not merely the detainment, but the "hurry-up" of expulsion of a couple of those haughty clowns - maybe both (with their magaroid wives) could get in that huge Winnebago and sail that tub through the roads of somewhere else .... 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

12 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

It won't happen, but based on today's SCOTUS ruling Biden should be able to order the biggest threat to our national security to be immediately and indefinitely detained at Guantanamo.

Not that he has the cajones to do it. His MO? Bleat about it, occasionally shout "what he's doing is an affront to democracy!", and then sit on his backside and presume that things will steady themselves on November 5. 

At the moment, Trump is Denis Healey and Biden is Geoffrey Howe (those who know, know).

[topblkmale]

On 6/30/2024 at 9:27 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

I sincerely hope that folks here remember that how you vote in November literally affects the rest of the world. If Trump wins, there will be a number of countries that won't exist by this time next year.

 

Which countries?

 

[hntnhole]

I just too pissed off to comment with anything even close to decency ...  maybe tomorrow .... 

 

[meetme]

4 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

Which countries?

 

Ukraine for one, I don’t follow the Middle East but Trump will do anything Putin wants, he has been their tool since the 1980s. Trump Tower was built for Russian oligarchs to launder their stollen money, before that building real estate could not be owned by nameless entities.