|
Post by hawk on Sept 21, 2020 13:04:41 GMT -5
Yes I know the history. The whole thing has come full circle and Mitch McConnell get's his day in the sun. But where does it end is what I am saying. When can we actually have debates about topics that involve meaningful conversation and not just this partisan bickering. Let's face it. The republicans hated losing the last two elections to the Democrats. They especially hated losing to a liberal leaning black democrat. I am sure Mitch got an ear full from his ultra right constituents back in Kentucky and came back on a mission. What I am saying is it propelling us backwards and there will be repercussions gong forward. All this is a back lash for what I said above. When the pendulum swings back to the Dems and it will, I fear the next round will derail everything even further driving an even bigger wedge. Just like Mitch said, the ballot box is coming and we look forward to the election. I plan to vote for whoever has been in power the lease for now on. No incumbents because they obviously have no idea how to run congress or the senate. Hell I might just vote republican and do the same.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Sept 21, 2020 13:39:11 GMT -5
Blow up the two party system. Open up the primaries. Do something different otherwise it will always be SSDD. Easier said than done, these things are so entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by flip on Sept 21, 2020 13:50:29 GMT -5
Blow up the two party system. Open up the primaries. Do something different otherwise it will always be SSDD. Easier said than done, these things are so entrenched. wishful thinking, right? there's a third party candidate that is on the ballot in every state that cant debate with the other candidates? how much sense does that make?
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Sept 21, 2020 18:44:27 GMT -5
As far as the SCOTUS issue goes, perhaps its time for a term limit for Justice. Would need to be lengthy IMHO because I believe a Supreme Court Justice grows in knowledge and perspective sitting on the court. But let's say they are seated for 20 years. AT least each side knows when they may have a chance to nominate another justice, rather than wondering if the court will be locked for decades. Obviously this would take a constitutional amendment, byt did the founding fathers ever consider folks might routinely live into their 90's in 1776?
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Sept 21, 2020 18:56:50 GMT -5
did the founding fathers ever consider folks might routinely live into their 90's in 1776? I don’t think it would have mattered.
|
|
|
Post by Barker on Sept 22, 2020 6:00:02 GMT -5
As far as the SCOTUS issue goes, perhaps its time for a term limit for Justice. Would need to be lengthy IMHO because I believe a Supreme Court Justice grows in knowledge and perspective sitting on the court. But let's say they are seated for 20 years. AT least each side knows when they may have a chance to nominate another justice, rather than wondering if the court will be locked for decades. Obviously this would take a constitutional amendment, byt did the founding fathers ever consider folks might routinely live into their 90's in 1776? Most other countries have limited terms ranging from 12-20 years that are usually combined with a retirement age for ALL judges, not just for their highest court. Nothing in the constitution says how many justices or what their term will be, that is left up to congress.
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Sept 22, 2020 12:17:03 GMT -5
did the founding fathers ever consider folks might routinely live into their 90's in 1776? I don’t think it would have mattered. Well, considering the average was only around 40 back then, I think it may have made a difference in thinking about SCOTUS and lifetime appointments.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Sept 22, 2020 14:57:28 GMT -5
I don’t think it would have mattered. Well, considering the average was only around 40 back then, I think it may have made a difference in thinking about SCOTUS and lifetime appointments. In absolute terms (time on bench) yes, but in relative/functional terms the effect is still the same in that an SCJ would serve society for a “generation”.
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Sept 22, 2020 19:39:30 GMT -5
Well, considering the average was only around 40 back then, I think it may have made a difference in thinking about SCOTUS and lifetime appointments. In absolute terms (time on bench) yes, but in relative/functional terms the effect is still the same in that an SCJ would serve society for a “generation”. True on that facet. Just seems like today the political games are dialed up as a nomination to the bench could possibly stretch half a century now. Take that possible length of time out of the equation, maybe the gamesmanship to seat the bench might get dialed down as well.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Sept 23, 2020 8:46:26 GMT -5
In absolute terms (time on bench) yes, but in relative/functional terms the effect is still the same in that an SCJ would serve society for a “generation”. True on that facet. Just seems like today the political games are dialed up as a nomination to the bench could possibly stretch half a century now. Take that possible length of time out of the equation, maybe the gamesmanship to seat the bench might get dialed down as well. Alternatively it might should motivate everyone to do their civic duty and vote - especially the young who participate less but will live with the decisions much longer than those of us are "not so young". IMO SCJ term is irrelevant - gamesmanship is part of politics (/life) and will occur regardless. Nothing illegal was done, just a lack of character to state the real reason MG wasn't seated. So a number of Senate members live with the hypocrisy of their words. Nothing new there. The ultimate solution is to put people in office who have character, honor, and conviction, and who represent the people they serve - not themselves.
|
|
|
Post by levy24 on Sept 23, 2020 9:55:25 GMT -5
True on that facet. Just seems like today the political games are dialed up as a nomination to the bench could possibly stretch half a century now. Take that possible length of time out of the equation, maybe the gamesmanship to seat the bench might get dialed down as well. Alternatively it might should motivate everyone to do their civic duty and vote - especially the young who participate less but will live with the decisions much longer than those of us are "not so young". IMO SCJ term is irrelevant - gamesmanship is part of politics (/life) and will occur regardless. Nothing illegal was done, just a lack of character to state the real reason MG wasn't seated. So a number of Senate members live with the hypocrisy of their words. Nothing new there. The ultimate solution is to put people in office who have character, honor, and conviction, and who represent the people they serve - not themselves.That sounds great. Let us know when one these candidates pops up. LOL
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Sept 23, 2020 10:22:40 GMT -5
... The ultimate solution is to put people in office who have character, honor, and conviction, and who represent the people they serve - not themselves.That sounds great. Let us know when one these candidates pops up. LOL They're out there. They aren't rewarded. Navigating the system and coming out the other side is a challenge. General public doesn't seem to hold candidates to those standards and big money has considerable influence to corrupt. Scott Brown, a former neighbor, was one. As Selectman/State Rep he was one of the most dedicated and responsible representatives I've seen. At town meetings he respectfully listened to all input, explained his positions and the consequences of various approaches to solving issues. He reported back on actions taken - sweeping nothing under the rug. Few had anything negative to say about him - regardless of political party/affiliation. Unfortunately after spending time in "Washington" he seemed less focused on the needs of all he represented and more partisan. Was it lack of character or survival to stay in the game? Either way it didn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Sept 23, 2020 19:34:41 GMT -5
Trump was asked today whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election. He declined to do so.
|
|
|
Post by what is hip ? on Sept 23, 2020 20:07:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyBrook on Sept 23, 2020 20:24:27 GMT -5
Trump was asked today whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election. He declined to do so. He said “we will see what happens”. Love that reply.
|
|