17
   

I wish the American people had the will to impeach the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 09:41 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Quote:

Cheap cop-out on your part. You can't argue the polling data, so you pretend that it's not real, or somehow made-up. Nobody buys this argument from you at all.

Turn it back around: YOU telling US something doesn't make it so. You pretend to know certain things, but provide no data or logic to back it up. Just assertions. Why do you think that is convincing?

The preceding is brought to you by Cyclo and his "I know you are but what am I?" school of debate.

In response:

1) You reference a poll with no citation, and I am supposed to accept the poll exists and that you have interpreted it accurately.


If you want attribution for a source, all you have to do is ask.

Here's a run-down by the Kaiser Family Foundation on several polls and how the way they are worded affects the results on HCR; and more importantly, check out the charts showing that clear majorities support keeping pretty much every element of the bill:

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8114.pdf

I'm more than happy to provide other references if you like.

Quote:
2) You consistently dismiss Rassmusen polls as ideologically motivated and yet I am supposed to to accept that the, thus far, imaginary poll you've referenced is legitimate.


This is a non-sequitur. The fact that Ras is ideologically motivated (and that's not an opinion of mine - an examination of their polling shows it to be a consistent fact) has nothing to do with this discussion. But I can see how you are trying to change the subject here.

Quote:
3) No one has to "buy" my arguments - they are entirely free.


Free of logic and validity, that I'd agree with.

Quote:
The second the Dems shoved it down our throat, told it was good for us idiots, and the American people went nuts.


"Shove it down your throat?" How did they do that? Are you even aware when you parrot talking points, Finn?

The Dems passed the bill in both Houses of Congress, they didn't use reconciliation to do it or some procedural trick. They overcame the Filibuster the Republicans mounted. They even flipped a few Republicans to vote for it. How exactly is that 'shoving it down the country's throat?' Be specific.

The HC bill IS good for the country, though you are correct that you are an idiot.

The 'American people' didn't go nuts. The right-wing went nuts(ier).

Quote:

So anyone who opposes Obamacare or disagrees with Obama and, more importantly Cyclo, is either a pathetic sheep, a closet racist, or a greedy capitalist.

Who is the Hater Cyclo?


I do believe that those are the prime motivation points for opposition to Obama and the Dems, yes; greed and fear.

But what you see from me isn't hate, Finn. It's pity and sadness. I don't understand what causes people to believe the things you believe, other than some sort of scarring on the inside, or cognitive dissonance which can't be resolved.

Cycloptichorn
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 10:17 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I wish the American people had the will to impeach the conservative members of the Supreme Court. They made a terrible political decision, which has created great damage to our waning democracy. I think their decision is unconstitutional.

Ah, alert the media ... BBB has proclaimed the Supreme Court's decisions are unconstitutional. What a wonderful precedent that would be, BTW ... if we don't like the decisions of the judiciary, let's impeach 'em.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 10:27 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

You didn't pay attention to what I wrote. I think giving corporations people status may be unconstitutional. I think giving George W. Bush the presidency may be unconstitutional. That decision was so bad they specifically stated their decision shall not set precedence.

Since the Supreme Court is by definition the body that interprets the Constitution, I think there's a major flaw in your argument.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 01:29 pm
@DrewDad,
I think it is the wrong interpretation. It is creating a corporate class, or upper class, which is in spirit against the Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. By giving a corporations human qualities and rights it creates inequality and subjugation of non-corporate people and enslaves people.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 01:54 pm
@talk72000,
If you wish to debate the merits of the case, then I might well agree with you.

If your saying that the voters should have a say in how the Court works, then I have to disagree strongly.

The Court is the method by which a minority that is in the right can overturn a majority that is in the wrong, and I think it's a good thing that vox populi is mute in their deliberations.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 01:58 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
If your saying that the voters should have a say in how the Court works, then I have to disagree strongly.

The Court is the method by which a minority that is in the right can overturn a majority that is in the wrong,
and I think it's a good thing that vox populi is mute in their deliberations.
SO STIPULATED!




David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 02:25 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Therefore, the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with BBB need to be impeached. Makes perfect sense!

It makes ican711 sense. I didn't realize he was "perfect" but I guess I should have suspected it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 03:00 pm
BBB makes a good point about the conservatives on the SC, and also about double voting rights.

However, the bad news is the simple fact that nothing will come of it.

Lame duck is thy name.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:57 pm
@DrewDad,
The Supreme Court is wrong in its interpretation but how to correct that I have no idea. Maybe term limit could be applied to Supreme Court Justices or an amendment created to prevent anyone that undermines the fundamentals of the ideals of democracy in spirit and form. Maybe include in impeachment proceedings where judges vote against democracy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You win Cyclo. I can't answer any of your points. Put another notch in your belt.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You win Cyclo. I can't answer any of your points. Put another notch in your belt.


This is one of those moments where the intrepid heroes of the movie look at each other and mutter, 'that was too easy, it MUST be a trap!'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:22 pm
@talk72000,
Your suggestions are entirely untenable but be careful what you ask for. Any mechanism which can be employed by you to overturn a decision you believe to be wrong will be available to those who are on the other side of the spectrum from you.

Believe it or not, there have been SC decisions which you may have applauded but which a whole lot of Americans thought were horrible. Some of them even suggested similar untenable solutions to their frustration.

Here's what can be done:

Vote for people who represent your point of view and press them to come up with legislative solutions (understanding that they don't get to create laws that contradict the Constitution, and the SC will have the final say on that), or who will appoint justices with your political perspective, and pray that the evil conservative justices die young.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:28 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The Supreme Court decision to give corporation votes is a case against democracy and should be looked at with concern.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:12 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
The Supreme Court decision to give corporation votes is a case against democracy and should be looked at with concern.

I beg your pardon? The Supreme Court frustrates democracy every time it strikes down a law as unconstitutional. That's what courts are for in constitutional cases: They tell the democratic majority to take a hike, and to yield to the rights of individuals and minorities. Long live (what you call) the case against democracy, and for civil rights!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:21 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
What a wonderful precedent that would be, BTW ... if we don't like the decisions of the judiciary, let's impeach 'em.
Actually, a couple of weeks back there was a story making the rounds on AP that this is happening right now. The claim was that in the past judges have always been elected primarily based upon competence , but that today there are multiple efforts to remove judges who have ruled against the majority in some case or another. Lots of debate if demanding that Judges stick with the majority would be good for democracy or not.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Any talking about such as impeachment of SC judges will go nowhere; talk is cheap, and everybody does it. Taking action on them is a whole new ball game.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Any talking about such as impeachment of SC judges will go nowhere
Yes, but exacting retribution upon judges who **** on the majority is clearly going someplace...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
What a wonderful precedent that would be, BTW ... if we don't like the decisions of the judiciary, let's impeach 'em.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Actually, a couple of weeks back there was a story making the rounds on AP that this is happening right now. The claim was that in the past judges have always been elected primarily based upon competence, but that today there are multiple efforts to remove judges who have ruled against the majority in some case or another. Lots of debate if demanding that Judges stick with the majority would be good for democracy or not.
I guess u think USSC justices r "elected"?

It is not their job to favor the majority, nor
to be "good for democracy".

Assuming that u have not lost your mind,
it appears that u r very uninformed qua the USSC (or any federal judges).





David
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Any talking about such as impeachment of SC judges will go nowhere
Yes, but exacting retribution upon judges who **** on the majority is clearly going someplace...
Please tell us about this mystical case where a dissenting SC Justice overruled the majority. Drunk
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:02 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Please tell us about this mystical case where a dissenting SC Justice overruled the majority


You are an idiot always...I was talking about efforts to remove lower court judges who have offended the majority of the people with their disregard of majority rights...and thus are facing removal from the bench by way of the vote at election time.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 04:26:46