American Politics

[UFGN]

Pat Rice

I'll address that later if i have time, but your bias is clear when you refer to "constitutional minded judges". You clearly mean conservative judges so please be honest about that because if you need to spin what youre saying, you know you have a weak argument

The partisan selection of Judges in the US is a travesty of justice which compounds a system that stifles progress. Dems are at fault for the system as well but Jesus, any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Also, your mad hatred of the NHS is well documented on this forum, so I'll take all that shnizzle with a grain of salt, however I doubt you can demonstrate, in any way that our other US based members will back, that the majority of Americans dont want significant health reforms

No, I mean constitutional minded judges as opposed to activist judges. What I write is what I mean, not meant to fit what you think is reality.

Funny how you seem to know better what is better for Americans than actual Americans. Americans elected Trump in great part because of the trend towards government controlled healthcare. I don't know where you get your information from but what you read in the Guardian is pretty much the polar opposite of what most of mid America thinks. My point to you which you usually miss is that Americans are more than capable of deciding issues for themselves which is what elections and democracy is all about.

I have no hate for the NHS, but I also understand that handing over one's healthcare to a bureaucracy is not going to to work here. If you think the only problem with the NHS and every other problem is throwing money at it then perhaps you need to have a deep think?

What Trump was elected (without the authority of the popular vote of course) to do, is highly subjective.

There is ZERO authority that comes from winning a nationwide popular vote. It's irrelevant.
The US Presidential election is actually 52 popular votes that DO actually count, the results of which determine who is elected President and thus carries the sole authority of the Executive Branch.

I am not sure if you are American, but if you are, you are not an informed citizen.

If the argument is being made that what Trump does is what America wants, its highly relevant

If a minority voted for him, its a BS argument

[UFGN]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

[jayramfootball]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

Not everyone is a winner in democracy.
If the people keep voting for Conservatives, then it will be Conservatives who get to pick SC justices.
That said, the Justices are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide, not political ideology.
If they are obviously biased Congress has a method to remove them.

What you are railing against is Democracy and the US Constitution.
Even there, methods are in place to ammend the Constitution.

This is all well worked out, documented and has been successful for over 200 years.
All the proper checks and balances are in place.

I would say it is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's all wrong just because your side of an idealogical argument is losing right now.

[jayramfootball]

Pat Rice

I'll address that later if i have time, but your bias is clear when you refer to "constitutional minded judges". You clearly mean conservative judges so please be honest about that because if you need to spin what youre saying, you know you have a weak argument

The partisan selection of Judges in the US is a travesty of justice which compounds a system that stifles progress. Dems are at fault for the system as well but Jesus, any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Also, your mad hatred of the NHS is well documented on this forum, so I'll take all that shnizzle with a grain of salt, however I doubt you can demonstrate, in any way that our other US based members will back, that the majority of Americans dont want significant health reforms

No, I mean constitutional minded judges as opposed to activist judges. What I write is what I mean, not meant to fit what you think is reality.

Funny how you seem to know better what is better for Americans than actual Americans. Americans elected Trump in great part because of the trend towards government controlled healthcare. I don't know where you get your information from but what you read in the Guardian is pretty much the polar opposite of what most of mid America thinks. My point to you which you usually miss is that Americans are more than capable of deciding issues for themselves which is what elections and democracy is all about.

I have no hate for the NHS, but I also understand that handing over one's healthcare to a bureaucracy is not going to to work here. If you think the only problem with the NHS and every other problem is throwing money at it then perhaps you need to have a deep think?

What Trump was elected (without the authority of the popular vote of course) to do, is highly subjective.

There is ZERO authority that comes from winning a nationwide popular vote. It's irrelevant.
The US Presidential election is actually 52 popular votes that DO actually count, the results of which determine who is elected President and thus carries the sole authority of the Executive Branch.

I am not sure if you are American, but if you are, you are not an informed citizen.

If the argument is being made that what Trump does is what America wants, its highly relevant

If a minority voted for him, its a BS argument

Nope. The popular vote nationwide has never been relevant in the US.
Further, there is no US President in history that has ever had the majority of citizens vote for them (except MAYBE one in the 19th century)
In the last election neither Trump or Clinton secured the votes of a majority of citizens - or even voters.

You really need to learn about US Politics before jumping in.

[UFGN]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

Not everyone is a winner in democracy.
If the people keep voting for Conservatives, then it will be Conservatives who get to pick SC justices.
That said, the Justices are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide, not political ideology.
If they are obviously biased Congress has a method to remove them.

What you are railing against is Democracy and the US Constitution.
Even there, methods are in place to ammend the Constitution.

This is all well worked out, documented and has been successful for over 200 years.
All the proper checks and balances are in place.

I would say it is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's all wrong just because your side of an idealogical argument is losing right now.

When did Congress last impeach a SC Justice?

[UFGN]

Pat Rice

I'll address that later if i have time, but your bias is clear when you refer to "constitutional minded judges". You clearly mean conservative judges so please be honest about that because if you need to spin what youre saying, you know you have a weak argument

The partisan selection of Judges in the US is a travesty of justice which compounds a system that stifles progress. Dems are at fault for the system as well but Jesus, any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Also, your mad hatred of the NHS is well documented on this forum, so I'll take all that shnizzle with a grain of salt, however I doubt you can demonstrate, in any way that our other US based members will back, that the majority of Americans dont want significant health reforms

No, I mean constitutional minded judges as opposed to activist judges. What I write is what I mean, not meant to fit what you think is reality.

Funny how you seem to know better what is better for Americans than actual Americans. Americans elected Trump in great part because of the trend towards government controlled healthcare. I don't know where you get your information from but what you read in the Guardian is pretty much the polar opposite of what most of mid America thinks. My point to you which you usually miss is that Americans are more than capable of deciding issues for themselves which is what elections and democracy is all about.

I have no hate for the NHS, but I also understand that handing over one's healthcare to a bureaucracy is not going to to work here. If you think the only problem with the NHS and every other problem is throwing money at it then perhaps you need to have a deep think?

What Trump was elected (without the authority of the popular vote of course) to do, is highly subjective.

There is ZERO authority that comes from winning a nationwide popular vote. It's irrelevant.
The US Presidential election is actually 52 popular votes that DO actually count, the results of which determine who is elected President and thus carries the sole authority of the Executive Branch.

I am not sure if you are American, but if you are, you are not an informed citizen.

If the argument is being made that what Trump does is what America wants, its highly relevant

If a minority voted for him, its a BS argument

Nope. The popular vote nationwide has never been relevant in the US.
Further, there is no US President in history that has ever had the majority of citizens vote for them (except MAYBE one in the 19th century)
In the last election neither Trump or Clinton secured the votes of a majority of citizens - or even voters.

You really need to learn about US Politics before jumping in.

Please don't play dumb. Very, very obviously I mean turnout, I dont expect to have to explain that.

I reiterate.... if the argument is being made that because Trump was elected, his policies are "what America wants", then the fact that more people voted for his rival makes bullshit of that argument

[DiamondGooner]

To be honest that's irrelevant though.

The American voting system is constitutionally based on a state by state basis as per the creation of the United States of America and that every individual state has an equal vote.

So to argue Trumps validity based upon the popular turn out doesn't even bear scrutiny.

Every Dem victory has also come from this same system so if your questioning this result then you'd have to question every result in American history ............ again, all irrelevant, everyone know's the rules before the election, you can't moan post election just because the vote didn't go the way you wanted.

[UFGN]

To be honest that's irrelevant though.

The American voting system is constitutionally based on a state by state basis as per the creation of the United States of America and that every individual state has an equal vote.

So to argue Trumps validity based upon the popular turn out doesn't even bear scrutiny.

Every Dem victory has also come from this same system so if your questioning this result then you'd have to question every result in American history ............ again, all irrelevant, everyone know's the rules before the election, you can't moan post election just because the vote didn't go the way you wanted.

Fuckin hell how many times?

If you are arguing, as PRISS was arguing, that because Trump became president, that means that his policies are "what America wants", when in fact, most of the votes cast were not for him, that is false

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

To be honest that's irrelevant though.

The American voting system is constitutionally based on a state by state basis as per the creation of the United States of America and that every individual state has an equal vote.

So to argue Trumps validity based upon the popular turn out doesn't even bear scrutiny.

Every Dem victory has also come from this same system so if your questioning this result then you'd have to question every result in American history ............ again, all irrelevant, everyone know's the rules before the election, you can't moan post election just because the vote didn't go the way you wanted.

Fuckin hell how many times?

If you are arguing, as PRISS was arguing, that because Trump became president, that means that his policies are "what America wants", when in fact, most of the votes cast were not for him, that is false

The first thing you need to do is understand that the US is a republic of states, not a direct Democracy. The visionary idea of the founders was to reject simple majority rule, which in current times would subject most states to the whims of CA and NY. It works. It works better than any other political system ever devised. And like it or not, you are not the arbiter of what Americans want or vote on.

[DiamondGooner]

To be honest that's irrelevant though.

The American voting system is constitutionally based on a state by state basis as per the creation of the United States of America and that every individual state has an equal vote.

So to argue Trumps validity based upon the popular turn out doesn't even bear scrutiny.

Every Dem victory has also come from this same system so if your questioning this result then you'd have to question every result in American history ............ again, all irrelevant, everyone know's the rules before the election, you can't moan post election just because the vote didn't go the way you wanted.

Fuckin hell how many times?

If you are arguing, as PRISS was arguing, that because Trump became president, that means that his policies are "what America wants", when in fact, most of the votes cast were not for him, that is false

That's not what I said though is it ............ I said its irrelevant, per state as in how the voting system works then in that reflection it is what America wants, I specifically said that is not a reflection of the popular vote.

Forgot your glasses?

[UFGN]

To be honest that's irrelevant though.

The American voting system is constitutionally based on a state by state basis as per the creation of the United States of America and that every individual state has an equal vote.

So to argue Trumps validity based upon the popular turn out doesn't even bear scrutiny.

Every Dem victory has also come from this same system so if your questioning this result then you'd have to question every result in American history ............ again, all irrelevant, everyone know's the rules before the election, you can't moan post election just because the vote didn't go the way you wanted.

Fuckin hell how many times?

If you are arguing, as PRISS was arguing, that because Trump became president, that means that his policies are "what America wants", when in fact, most of the votes cast were not for him, that is false

The first thing you need to do is understand that the US is a republic of states, not a direct Democracy. The visionary idea of the founders was to reject simple majority rule, which in current times would subject most states to the whims of CA and NY. It works. It works better than any other political system ever devised. And like it or not, you are not the arbiter of what Americans want or vote on.

What a weak argument

"You are not the arbiter of what Americans want or vote on"

Imagine actually coming onto the American Politics section of a British football forum and thinking thats a worthwhile comment

I will comment on whether I think the US constitution is bollocks, whether I think Trump is bollocks and whether I think your opinion is bollocks at my leisure, cheers

If you only want to talk to American voters then probably youre in the wrong place

[jayramfootball]

Pat Rice

I'll address that later if i have time, but your bias is clear when you refer to "constitutional minded judges". You clearly mean conservative judges so please be honest about that because if you need to spin what youre saying, you know you have a weak argument

The partisan selection of Judges in the US is a travesty of justice which compounds a system that stifles progress. Dems are at fault for the system as well but Jesus, any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Also, your mad hatred of the NHS is well documented on this forum, so I'll take all that shnizzle with a grain of salt, however I doubt you can demonstrate, in any way that our other US based members will back, that the majority of Americans dont want significant health reforms

No, I mean constitutional minded judges as opposed to activist judges. What I write is what I mean, not meant to fit what you think is reality.

Funny how you seem to know better what is better for Americans than actual Americans. Americans elected Trump in great part because of the trend towards government controlled healthcare. I don't know where you get your information from but what you read in the Guardian is pretty much the polar opposite of what most of mid America thinks. My point to you which you usually miss is that Americans are more than capable of deciding issues for themselves which is what elections and democracy is all about.

I have no hate for the NHS, but I also understand that handing over one's healthcare to a bureaucracy is not going to to work here. If you think the only problem with the NHS and every other problem is throwing money at it then perhaps you need to have a deep think?

What Trump was elected (without the authority of the popular vote of course) to do, is highly subjective.

There is ZERO authority that comes from winning a nationwide popular vote. It's irrelevant.
The US Presidential election is actually 52 popular votes that DO actually count, the results of which determine who is elected President and thus carries the sole authority of the Executive Branch.

I am not sure if you are American, but if you are, you are not an informed citizen.

If the argument is being made that what Trump does is what America wants, its highly relevant

If a minority voted for him, its a BS argument

Nope. The popular vote nationwide has never been relevant in the US.
Further, there is no US President in history that has ever had the majority of citizens vote for them (except MAYBE one in the 19th century)
In the last election neither Trump or Clinton secured the votes of a majority of citizens - or even voters.

You really need to learn about US Politics before jumping in.

Please don't play dumb. Very, very obviously I mean turnout, I dont expect to have to explain that.

I reiterate.... if the argument is being made that because Trump was elected, his policies are "what America wants", then the fact that more people voted for his rival makes bullshit of that argument

Neither Trump nor Clinton got a majority of the turnout voting for them either. No one did.
Trump's policies ARE what America voted for. This should be obvious to you when you turn on the TV and see who the POTUS is.
As I have told you before there is no relevance to the nationwide popular vote. The US is a Union of States and there are actually 52 popular votes during the Presidential election. Trump won 31 of those popular votes, Clinton won 21. That is why Trump won the election.

[jayramfootball]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

Not everyone is a winner in democracy.
If the people keep voting for Conservatives, then it will be Conservatives who get to pick SC justices.
That said, the Justices are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide, not political ideology.
If they are obviously biased Congress has a method to remove them.

What you are railing against is Democracy and the US Constitution.
Even there, methods are in place to ammend the Constitution.

This is all well worked out, documented and has been successful for over 200 years.
All the proper checks and balances are in place.

I would say it is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's all wrong just because your side of an idealogical argument is losing right now.

When did Congress last impeach a SC Justice?

1804.
There has never since been a need.
The point is the Constitution has within it the power to handle partisan judges.
All the checks and balances are nicely in place.
On the other hand, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says a court needs ideological balance. Like I said it is wholly UNREASONABLE to suggest that could be a consideration or that a single President having too many picks is somehow 'bad for the country'.

I think you should have said 'potentially bad for the people whose preferred candidate and party lost an election, if partisan judges are appointed'.

As it stands both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have ruled very clearly on Constitutional grounds, so there is no harm at all - only good.

[UFGN]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

Not everyone is a winner in democracy.
If the people keep voting for Conservatives, then it will be Conservatives who get to pick SC justices.
That said, the Justices are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide, not political ideology.
If they are obviously biased Congress has a method to remove them.

What you are railing against is Democracy and the US Constitution.
Even there, methods are in place to ammend the Constitution.

This is all well worked out, documented and has been successful for over 200 years.
All the proper checks and balances are in place.

I would say it is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's all wrong just because your side of an idealogical argument is losing right now.

When did Congress last impeach a SC Justice?

1804.
There has never since been a need.
The point is the Constitution has within it the power to handle partisan judges.
All the checks and balances are nicely in place.
On the other hand, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says a court needs ideological balance. Like I said it is wholly UNREASONABLE to suggest that could be a consideration or that a single President having too many picks is somehow 'bad for the country'.

I think you should have said 'potentially bad for the people whose preferred candidate and party lost an election, if partisan judges are appointed'.

As it stands both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have ruled very clearly on Constitutional grounds, so there is no harm at all - only good.

Youre whole argument is basically that Judges are not partisan, and even if they were they could be removed by a process that is never used..... but youve already accepted that judges are clearly picked along political lines, which means it stands to reason a ballance is desirable

As I said earlier, your whole attitude stinks of "im getting my own way, so whatever"

[jayramfootball]

Pat Rice
...any reasonable person can see that Trump selecting more SC judges will be very bad for the US

Really poor debating tactic - assuming the only reasonable people are the ones that agree with you.
What is bad about Kavanaugh or Gorsuch - in comparison to say, Ginsburg or Sotamayor?

The next two that need to be replaced are in their 80s and both Clinton era

I reiterate, with the caveat that both sides are responsible for the system, that replacing those two with Trump choices, in addition to him already having had two, and having blocked Obama from replacing Scalia, is clearly bad for America and that any reasonable person should agree with that

There is no requirement to balance the court along ideological grounds and no determination can be made that it is 'bad for America' if one ideology is not equally represented. It could be equally be argued that it will be good for America when Sotamayor and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by Conservative chosen justices.

Whatever dude

Just sounds like youre getting your own way so you DGAS from where im standing

Careful what you wish for..... youre backing a medium term future where for decades, half the country might feel unfairly dominated by the other half

If youre happy with that, as I said, a reasonable person would disagree with you

Not everyone is a winner in democracy.
If the people keep voting for Conservatives, then it will be Conservatives who get to pick SC justices.
That said, the Justices are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide, not political ideology.
If they are obviously biased Congress has a method to remove them.

What you are railing against is Democracy and the US Constitution.
Even there, methods are in place to ammend the Constitution.

This is all well worked out, documented and has been successful for over 200 years.
All the proper checks and balances are in place.

I would say it is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's all wrong just because your side of an idealogical argument is losing right now.

When did Congress last impeach a SC Justice?

1804.
There has never since been a need.
The point is the Constitution has within it the power to handle partisan judges.
All the checks and balances are nicely in place.
On the other hand, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says a court needs ideological balance. Like I said it is wholly UNREASONABLE to suggest that could be a consideration or that a single President having too many picks is somehow 'bad for the country'.

I think you should have said 'potentially bad for the people whose preferred candidate and party lost an election, if partisan judges are appointed'.

As it stands both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have ruled very clearly on Constitutional grounds, so there is no harm at all - only good.

Youre whole argument is basically that Judges are not partisan, and even if they were they could be removed by a process that is never used..... but youve already accepted that judges are clearly picked along political lines, which means it stands to reason a ballance is desirable

As I said earlier, your whole attitude stinks of "im getting my own way, so whatever"

If judges are found to be partisan they will be removed - that is against their oath. There is a mechanism for doing so.
It's not 'getting my way' - this is a process that is based who the people elect as President and who that President appoints.
You have this crazy notion that it is unreasonable for people to think that the President should exercise his Constitutional authority, given to him by the people, because he might appoint someone you don't like.

It is entirely UNREASONABLE to suggest it's bad for the country when what you REALLY seem to mean is that is bad for YOUR ideological outlook.

The rules are clear, it's best not to change them just because you are not getting your way.