Original intent went out the window with the Bill of Rights. American constitutions--both the Federal and the state versions--were meant to be living documents. The idea that the Electoral College is some kind of unassailable dogma is ridiculous.
The argument that 'you just hate the EC because your side lost' is also not really an argument at all. Eventually the EC will work its magic against the Republicans. It still won't be fair. I want elections that reflect the will of the people, regardless of whether or not I agree. What's difficult to understand about that?
Why, how did your freshman year American History teacher explain it to you? Was it like this? Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism good! No, wait, socialism bad! Socialism bad! Socialism bad!
It was more like this, MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT?! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT! MJ is the GOAT!
I think you're overestimating my MJ fandom - or lack thereof - by....a lot. Now Tom Brady, that motherfucker is another story altogether.
In all honesty, I think Trump should have his nomination go to the Senate just like Obama's nomination should have gone to the Senate. The fact that Mitch is such a fucking shitheel scumbag doesn't change either of those.
If Garland was on the bench, no reasonable Democrat would be fighting against Trump selecting someone before Election Day. McConnell was the one who obstructed Obama's rightful pick, and now the right is going to act all affronted when the Dems try and do the same to Trump. Seems like when the right plays dirty, it's cool and 'just politics.' If the left does, holy shit. It's like they just lit an American flag factory on fire.
Lol I remember making similar comments to @Asyncritus when I was 14. Thanks for reminding me of my youth. And also why I like @Asyncritus better.
This is Wordforgespeak for: "I find that I said something I can't really defend, so I don't want to talk about it any more." Got it!
Up until a few years ago, the rules said we shouldn't put children in cages and sterilize women. What changed your mind?
And how would you have responded to Raoul's request for me to explain what changes I thought were appropriate to the Constitution in "few words"? Are you among those who think sound-bites are sufficient for explaining complicated issues?
These are all excellent ideas. But you just know that if the current crowd had a constitutional convention, it would be divisive as hell and be unable to agree on important points. Worse, if it did produce anything, it would be absolutely awful. I mean - look at what the EU came up with (unratified but subsequently used as the basis for the Treaty of Lisbon). And look at the stuff that they put in the "free trade" deals they regularly come up with. It would be indecipherable other than by lawyers. It would provide rights to corporations and their investors beyond anything they'd ever dreamt of - likely including permanent bailout mechanisms, investor-state dispute courts and expansive intellectual property rights. It would substantially disempower elected representatives to make changes (see again the EU Parliament) and place actual decision making at a further remove. And so forth.
His handling of the coronavirus has been worthy of impeachment and removal from office on numerous fronts, from lying to the American people about the seriousness of it, to failure to mobilize federal resources sufficiently, to threatening to withhold supplies from states that didn't support him, to actively blocking efforts by states to get their own supplies. His use and threatened use of domestic troops to fight rioters is at best questionable constitutionally and worthy of at least impeachment. His refusal to condemn Russia for putting bounties on American soldiers' heads or even acknowledge it is also worthy of impeachment. His statements about the alleged illegitimacy of mail-in voting and how he deserves a third term and how he might sign an executive order preventing Biden from running against him should not be treated as mere political jokes, but are attacks on the nature of democracy itself.
It's more like, to people who foolishly believe in the principle one person, one vote. The Electoral College means that neither Trump nor Biden really cares about the votes of people in all but about 12 states if I'm being generous, and 6 states if I'm being more realistic: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and Missouri. Maybe it is co9nterintuitive or easy for me to say from the comfort of Hypotheticalland, but I would rather have a dynasty of your standard pre-Trump Republicans winning the White House by getting a majority of the popular vote in an post-EC scenario than a dynasty of your standard pre-Trump Democrats winning the White House with a minority of the popular vote but because the EC math works in their favor.
Here's the problem with the Right. They want someone they like - as opposed to the Left who want someone who can, you know, actually DO the job.
Talk specifically about her record. Cite to cases or news sources or something. Because RBG was no particular fan of the po-po, as far as I know. In terms of qualified immunity, it is a concept that came in 1982, before she was on the bench. I'm sure that she signed onto decisions in the past saying "Well, we have to follow precedent on QI" because generally that is what SCOTUS does, acted as though it is bound by precedent. But recently she joined Justice Sotomayor in dissenting on the QI front. https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2020/06/18/297749.htm
She dissented on one case. She upheld qualified immunity on many others. See Plumhoff_v._Rickard for one particularly egregious example. Doing "generally what SCOTUS does" is not an excuse. SCOTUS could decide to abolish or more carefully restrict qualified immunity, having invented it in the first place.
Yeah, but we were just following your example. Do you think Bernie would have won? That's debatable. And Hillary did win the popular vote.
From a pragmatic view, Garland wouldn't have been approved by the senate. The outcome would have been the same.
Plumhoff is a 9-0 decision for a reason. As the summary you linked to says, it is not objectively unreasonable to use force during a high-speed car chase, so the primary finding was that qualfiied immunity need not apply.
