JamesHackerMP
-
Posts
1,097 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JamesHackerMP
-
-
On 2/19/2019 at 12:37 PM, Zeitgeist said:
Well it’s double jeopardy. Can’t be tried for the same crime twice. Yes there are appeals but this already went to the highest court in the land.
Double jeopardy is a prohibition against an individual being tried twice for the same crime (twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, I think is the specific wording.) What I asked them, was about a SC overturning a previous SC's judgment/precedent/whatever; not a criminal trial.
-
On 2/19/2019 at 6:36 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:
If you mean "stare decisis", that only applies to lower courts. The U.S. Supreme court can and has overruled it own previous decisions in several high profile cases, like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
Roe v. Wade is now mostly obsolete because of technology and subsequent rulings.
That's it! stare decisis...I couldn't think of that.
yeah, but the two decisions you mentioned were 58 years apart. That's what I was talking about, some amount of time passing before a SC reverses a previous SC judgment---does the Supreme Court regularly overrule itself more quickly than that? (i.e., with less time having passed) Or does it usually take a while? (as in the two cases you mentioned being separated by 58 years)
-
On 2/15/2019 at 2:13 PM, Dougie93 said:
Thing is, the Democrats have made a sworn enemy of Kavanaugh for life now, so that worked out by liberals hoisting themselves on their own petard.
But if ends 6-3 with the likes of Amy Barret setting a tone, then Roe v. Wade might actually be in peril, along with gay marriage and women in the combat arms, a whole slew of liberal sacred cows could be slaughtered in rapid succession, at 6-3.
Since you're so much better acquainted with civics than myself, Dougie, isn't there some sort of limits on one supreme court overturning a case from a previous court? (e.g., repealing the Roe v Wade decision)? It was explained to me and there's a latin term for it and I can't for the life of me remember it.
-
The Democrats never will come back to "classical liberalism", you're right. That era is over pretty much. But don't forget, the Dems didn't really embrace classical liberalism in the 60s either. The party was split between the progressive and reactionary wings at that time. That's why I complain of polarization; there used to be differences, vast differences, within both parties. Now it's only between them.
-
8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:
Disagree, polarization is entirely consistent with a free country, rabble rousing and partisanship is the very essence of American democracy, and is integral to the separation of powers bicameral American republic.
why should polarization be consistent with a free country? It hasn't always been this polarized, and it's entirely possible it wont' be in the future, necessarily. Usually polarization is a sign of increasing instability and dysfunction. Can't agree with you there.
2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:Money in politics is free speech, federal gun control is also unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS with a 5-4 conservative majority will protect both the first and second amendments from the Democrats trying to attack those rights, no matter what bat s**t legislation the Dems happen to pass to try and neuter them.
Dougie considers that to be a good thing, and so do I.
What's to clarify?Putting it that way it makes more sense. i don't agree, but it's clear enough at least.
-
You just engaged again, and I ask the moderator to take note.
As far as the wrongness of the Democratic Party, I have no problem with that. I'm not a Democrat and it's for a reason. What is wrong with the U.S. in my view is the polarization of both parties, rather than the faults of only one of them.
When you have too few moderates in a system it can destabilize.
-
Can we get back to what is wrong with the United States now? If anything, the moderator should have warned about thread drift a few pages ago. We're here to make arguments not "testify". This isn't a congressional committee.
-
Dougie, I asked you to clarify your statements above because I wanted to give a proper response. You said "there is no need to clarify". perhaps if you could clarify the statement I asked you to, I'd have a better response. Do you think you could do that now?
I also asked about citizens united and the first amendment. Again you brushed me off. It's hard to make a cogent response when I can't get one out of you
-
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator.
Yes, you've said that twice now. I heard you the first time.
-
Just now, Dougie93 said:
Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator. /shrugs
Wasn't intended as ad hominem, you were just wide open for it.
The weakness here is that you don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase an American patriot (a real patriot): "If this be ad hominem, then let us make the most of it."
-
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
I never called anyone an idiot, I am simply steeped in the American Religion from a young age by my Canadian born but American raised father.
If you do not defend and uphold the American Religion, you are not one of us, but the Creator has endowed you with right to be whatever you choose to be.
None the less, Big Red White and Blue Machine simply rolls on without you.
God bless America, brave and free.
You're steeped in something, that's for sure.
-
8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
No need to clarify.
Any who does not understand it, is immune to the evidence of the Declaration of Independence preamble and associated first amendment to uphold it, and second amendment to defend that.
Yes there is. And thank God you're here to set us idiots straight, Dougie.
-
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
The key laws to be stopped are first amendment related "Citizens United!" and second amendment related "Federal Gun Control!'
So long as the first and second amendments are secured, the republic shall never perish from this earth.
What laws related to the Citizens United and gun control are you specifically referencing?
And can you clarify your second sentence.
-
11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
Again, should be quite obvious to any reasonable person, that invoking the SCOTUS as the lawmaker when legislation is gridlocked, is a de facto lawmaking rather than de jure.
De jure separation of powers, de facto lawmaking when the conservative majority overrules socialist Democrat Party laws as being unconstitutional.
An ideological court is a good thing; just win baby. 5-4 reliable conservative majority, mission accomplished.
If you say so, Dougie. That's not quite how it works, and I'm not just talking about what was intended to happen or what happens on paper. In order for the SC to overturn a law, the law has to be made first. By Congress. If there's gridlock in Congress, there's no law to overturn, no? The SC has historically refrained from influencing legislation while it's being made. If you wanted to say that they legislate in that they go too far when they render a judgment, OK that's probably on the mark. But as far as making the law due to gridlock in Congress, that's way off.
-
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
The misunderstanding is your own, as you apparently do not grasp the distinction between de jure and de facto.
Forgive me, m'lord for my shameful ignorance (seems to be a lot of that going around I might add). Even in the de facto sense, the Supreme Court isn't as powerful as you seem to think. it's just that their judgments are listened to for some reason like they are gods incarnate.
I've taken two courses in college on the Supreme Court (one on the first amendment, the other, civil liberties and the supreme court). So I'm far from as ignorant as you seem to assume, dougie.
-
On 1/30/2019 at 11:25 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:
America’s system looks sclerotic now. The rise of alternative parties is inhibited by the rules, particularly those around the ballot:
https://newrepublic.com/article/146884/america-stuck-two-parties
The presidential election can be complicated by multiple candidates siphoning off the vote from the two leading ones, leading to a candidate winning who would not have won in a run-off. The run-off system, practised in many countries, is a better alternative. In the absence of one candidate securing a majority of the vote, the top two candidates progress to a second round or the candidates are ranked by preferential ballot in the first round.
Intriguing idea and you're probably right. The only problem, however is the lack of duty by American voters. We're notoriously lazy. "You mean I have to vote AGAIN? I just did that last year!"
On 1/31/2019 at 11:56 PM, -TSS- said:Ross Perot was some sort of a protest-candidate in 1992 and to a lesser extent in 1996. Somewhat telling that a protest-candidate was a multi-millionaire.
Yes, and interesting he won 19% of the popular vote in 1992; a lot more than a protest candidate usually does.
-
On 2/10/2019 at 8:43 PM, Dougie93 said:
Trump has no ideology other than Trump, he's a brand not an ideology, but in this case he's just being used by the Red States to get the Blue Collar districts onside, so the Red States could take control of the Supreme Court, because in the virtual civil war, all legislation will have to be made or broken by the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can make law, so only the Supreme Court matters.
I'm sorry did you say that the supreme court can make the law? Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs a civics lesson.
Certainly it's more powerful than the founders imagined it would be, in all likelihood. But I wouldn't say they make the law, or that only the SC matters. That is a definite misunderstanding of the situation.
-
On 2/7/2019 at 11:55 PM, Dougie93 said:
They're toying with the abyss, trying overthrow the first and second amendments in the name of socialism, is inciting a virtual civil war.
I was right, I shouldn't have asked.
-
On 2/6/2019 at 3:44 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:
Probably, but I still take such expressed interest as a confirmation of American relevance.
It's not like they routinely post threads about what's wrong with...ummmm... Bolivia.
Good point.
On 2/6/2019 at 4:02 AM, Dougie93 said:The only thing wrong with America, is the Democrat Party Plantation Aristocracy trying to turn it into Giant Canada.
They will fail, but it's still causing damage trying to ram that socialist peg into the Liberty Nation.
I'd ask you to clarify that but I probably shouldn't.
-
On 1/27/2019 at 4:48 PM, JamesHackerMP said:
Anyway, does the original poster think that we're doing anything right? Constructive criticism requires good as well as bad.
I'll take that as a no.
-
On 1/25/2019 at 1:13 AM, -TSS- said:
Theresa May has united the country at least on one way. Namely, just about everyone thinks she is completely useless as PM.
Cameron resigned for his attachment to Bremainers, perhaps May will resign due to Brexit.
-
Anyway, does the original poster think that we're doing anything right? Constructive criticism requires good as well as bad.
-
I was referring to traveling on Amtrak. It's a three day trip from the East to West coast.
-
On 1/25/2019 at 9:39 PM, Dougie93 said:
Yeah, you either have to fly, or you drive, only Euro effeminate cucks take the train.
It takes about three days to get from Washington (DC) to California. That might have something to do with it.
A third party in Congress---what exactly would happen?
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by JamesHackerMP
DRC? Democratic Republic of Congo? I don't completely understand your statement above. What would cause Republicans and white nationalists to win elections?
Bernie Sanders could run and probably would poll a minority of popular votes, if we ditched the EC in favor of a direct, national, popular vote.
I've come to the conclusion that, despite our frustration with two-party politics, most Americans are more comfortable with two parties than, say, four or five. In a sense, we make it a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts by always voting for the GOP or the dems.
Now there's technically nothing to stop anyone from voting for third parties, or for those parties to win. The only thing needed is people to vote for them. But they don't, no matter how much they may say the present system sucks.
However, we have had third parties win a bunch of seats in Congress, before. And don't forget the presidential election of 1860, where Abraham Lincoln was one of four candidates, and therefore managed to win with a fraction of the popular vote because he won the more populous northeastern part of the country. But I'm not just talking about the presidential elections, I'm talking about Congress, mostly.
THere are places where a Democrat almost never wins, or a Republican almost never wins. It would be in these areas in which a third party--if the residents therein wanted to do so--could replace the normal token opposition party (GOP or Democrats) with one of the third parties. It's mathematically possible. We just don't do it. But the fact that we did many years ago could one day make it a serious consideration.
There are presidential systems, Brazil notably, where there are a bunch of parties in Congress. A run-off system would probably allow for this in the States; but under first-past-the-post it's far less likely, I admit.