When you don’t actively kick out the terrible people in your group, you are making a choice to say “this is something I am willing to tolerate.” So I’ll ask, if you are a conservative and recognize that there are bad actors in your conservative party, are you calling out those bad actors? Or just putting your head down and joining rank and file because your party told you to?
Also, it’s basically impossible to get rid of supreme court justices, and for good reason. It allows them to rule on cases based only on what they legitimately believe to be the correct decision. The supreme court’s job isn’t to decide right from wrong, it’s to decide legal from illegal. If you don’t like their ruling, the way to change it should be through Congress, not though the courts.
That’s pretty bad. But It’s also not proof he said that. The law clerk could’ve just hated him for some reason. I don’t like to trust these types of accusations, since they’re so easy to make.
But still, it’s best for the supreme court to be permanent, in order for there to be as little political influence on the justices as possible after their appointment. And I would say the same thing even if the parties were reversed.
That’s pretty bad. But It’s also not proof he said that.
Yeah we’re to the point of me providing sources and you saying they aren’t good enough while providing none of your own. I’m done here. I admire your ability to both-sides a clearly lopsided issue. I hope someday the world is as beautiful and pure as you think it is.
I’m not saying I like him. But I just don’t see a better system for the supreme court. If you have any ideas for how the supreme court system could be better, I’d be happy to hear it.
I’m not a member of a political party. I vote for candidates, not parties. If you just vote for a specific party, which ever one that may be, that’s lazy. I don’t care if they’re republican or democrat, I care about what they value.
Also, you can’t really actively kick out member from a party, all you can do is just not vote for them.
It doesn’t matter what the political situation is, you should vote for specific candidates, not just blindly vote for your party, whichever one that may be, and then call anyone who doesn’t fully support your party evil.
You seem like an idealist, which I have some respect for, but you also have to account for reality. And the reality is, we don’t really vote for individual candidates anymore. We vote for one party or the other to have an additional vote. Elected politicians hardly ever vote outside of their party anymore. It’s not ideal but it is reality. If you vote for multiple candidates of different political parties, you’re just making noise.
And that’s a bad systematic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it. While there is a very clear difference between democrat and republican, there are still differences between candidates of the same party.
If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer. But if you just vote for a party, then the candidates have to no incentive to compete.
And that’s a bad systematic systemic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it.
You think a systemic problem can be fixed through the same system that caused it, and has been causing it for half a century?
If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer.
Wow you really have not been paying attention. LMAO nobody is going to compete to be the most centered candidate right now. It would be nice, but it’s not the reality that we are living in. By all means, if you believe that’s a winning strategy I encourage you to run on such a platform, or back someone who is, and see how far it gets you.
You think a systemic problem can be fixed through the same system that caused it, and has been causing it for half a century?
I think a new system would be better, but there isn’t any realistic way to change it right now.
nobody is going to compete to be the most centered candidate right now.
Maybe. But if enough people vote based on how closely centered a candidate is, then the elected officials will be overall more centered.
Even if the parties have a big split, it’s still better to have both, because it allows them to debate and work to find the best solution, which is almost always in the middle. I also really wish there were 3+ parties, because that would mean that no party had a majority.
(And for the record, the last time I voted was about 2/3 democrat. I might be more liberal, but I still have some conservative beliefs. And for a lot of things, I’m pretty torn between both sides.)
Why does the choice of a few select people mean that a huge number of people are now terrible?
When you don’t actively kick out the terrible people in your group, you are making a choice to say “this is something I am willing to tolerate.” So I’ll ask, if you are a conservative and recognize that there are bad actors in your conservative party, are you calling out those bad actors? Or just putting your head down and joining rank and file because your party told you to?
Also, it’s basically impossible to get rid of supreme court justices, and for good reason. It allows them to rule on cases based only on what they legitimately believe to be the correct decision. The supreme court’s job isn’t to decide right from wrong, it’s to decide legal from illegal. If you don’t like their ruling, the way to change it should be through Congress, not though the courts.
I wish I was this blissfully ignorant.
What other reasons would they have to make the rulings they do?
For Clarence Thomas, to make liberals’ lives miserable.
That’s pretty bad. But It’s also not proof he said that. The law clerk could’ve just hated him for some reason. I don’t like to trust these types of accusations, since they’re so easy to make.
But still, it’s best for the supreme court to be permanent, in order for there to be as little political influence on the justices as possible after their appointment. And I would say the same thing even if the parties were reversed.
Yeah we’re to the point of me providing sources and you saying they aren’t good enough while providing none of your own. I’m done here. I admire your ability to both-sides a clearly lopsided issue. I hope someday the world is as beautiful and pure as you think it is.
I’m not saying I like him. But I just don’t see a better system for the supreme court. If you have any ideas for how the supreme court system could be better, I’d be happy to hear it.
I’m not a member of a political party. I vote for candidates, not parties. If you just vote for a specific party, which ever one that may be, that’s lazy. I don’t care if they’re republican or democrat, I care about what they value.
Also, you can’t really actively kick out member from a party, all you can do is just not vote for them.
This is so hilariously uneducated to the current political situation that I really hope you’re arguing in bad faith instead of just that stupid.
It doesn’t matter what the political situation is, you should vote for specific candidates, not just blindly vote for your party, whichever one that may be, and then call anyone who doesn’t fully support your party evil.
You seem like an idealist, which I have some respect for, but you also have to account for reality. And the reality is, we don’t really vote for individual candidates anymore. We vote for one party or the other to have an additional vote. Elected politicians hardly ever vote outside of their party anymore. It’s not ideal but it is reality. If you vote for multiple candidates of different political parties, you’re just making noise.
And that’s a bad systematic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it. While there is a very clear difference between democrat and republican, there are still differences between candidates of the same party.
If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer. But if you just vote for a party, then the candidates have to no incentive to compete.
That presupposes that you want a centralist government in power.
You think a systemic problem can be fixed through the same system that caused it, and has been causing it for half a century?
Wow you really have not been paying attention. LMAO nobody is going to compete to be the most centered candidate right now. It would be nice, but it’s not the reality that we are living in. By all means, if you believe that’s a winning strategy I encourage you to run on such a platform, or back someone who is, and see how far it gets you.
I think a new system would be better, but there isn’t any realistic way to change it right now.
Maybe. But if enough people vote based on how closely centered a candidate is, then the elected officials will be overall more centered.
Even if the parties have a big split, it’s still better to have both, because it allows them to debate and work to find the best solution, which is almost always in the middle. I also really wish there were 3+ parties, because that would mean that no party had a majority.
(And for the record, the last time I voted was about 2/3 democrat. I might be more liberal, but I still have some conservative beliefs. And for a lot of things, I’m pretty torn between both sides.)
78% of republicans are pro-life.
Anti abortion*