The breakup of the United Kingdom???

[JimBowie1958]

The EU is a market based entity, not a nation. Good grief.

Well they are trying to make it into a nation via sleight of hand and back room deals.

 

[nat4900]

So basically because getting the changes you want is "hard", you have to circumvent the document using judges that agree with your politics?

Yeah, GREAT idea.

Well, that's a dumb retort........Ask me how many supreme court decision I agree with since the partisan Scalia took it over? (and, YES, Scalia ran the SCOTUS)

 

[Zander]

The SNP will run on having another referendum, and Scotland will leave the UK.

So,why is that bad?

I didn't say it was good or bad.

The topic of this thread is the breakup of the UK. Brexit probably breaks up the UK.

Personally, I think we will see of a lot of secessionist movements gaining momentum over the next few years. Culminating with the fall of the EU.

Social mood has shifted from "building bridges" to "building walls". We've had a huge reversal from "optimism" to "pessimism".

 

[nat4900]

Obama stuck his Dictator nose into the UKs Brexit debate where it did not belong and now we see it got cut, yet again.

Obama is not the fabulous wonderful Mind that the US media morons seem to think he is. His intervention probably cost the Remain vote a percent or two of the vote there.

Stupid "conclusion"......The vote was based on rural England inordinate fears of darkies coming in...Basically cutting their own noses to spite their collective faces....But, I wish England well.

 

[martybegan]

Most power under the U.S. Constitution, rests with the states. That's the model. It's the progressive retards that have slowly moved to an all empowered central authority. That is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid. But then, history seems to have never been your strong suit.

Its interesting that right wingers on here have all become "Constitutional scholars"......The reality may well be that the country envisioned by the Founders in the 18th century has little to do with the economic and social environment of the 21st century, both here and abroad.

Then amend the constitution to reflect those realities, don't use Judges to re-write it.

Why don't YOU amend the Constitution to take the power of judicial review away from the Court?

What we are seeing now is not judicial review, it is judicial legislating.

I would make some comment about you not seeing it, but that would be a lie. OF COURSE you see it, you just notice that most of the re-writes suit you, so you allow the process to be subjugated in the interest of your own expediency.

No. You just don't like a judiciary that doesn't make the decisions you would prefer. That's a partisan objection, not an objection on principle.

Actually I would prefer if Gay marriage is the law of the land in all States, however I do not see a mechanism for forcing the States to issue them via the federal courts, only a method of forcing them to accept marriages from other States.

I would prefer if abortion was legal throughout the US, up to the start of the 3rd trimester for any reason, and for risks to the mother after, however again, I do not see a mechanism in the constitution that forces States to accept this.

You mistake my criticism of the method for opposition for the results. As a strict constructional federalist, my desire for an outcome is overruled by my respect for the document as written and intended, particularly when it comes to the relegation of powers to the various levels of government, and the people.

 

[nat4900]

Social mood has shifted from "building bridges" to "building walls". We've had a huge reversal from "optimism" to "pessimism".

Precisely the environment that led us into TWO world wars.

 

[martybegan]

So basically because getting the changes you want is "hard", you have to circumvent the document using judges that agree with your politics?

Yeah, GREAT idea.

Well, that's a dumb retort........Ask me how many supreme court decision I agree with since the partisan Scalia took it over? (and, YES, Scalia ran the SCOTUS)

Again,see my post to NYCarb, my issue is usually not with end results, but with the process. and Scalia was as close to a strict constructionist as you will get, with the exception of Thomas.

 

[Rustic]

The SNP will run on having another referendum, and Scotland will leave the UK.

Scotland has long "itched" for a plausible excuse to be independent from London...They've just been handed the perfect "excuse" to do so.

Bear in mind that London and the majority of England's industrial cities voted to REMAIN in the EU.....This latest vote by rural England was strictly based on emotion.

Fuck the EU... the rest of the world has been holding them up since the start... Shit for brains

 

[nat4900]

BUT in doing that they have served up a stinging defeat for the type of Anti-nationalism the the Left has embraced, including Obama and HIllary.

If your other half of your brain were functioning, you too would see that too much "nationalism" is the precursor of bloody wars.

 

[Correll]

Obama stuck his Dictator nose into the UKs Brexit debate where it did not belong and now we see it got cut, yet again.

Obama is not the fabulous wonderful Mind that the US media morons seem to think he is. His intervention probably cost the Remain vote a percent or two of the vote there.

Stupid "conclusion"......The vote was based on rural England inordinate fears of darkies coming in...Basically cutting their own noses to spite their collective faces....But, I wish England well.

Tell that to the girls of Rotherham.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The vote was based on rural England inordinate fears of darkies coming in...Basically cutting their own noses to spite their collective faces....But, I wish England well.

lol, everything is about racism to you libtards.

Even a vote to remain an independent nation and leave the EU is all about racism.

Look, numbnuts, the Muslims from Pakistan and India will continue to enter Britain as they are part of the Commonwealth. The Leave vote wanted to limit immigration from Eastern Euroepean nations like Bulgaria and Romania, not Pakistan, dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So basically because getting the changes you want is "hard", you have to circumvent the document using judges that agree with your politics?

Yeah, GREAT idea.

Well, that's a dumb retort........Ask me how many supreme court decision I agree with since the partisan Scalia took it over? (and, YES, Scalia ran the SCOTUS)

Again,see my post to NYCarb, my issue is usually not with end results, but with the process. and Scalia was as close to a strict constructionist as you will get, with the exception of Thomas.

No, they were just rightwing partisans whose decisions you agreed with.

'Legislating from the bench' is just a meaningless catchphrase that both sides use when the decision doesn't go their way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

BUT in doing that they have served up a stinging defeat for the type of Anti-nationalism the the Left has embraced, including Obama and HIllary.

If your other half of your brain were functioning, you too would see that too much "nationalism" is the precursor of bloody wars.

And nationalism is also the anti-dote to imperial schemes and dictatorial power mongering.

 

[nat4900]

Again,see my post to NYCarb, my issue is usually not with end results, but with the process. and Scalia was as close to a strict constructionist as you will get, with the exception of Thomas.

There is much "interpretation" and subsequent biases in "strict constructionist" policies....and Thomas....almost by his own admission, was just a puppet to Scalia.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its interesting that right wingers on here have all become "Constitutional scholars"......The reality may well be that the country envisioned by the Founders in the 18th century has little to do with the economic and social environment of the 21st century, both here and abroad.

Then amend the constitution to reflect those realities, don't use Judges to re-write it.

Why don't YOU amend the Constitution to take the power of judicial review away from the Court?

What we are seeing now is not judicial review, it is judicial legislating.

I would make some comment about you not seeing it, but that would be a lie. OF COURSE you see it, you just notice that most of the re-writes suit you, so you allow the process to be subjugated in the interest of your own expediency.

No. You just don't like a judiciary that doesn't make the decisions you would prefer. That's a partisan objection, not an objection on principle.

Actually I would prefer if Gay marriage is the law of the land in all States, however I do not see a mechanism for forcing the States to issue them via the federal courts, only a method of forcing them to accept marriages from other States.

I would prefer if abortion was legal throughout the US, up to the start of the 3rd trimester for any reason, and for risks to the mother after, however again, I do not see a mechanism in the constitution that forces States to accept this.

You mistake my criticism of the method for opposition for the results. As a strict constructional federalist, my desire for an outcome is overruled by my respect for the document as written and intended, particularly when it comes to the relegation of powers to the various levels of government, and the people.

States are required to have constitutional laws. If you have a state marriage law, it has to be constitutional, and can be struck down if it is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BUT in doing that they have served up a stinging defeat for the type of Anti-nationalism the the Left has embraced, including Obama and HIllary.

If your other half of your brain were functioning, you too would see that too much "nationalism" is the precursor of bloody wars.

And nationalism is also the anti-dote to imperial schemes and dictatorial power mongering.

Hitler was the ultimate nationalist.

 

[Zander]

Social mood has shifted from "building bridges" to "building walls". We've had a huge reversal from "optimism" to "pessimism".

Precisely the environment that led us into TWO world wars.

Your "pessimism" proves my point!!

 

[Correll]

BUT in doing that they have served up a stinging defeat for the type of Anti-nationalism the the Left has embraced, including Obama and HIllary.

If your other half of your brain were functioning, you too would see that too much "nationalism" is the precursor of bloody wars.

1. So, you admit that "anti-nationalism" is part of the modern lefty ideology. Thus my point about this being a defeat for Obama and Hillary.


2. Not wanting to submit to un-elected bureaucrats or building a Wall is hardly "too much nationalism".

 

[nat4900]

And nationalism is also the anti-dote to imperial schemes and dictatorial power mongering.

Actually, precisely the other way around. Dictatorial governance is a direct result of too much nationalism...proof of that is the Axis before WWII.

 

[martybegan]

So basically because getting the changes you want is "hard", you have to circumvent the document using judges that agree with your politics?

Yeah, GREAT idea.

Well, that's a dumb retort........Ask me how many supreme court decision I agree with since the partisan Scalia took it over? (and, YES, Scalia ran the SCOTUS)

Again,see my post to NYCarb, my issue is usually not with end results, but with the process. and Scalia was as close to a strict constructionist as you will get, with the exception of Thomas.

No, they were just rightwing partisans whose decisions you agreed with.

'Legislating from the bench' is just a meaningless catchphrase that both sides use when the decision doesn't go their way.

No, it isn't.