What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the US Supreme Court still Legitimate? (Poll)

Is the US Supreme Court still legitimate, especially considering their Roe v Wade decision?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 72.0%
  • No

    Votes: 21 28.0%

  • Total voters
    75

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
From now on, if you want to reply to me, have something to say.
From now on if you think you have something to say, start by recognizing that you don’t. Proceed accordingly.

You have not had a single worthwhile thing to say in our most recent exchange. That’s a fact.

Additionally, try to grasp that I don’t take stage directions from stooges like you. 👍

Now, if by some weird chance, you wish to discuss the thread topic for a change, I grant you permission to try. I’ll help you out. Go scroll to the top of the page. There you’ll find the thread headline. The thread topic is often found in that headline.

The SCOTUS is obviously still legitimate. Liberals crying over a change in the status of the bench from primarily liberal to primarily conservative has nothing in the universe to do with its ongoing legitimacy.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
12,286
Reaction score
2,458
Points
170
Location
All in your mind
Depends on how you define "legitimate".

The problem with the court is that it's part of a system that is struggling to be relevant in the 21st Century.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. ONCE. And yet they've had two presidents and a five of the Supreme Court justice picks out of ten.

This isn't democracy, this isn't in any way the will of the people.

This is just politics, and people really don't have a say at all.

And that's with the FPTP system which is really bad at being democratic in the first place.

The whole system needs to change.
Electing Is Not Voting; It Is Giving Up Your Right to Vote on the Issues to Some Pre-Owned Politician

Only voters should have the right, through national referendums, to determine who else can vote. That is self-determination, which we, the people, lost through that anti-democratic elitist manifesto, the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, all elections since the Sick Sixties' Civil Rights Act and its Immigration Act are nullified, since race-treason is against the will of the majority, who are disenfranchised under all republics.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
12,286
Reaction score
2,458
Points
170
Location
All in your mind
It will not require 38 states. Legislation has passed several states already and it only takes enough states to represent 50%+1 members of the EC to vote to give their electoral representation to the candidate that takes the popular vote. There is noting in the constitution whatsoever that requires states to assign their electors in any shape or form outside a few constitutionally protected classes that they may not restrict access to. If the agreement is signed by enough states, the EC will remain intact but it will go to the winner of the popular vote every time no matter what the votes are in the individual states. They are missing 75 ec votes at this point to make this happen. That is not all that much but will certainly be difficult to finish off considering larger red states are simply not interested.


It may not happen. it may never happen but the reality is that it is not only closer than you may think but it is easily done without a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution Was Written by the Same Ignorant Incompetents Who Wrote the Articles of Confederation


That scheme directly takes away a state's right to have any independent power at all, being minimized as only a part of other states' conglomeration, Collectivism's ultimate goal.

Second, when Hillary, the Sobbing Statist, shrieked as she streaked through her Presidential campaign, she never won the Popular Vote, despite the wailing of the arithmetic-intolerant. She only got 48.2% of those votes, which would have thrown the election into the House, where each state gets only one vote. Trump, who won 30 states would have won that in a landslide.
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
8,027
Reaction score
2,202
Points
140
Let me get this straight....
1. The liberals want to get rid of the Supreme Court
2. The liberals want to get rid of the electoral College
3. ?

It sounds like they want to get rid of our Constitution, and run this country as a mob rule government.
Sounds absolutely nothing like that at all, where do you get this over the top stuff?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
12,286
Reaction score
2,458
Points
170
Location
All in your mind

  • No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Non-Violence Is for Pushovers

The border states have been actually invaded, so it's time for them to engage in war. Their National Guard troops have always had the right to kill all border-jumpers on sight.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
Sounds absolutely nothing like that at all, where do you get this over the top stuff?
Wrong. That’s exactly what the libtards want. Fuckin’ Obumbler bellyached about the Constitution. All you in that cult of stupidity actually want to be rid of our Constitution. You morons are so shallow, you can’t even track a conversation concerning the excellent reasons NOT to be a democracy.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
39,538
Reaction score
6,236
Points
1,130
1. You type words as "facts" with no proof. The US government and USSC are not "struggling for relevance", the Constitution makes them relevant.
2. The popular vote matters at the state and local levels, at the Federal level the Constitution stipulates the Electoral College, and that will not change. It is the will of the people state by state. You need to accept reality, the EC will never change. 38 state legislatures are NEVER going to vote to replace the EC. Period.
3. FPTP?? Nothing is going to change, except Constitutionally.

1) I write them as my opinion.

2) I know what is current in place. I'm calling for a change to that.
Saying "this is what exists, therefore this is what we have" when I'm talking about change is a ridiculous.
3) Yes, Constitutionally. Change the Constitution to make the US have a democratic electoral system that will stop the US the rot of craziness in US politics.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
39,538
Reaction score
6,236
Points
1,130
IOW, you want to get rid of the Republic.
Good luck getting -that- amendment passed.

Good luck getting -that- amendment passed.

Why is this better?

Why is this better?

So.... Congress picks?
How does this take the politics out of the USSC?

Well, the first thing to do is to convince people that they want Proportional Representation.
You don't need to get rid of the Republic. Germany is still a Republic and has Proportional Representation in a federal system.

Why is it better to have a leader who is from the legislator? Well, firstly because Presidents are expected to legislate anyway. If you did a poll of US citizens and asked questions to find out what they think the role of the US president is, I'd bet 75% would say they think he makes laws.

Secondly because it opens up the presidency to more political parties.

With the US system, people go to the polls with TWO viable choices. Trump or Biden. Trump or Hillary. When was the last time there were more than two viable choices? Maybe 1992 when Clinton won? But then all that happened was that people saw a third party person would split the vote and the other guy would win.

The French system is slightly better, because they have more political parties in parliament. They have seven alliances.

Twelve candidates stood in the first round. 10 got more than 1%, 4 got more than 5%, three were viable candidates. Jean-Luc MĂ©lenchon lost out by a small margin. Really it would have been better to have a second round with three candidates then do a third round, but anyway, still a better system than the US system.

In Germany with Proportional Representation there are six viable parties (with a 5% cut off point) and in Denmark 10 political parties (with a 2% cut off point). So when people go to vote, they're voting for who they want to represent them in government. Yes, personality politics exists, but less so, it's more about issues.

The US presidential election is mostly about personality politics right now. Presidential candidates make themselves look like something, and people vote for that, rather than for issues, because what can a President do? Can't make laws.... which is what people think they're voting for. So, give the executive that power then people get what they're voting for.

Congress choosing the Supreme Court would be better if Congress was elected through Proportional Representation because....

Imagine Germany is the USA.


The SPD has 206 seats, the CDU/CSU has 197 seats out of 736 seats. Neither of them get to choose the Supreme Court pick. Neither of them has a decisive pick.

The SPD is in coalition with the FDP and Greens have 416 seats from 736, or 56.5% of the seats. In order to get a Supreme Court justice there'd have to be consensus. Right now there's a certain amount of consensus, but not much because we see federal judges trying to catch the eye of future presidents by being wacky.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
39,538
Reaction score
6,236
Points
1,130
Electing Is Not Voting; It Is Giving Up Your Right to Vote on the Issues to Some Pre-Owned Politician

Only voters should have the right, through national referendums, to determine who else can vote. That is self-determination, which we, the people, lost through that anti-democratic elitist manifesto, the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, all elections since the Sick Sixties' Civil Rights Act and its Immigration Act are nullified, since race-treason is against the will of the majority, who are disenfranchised under all republics.

Er... what?
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
From now on if you think you have something to say, start by recognizing that you don’t. Proceed accordingly.

You have not had a single worthwhile thing to say in our most recent exchange. That’s a fact.

Additionally, try to grasp that I don’t take stage directions from stooges like you. 👍

Now, if by some weird chance, you wish to discuss the thread topic for a change, I grant you permission to try. I’ll help you out. Go scroll to the top of the page. There you’ll find the thread headline. The thread topic is often found in that headline.

The SCOTUS is obviously still legitimate. Liberals crying over a change in the status of the bench from primarily liberal to primarily conservative has nothing in the universe to do with its ongoing legitimacy.

I never said it wasn't legitimate. Again, you are just rambling.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
I never said it wasn't legitimate. Again, you are just rambling.
Thread topic, you asshole. I didn’t say you said it wasn’t legit. The thread question (ie the topic) is all about whether it is legitimate. Since you decline to even post on topic, I shared the topic with you.

Snap out of your coma, retard. Try to focus. Post on topic. And for the love of bacon, boi, try to use actual facts and logic.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
Thread topic, you asshole. I didn’t say you said it wasn’t legit. The thread question (ie the topic) is all about whether it is legitimate. Since you decline to even post on topic, I shared the topic with you.

I addressed the topic in my first post. You rambled incoherently to the point you couldn't even explain yourself.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
I addressed the topic in my first post. You rambled incoherently to the point you couldn't even explain yourself.
I responded accordingly to the vapid spew wherein you failed to address (rationally or coherently) the topic. And there is no point I’ve made which I cannot explain. I’ve been more than pleased to call you out on your obviously shallow efforts to deflect.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
I responded accordingly to the vapid spew wherein you failed to address (rationally or coherently) the topic. And there is no point I’ve made which I cannot explain. I’ve been more than pleased to call you out on your obviously shallow efforts to deflect.

You can't explain what side I'm on like you claimed I am.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
You can't explain what side I'm on like you claimed I am.
I don’t have to explain what side you’re on. If you don’t even know, that’s all on you.

And I don’t give a crap about your deflection efforts. Try to post on topic.

The topic is whether the SCOTUS is still legitimate. And the answer is, “of course.”
And that we at long last have a reasonably conservative majority has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with the “question” posed in the thread headline.

Your first offering was some vague crap about the “deal” with Justice Thomas’ wife. Smfh. There is no “deal” with her. Even mentioning her is a deflection effort. She isn’t on the SCOTUS bench.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
I don’t have to explain what side you’re on. If you don’t even know, that’s all on you.

And I don’t give a crap about your deflection efforts. Try to post on topic.

The topic is whether the SCOTUS is still legitimate. And the answer is, “of course.”
And that we at long last have a reasonably conservative majority has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with the “question” posed in the thread headline.

Your first offering was some vague crap about the “deal” with Justice Thomas’ wife. Smfh. There is no “deal” with her. Even mentioning her is a deflection effort. She isn’t on the SCOTUS bench.

No, she would be a huge issue as to why people have concerns.

You have a justices wife pushing conspiracy theories up to being able to call the White House to guestion why there isn't something being done about them.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
17,911
Points
2,288
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
No, she would be a huge issue as to why people have concerns.

You have a justices wife pushing conspiracy theories up to being able to call the White House to guestion why there isn't something being done about them.
Absolutely irrelevant. You seem unduly concerned with her right to free speech merely because her husband is a SCOTUS Justice.

Her right to free speech and her political views have no connection to her husband.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

New Topics

Forum List

Top