What do you mean?
Oh, just thinking about the way so many issues were resolved in the courts, by activist judges.
Abortion, and gay marriage come to mind pretty quickly. Those were not popular when they were decided by the courts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What do you mean?
The Courts decisions aren't supposed to be "popular", nor democratic. They're supposed to enforce the Constitution regardless of what is popular.Oh, just thinking about the way so many issues were resolved in the courts, by activist judges.
Abortion, and gay marriage come to mind pretty quickly. Those were not popular when they were decided by the courts.
The Courts decisions aren't supposed to be "popular", nor democratic. They're supposed to enforce the Constitution regardless of what is popular.
But what point are you trying to make? I'm making the argument for consensus. We need leadership that represents all of the country, and not just their base.
The Court doesn't "pass laws". It upholds Constitutional limits on government. If you're saying the Court is doing its job poorly, I'd have to agree.Correct. But they were not used that way. They were used to push polices that were not supported by the population, not at all.
If passing a law that only half hte nation supports, is divisive, what is passing a law that well over half the nation opposes, ,and didn't get any vote on at all?
The Court doesn't "pass laws". It upholds Constitutional limits on government. If you're saying the Court is doing its job poorly, I'd have to agree.
But I'm not sure what it has to do with my appeal for consensus leadership.
MkaySure it does. When you (or a judge you support) writes laws based on "doing what is right" or "the evolving definition of a world" or some similar bullshit excuse, that is the court "passing a law", just in violation of the Constitution.
Not sure how you make that leap. I'm talking about passing laws with only a slim, partisan majority. We need to understand that that's a bad idea. Do you think it's a good idea?That makes consensus impossible.
Why do you think that Desantis even wants to run for President?
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for the GOP to nominate anyone other than the Trumpster if Trump is willing to run.
It would send a signal to the D's that they are able to run off Republicans just by cranking up the lies like they did with The Donald. Whatever non-Trump candidate would be nominated would be literally crucified by the media.
The Court doesn't "pass laws".
It upholds Constitutional limits on government. If you're saying the Court is doing its job poorly, I'd have to agree.
But I'm not sure what it has to do with my appeal for consensus leadership.
Nazis! Everywhere there's Nazis!The court crafted Roe V. Wade out of whole cloth.
Real Libertarians support the Constitution with Checks and Balances - but then you're a fucking Nazi..
Of course, the court is no longer a super legislature for your Reich, which outrages you.
Your appeal is for authoritarianism under your Reich.
If we would all just OBEY our rulers it would be okay...
Mkay
Not sure how you make that leap. I'm talking about passing laws with only a slim, partisan majority. We need to understand that that's a bad idea. Do you think it's a good idea?
I HATE Biden, his administration, and his policies. I especially, hate his traitorous refusal to stop the unbelievably huge invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens. We need machine gun towers, NOT weak-kneed acquiesence.
But I also HATE Donald Trump. I'm an Indie and I will NEVER VOTE for ANY trump. I think Trump has poisoned the GOP. I will also never vote for a trump/anybody ticket.
I hope the GOP can come up with a solid, intelligent, capable presidential candidate. Trump is none of these things.
Yeah. I don't see any connection. The Court thing is a problem, sure. But it doesn't stand in the way of our leaders seeking consensus.I'm just pointing out that there is a whole other source of division, that if you want to advance to "consensus" politics that need addressing at some point.
I'm not sure what you think my goal is. Rights should never be up to the legislature, neither state nor federal.On the plus side, with Abortion being kicked back to the State legislatures, this is a huge windfall for you and your goal.
It creates a chance for consensus on one of the most divisive issues of hte last several decades.
The more I talk to you about this, the more convincing you are getting.
So in other words, you realize that Brandon has fucked things up royally, but you will still vote for him because he doesn't make mean tweets.
Because that's the choice. Sleepy Joe vs President Trump.
I'm just pointing out that our recent choices, regardless of party, have been awful. If we have to choose between Biden and Trump, we're up shit creek. They both suck.So in other words, you realize that Brandon has fucked things up royally, but you will still vote for him because he doesn't make mean tweets.
Because that's the choice. Sleepy Joe vs President Trump.
Yeah. I don't see any connection. The Court thing is a problem, sure. But it doesn't stand in the way of our leaders seeking consensus.
I'm not sure what you think my goal is. Rights should never be up to the legislature, neither state nor federal.
That's gratifying, but I suspect we're talking past each other. To clarify, ruling by consensus doesn't mean that everyone magically agrees. It means we don't make laws unless everyone agrees. I'd like to see a President who refuses to sign a bill if it was passed solely by members of their own party.