2020 Election early voting and eventually results

In brief, overthrow of Western cultural identity. Our position...our way of life...our identity through the traditional lens of family, church, justice. By indoctrination. Granted, they may get students to think, which you champion, but all previous absolute assumptions are trashed and a new ideology is introduced. Perhaps I should ask who *We* is that fears this...and it is a bit simplistic to call the whole struggle as Globalism vs Nationalism, but just look at the refugees streaming into Europe.Utopian Pacifism is happening...based on some of the ideas which even you have proposed...namely that there is no original sin and that humans are basically good. You also have encouraged your "students" to throw God away and to view God as simply a human construct. The whole of Western Culture was based on Christianity (largely) and the belief that God was absolute. In other words, I fear that one result will be a godless secular humanist post Christian culture...and I think that this is a huge mistake. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

But then, of course, they can't "look at" anything until someone brings a suit. And then they pretty much have to decide (or decide not to take the case, which is also a decision). So what you're saying is you think they'll decide these cases "wrongly", isn't it?

What Western Cultural Identity Phat? What Church Phat? What family Phat? What justice Phat? Yes, Phat, yes you should actually start asking questions because what you post is simply juvenile pandering. Why would that be a mistake. Why are you opposed to pacifism? Why should previously held untested absolutes not be challenged?And no where will you find that I propose that humans are basically good. Not even the God you try to market is basically good. What I say is that good & bad are human constructs and we need to learn to be good.

quote:

---

But then, of course, they can't "look at" anything until someone brings a suit. And then they pretty much have to decide (or decide not to take the case, which is also a decision)

---

I’ve been talking about cases that have already been brought. As you should have gathered.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is you think they'll decide these cases "wrongly", isn't it?

---

There is certainly cause to think that they might disqualify legally cast votes, by overriding the State authorities, and changing the rules after the fact. Three Justices have already indicated that they would, in the case of North Carolina.

People scream blue murder when the courts rule against them, as they always do when there are two opposed parties to a suit. Southern Democrats promised "massive resistance" to Brown vs. Board of Education (even Joe Biden fought against busing for integration a half-century ago when he was a young - well, middle aged - Senator). Right-to-Lifers went so far as to shoot doctors and bomb clinics after Roe vs. Wade. Andrew Jackson simply ignored Worcester vs. Georgia. Liberals are cobbling together plans to pack the Supreme Court (There Is Only One Solution to the Amy Coney Barrett Debacle | The Nation) in the ultimate victor's justice should Mr. Biden win, as seems ever more likely. However the courts rule they will offend some people.Personally, I think the courts should be more inclined to rule on the laws rather then use their decisions to "write" new laws of their own, but our modern culture of "making a federal case out of everything" and legislatures legislating sloppily (will they ever pass laws making a uniform, easy-to-read ballot and a better functioning voting system?), hoping the judiciary will edit the output of their word processors has dumped way too much power into the hands of the unelected judges and justices (and don't get me started on the ones from states where judges are ELECTED!)

quote:

---

People scream blue murder when the courts rule against them, as they always do when there are two opposed parties to a suit.

---

I see you’re reduced to innuendo now.As for court-packing The Republicans have made it clear that they when they have power they will use it to promote ideologues to the courts when they can and block judicial appointments - regardless of merit or need - when they can’t. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to redress that. Indeed, it is necessary to the political health of America that it is addressed.With Trump politicising the civil service and his supporters clamouring for show trials of political opponents, it seems to me that there is a real threat of tyranny. It reminds me of the Soviet Union.

Innuendo? Hardly. I claimed that people will scream when rulings go against them and I gave examples of some screaming.As for court packing, sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance.

quote:

---

Innuendo? Hardly. I claimed that people will scream when rulings go against them and I gave examples of some screaming.

---

And in context it was clearly intended as innuendo.

quote:

---

As for court packing, sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance.

---

It’s not only legal it’s far more justifiable than what the Republicans have been doing. Which can more fairly be called court packing.

I'm sorry if stating facts that you agree with is taken by you as "innuendo"....But anyway . . . .Why have a judiciary at all?If n is the number of Supreme Court justices, then all you need is a President and half the Senate (VP casting the tie vote) to add another n+1 justices and suddenly every law that President signs will automatically be constitutional!On the other hand, though, you can't always expect your poodles to refrain from biting you. Remember, in U.S. vs. Nixon the President didn't get votes from any of the justices he himself appointed!

The majority of the House must also agree to any change in number of SCOTUS seats. And, frankly, if there is that much political will in favor (the House, the Senate and the president) then so be it. Ride with the politics. That's the way we work.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm sorry if stating facts that you agree with is taken by you as "innuendo"....

---

Ah, the standard I’m sorry I got caught faux-apology.

quote:

---

Why have a judiciary at all?

​

If n is the number of Supreme Court justices, then all you need is a President and half the Senate (VP casting the tie vote) to add another n+1 justices and suddenly every law that President signs will automatically be constitutional!

---

Well that is where the Republicans are trying to go by controlling judicial appointments and by appointing judges by ideology rather than merit. Using expansion to rebalance the court would reduce that effect, not create it.Of course, the Republicans will say otherwise, but they’ve already proven that they’re lying hypocrites only interested in maintaining power.

Republicans, Not Biden, Are About to Raise Your Taxes

quote:

---

The current poverty line for a family of four is $26,200: People with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 nearly one-quarter of Americans are among those scheduled to pay a higher average tax rate in 2021 than in years before the tax cut was passed. The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table.

​

Of course, the poor have never mattered much to the Republican Party, but those on the edge of poverty have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and the recession its caused, so Trump’s planned tax increases seem especially heartless, and impractical, when you consider that their higher tax payments, while a huge burden for them, will add little to the budget.

​

By 2027, when the law’s provisions are set to be fully enacted, with the stealth tax increases complete, the country will be neatly divided into two groups: Those making over $100,000 will on average get a tax cut. Those earning under $100,000 an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers will not.

​

At the same time, Trump has given his peers, people with annual incomes in excess of $1 million dollars, or the top 0.3 percent in the country, a huge gift: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the average tax rate in 2019 for this group to be 2.3 percentage points lower than before the tax cut, saving the average taxpayer in this group over $64,000 more than the average American family makes in a year.

---

Trump, the current crop of Fascist Republicans but most of all the Conservative Evangelical Christian Apologists who have supported and lied about what has been going on already fucked you and all of the American Middle Class. Now of course they fucked their followers as well but then that's what they do. Them what count will be among those who benefit.Edited by jar, : no "e" on "on"

Just to add, packing the courts is only one solution to a politicized judiciary. For one example, Congress can impose term limits on every federal judge.The best solution, IMHO, is to subject every federal judge, including the members of the Supreme Court, to a retention vote every federal election, AKA every two years. Any judge who lacks a majority vote in a simple yes/no retention question would be removed immediately and a replacement appointed by Congress, Added to an immediate recall at any point with a 5-10% petition of all eligible voters, and instead of rule by 30 (or 9+) Tyrants, we would have voter oversight of the federal judicial system.Besides, court-packing could lead to a situation where we have 13 judges when one party is in power, 15 next, 17 next, etc. Next thing you know, the Supreme Court has 99 or 199 or 999 judges with obvious implications concerning actually getting around to a ruling.This is not a new concept. This state has been doing almost exactly what I propose for all it's judges.Edited by anglagard, : Redundancy"
Redundancy: two, to's.

Art.3, Sec.1 of the Constitution is very specific. Appointed judges serve lifetime appointments. Would need an amendment to get limited service or election for federal judges.And do we really want judges selling their opinions for campaign contributions?Lifetime appointment keeps the judiciary somewhat above the partisan money grab that is the political process in this country. They get to exercise long term judicial temperament and expertise vs having to deal with short term political whims, many contrary to long established legal standards, fostered by periodic elections from a society that doesn't know a tort from a Pop-Tart. ... a lot of organs of governance should be left to reflect the political whims of a fickle majority. The Judiciary is "not" one of them. There are adequate checks and balances to remove egregiously bad judges. Shielding judges to some degree from the political vagaries of society helps keep political considerations mollified and the bench's rulings centered on the law not on any personal political considerations.Today we have the other branches of our government playing fast and loose political games with court appointments. That's what our system of governance is built to handle. Let the others play the politics; keep it out of the courts. If some feel slighted at the prospect of a conservative slant to the court you don't address that issue by taking away judges protections from undue influence. The system ALLOWS you to alter that political slant by adding a seat or two. So be it. If the majority of both houses of Congress and the president are so motivated then our system of government allows for such.Both House and Senate would realistically laugh at the suggestion of 99+ seats on the court so don't use that argument. It's not gonna happen.Congress is not barred from decreasing the number of SCOTUS seats. Again, if some Judicial Reform Bill cutting the swelling number of Justices from 15 back to 9 by eliminating the seats of these 6 named justices made it into law, which means majorities in each house and the president all in agreement, the constitution and the very philosophy that underpins that document requires that it be so.If a round of musical SCOTUS chairs every 4 to 8 years bothers people it shouldn’t. Matters not the number of seats but the mind that occupies them. Shouldn’t matter what the politics, if the ABA says they are well qualified then we can argue politics. If the ABA says different then politics shouldn’t matter. Unfortunately that has not always been the case. But we chase an ideal. We can try.But making SCOTUS an elected body gives the majority too may of the levers of power for short term mischief. The judiciary was isolated from political whims by the founding fathers for a very specific reason. The political whims of the majority in any society are too often too fucking stupid for its own good. Trump as exhibit A.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Exactly, as I said, "...sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance."