Politics And Current Events

faftorial
Posts: 14817
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:35 pm
Location: Lengeschder

Politics And Current Events

Postby faftorial » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:11 pm

Image

Pavel Bure
Posts: 7545
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Pavel Bure » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:37 pm

Does anyone really think the 2nd amendment is in danger? Doesn’t it need 2/3rds the senate and 3/4 states to change an amendment? It’s a non-issue like abortion

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29195
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Politics And Current Events

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:43 pm

Does anyone really think the 2nd amendment is in danger? Doesn’t it need 2/3rds the senate and 3/4 states to change an amendment? It’s a non-issue like abortion
I think it gets complicated since the Supreme Court has to interpret the amendment rather than, uh, amend it

I definitely could be way off here but the Supreme Court ruling that states can make laws banning guns over x caliber or something as constitutional is the fear. The second amendment could remain intact but the only firearms you’re allowed to bear is a blunderbuss and .22 PPK

nocera
Posts: 41735
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:47 am
Location: He/Him

Politics And Current Events

Postby nocera » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:05 am

2nd amendment is not in danger. Roe v Wade on the other hand...

King Colby
Posts: 17852
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:35 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby King Colby » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:25 am

2nd amendment is not in danger. Roe v Wade on the other hand...
...also not in danger. Willing to make a sizeable wager.

CBear3
Posts: 7666
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 am

2nd amendment is not in danger. Roe v Wade on the other hand...
...also not in danger. Willing to make a sizeable wager.
It’ll be handled the same way as those who worry about the 2nd. Draconian limitations on them but they’ll still be “legal.”

shafnutz05
Posts: 50378
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:09 am

Seeing a lot of rage on Twitter directed at RBG. Namely, why she didn't just retire at age 80 around the time Obama's second term started.

The question itself is valid, I suppose. According to NPR, she wanted to match or surpass John Paul Stevens' record of serving until 90.

CBear3
Posts: 7666
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:34 am

She also would have had to do so when Republicans didn’t hold the Senate apparently.

nocera
Posts: 41735
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:47 am
Location: He/Him

Politics And Current Events

Postby nocera » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:20 am

The rage should be at lifetime terms.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27516
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:35 am

Yeesh


Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:42 am

Historically the reason for lifetime appointments was so that justices wouldn't have to run for election and that it would make them less likely to be liable to corruption.

There was also an understanding that they wouldn't serve for so long until they were medically incapacitated.

I don't think limiting their service to 25 years given the rise in life expectancy is out of the realm of rational argument.

Gaucho
Posts: 49571
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:52 am

Yeesh

This makes me physically ill.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:29 am

Going to enjoy the opposite day. :lol:


nocera
Posts: 41735
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:47 am
Location: He/Him

Politics And Current Events

Postby nocera » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:31 am

Yep. And if they would’ve done their job the first time they wouldn’t have given the Dems so much ammunition now.

PFiDC
Posts: 9248
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:23 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby PFiDC » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:34 am

Historically the reason for lifetime appointments was so that justices wouldn't have to run for election and that it would make them less likely to be liable to corruption.

There was also an understanding that they wouldn't serve for so long until they were medically incapacitated.

I don't think limiting their service to 25 years given the rise in life expectancy is out of the realm of rational argument.
:fist: on all accounts.

25 sounds reasonable to me.

willeyeam
Posts: 39564
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Politics And Current Events

Postby willeyeam » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 am

25+ finishing out the term of the POTUS in office

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:42 am

20-25 years is good. No reason they should be around for more than a generation.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27516
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:42 am

In case anyone is confused, the dems are the actual hypocrites.

King Colby
Posts: 17852
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:35 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby King Colby » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:42 am

I can get behind that

Troy Loney
Posts: 27516
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:46 am



Probably a good reminder that the federalist society does not possess a popular agenda.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:50 am

In case anyone is confused, the dems are the actual hypocrites.
"What if I told you they are switching sides of their 2016 arguments because it is politically convenient."

It is possible for Democrats to be wrong here, as are the GOP.

As seen by the opposite day statements of Schumer and Graham from 2016.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:53 am



Probably a good reminder that the federalist society does not possess a popular agenda.
Trump has been "ultra far right"?

:lol:

If you take out his being a four year old on Twitter and in his personal life what part of the actual agenda stuff is outside a boring GWB term?

I mean outside the lack of wars.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27516
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:55 am

Massive tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks, cadre a young far right judicial nominations.

At least the W. Tax cuts made some sense after Clinton budget surpluses.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:55 am

In TL's world apparently only one side can be hypocrites.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:57 am

Massive tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks, cadre a young far right judicial nominations.

At least the W. Tax cuts made some sense after Clinton budget surpluses.
That is far right?

Lol

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests