So was Garland.
Each side uses the power it holds.
The losing side always grouses about it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
After RGB
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Each side uses the power it holds.
The losing side always grouses about it.
From what I've heard they approach our constitution from different perspectives.
Republicans are generally originalists. They believe in a literial interpretation of the Constitution.
Democrats are more willing to interpret the Constitution according to current circumstances/events. So for example a republican may not take a federal stance on abortion for example. They won't rule on something that has not been specified in the constitution. Whereas a democrat would feel they may need to make a ruling on something that is not directly specified by the constitution like abortion but maybe implied by the spirit of the constitution.
Don't take this as gospel though, it is just a layman's perspective.
So a republican/conservative/originalist would leave the decisions in the hands of the individual states. So each state may have different abortion laws. In some states you could get an abortion in some states you couldn't.
I brought up abortion because that is the main issue both sides are worried about. That with a more conservative SCOTUS, abortion would be removed as a Federally protected right..
That's true. Democrats would do exactly the same thing if given a chance. I'd expect them to. And I'd expect the Republicans to bring up the same or similar reasons why Democrats shouldn't be doing it.
*throws temper tantrum*
But I’m not from the US so it might not make sense to me without context lol
Last edited:
Yes, I actually think it started with Bork. The Republicans proposed a candidate that was seen by the legal profession as unqualified. They did it again with Thomas. The Dems legitimately argued against both, but the Repubs decided to stop approving Dem judges *for years* (at the lower levels) and then quickly approving when their guys get in.
We've let this type of play go on for too long in the interest of 'working together', which the Repubs have consistently thrown back and refused to do.
Oh, for the times of Reagan and O'Neil.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I refer you to my posts #27 and #33.
And you don't think that would have provided context? Really?
Yes, on both sides.
It probably would have. Though I remember once googling why leftists don’t like liberals after encountering such criticisms in lefty spaces and came away far more confused than before. Though maybe that was more of a localisation issue
You're suggesting widespread hypocrisy?
NooOOOooOOOooOOOoooooOOOooo!
Why do you think that?
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's the way democracy dies.
When you have a common goal or direction, you keep to the rules, the formal and those of courtesy. When the party goal becomes more important than the common goal, the in-fighting starts. The US is about to lose its common goal and start a civil war. It is already a civil cold war. You already are a failed democracy. Four more years of Trump will make the US a failed state.
I'm looking forward to it because it will make the world safer.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I wondered about that. The abortion issue seems to obsess Americans, for some reason. But I would expect legal precedent would still count for something, even for an "originalist", wouldn't it? That would make the bar higher for overturning something so long established, I'd have thought.
exchemist
Veteran Member
It is if the political system has a death wish. Once you start appointing unqualified people to powerful positions, for reasons of mere party ideology, especially at the top of your legal system, your democracy has had it.
It is what happens when the people elect to office individuals with no respect for democracy. We are seeing the same in Britain. These people sell themselves as disrupters of a corrupt or failing system - and then promptly do their best to increase the corruption and promote the failure.
Democracy dies through indifference.
Well, the ABA said as much
No, democracies tend to die when demagogues take over and become dictators. This goes all the way back to Pericles.
This is one of the reasons those who wrote the Constitution were concerned about the rise of political parties: they knew that such would eventually erode the political fabric and their system would die.
In a democracy, it is indifference which facilitates that take-over.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That is also true. It is the combination of politicians bending or breaking the rules and the public's indifference toward that behaviour. The erosion of voting rights and outright neglect of them should have raised a storm of outrage, but that didn't happen. US Americans don't value democracy any more. They will have to lose it to treasure it again.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Maybe it's time to get out the watering pot?