Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Geez. I thought I’d heard it all. A new low in disgusting rhetoric. Classless. Insane. Discriminatory. Producing babies is somehow testament to one’s intelligence, patriotism or leadership qualities … ?
Yeah he's a gem alright. Makes me think of being back in 3rd grade with these two name-calling geniuses. I thought Yale had higher graduating standards.
Vance supposedly had an epiphany and became a converted Trump supporter. Perhaps he's just another opportunistic, power-hungry politician? Regardless, Trump diminishes everyone in his immediate orbit.
Also caught a bit from a vid posted on HuffPo where he said that people with children should have more say in the system than those without. But nothing tops Trump's latest, to far-right "Christians" : vote this year, and after that, they won't have to vote again. Actual quote from NYT article:
"Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
I read his comments from The Believers' Summit. Trump aspires to be a dictator for life. His admiration for Vladimr Putin and Viktor Orban stems from their "enviable" status. What a narcissistic SOB! How can someone with such great disdain towards the Constitution be allowed on the presidential ballot?
Those sorts of "Christians," who actually entertain and even support a Trump Presidency, are what gives Christianity such a black eye in the arena of public perception. Trump is a childish, selfish dolt, and so are those evangelical types who adore him, rather than the God they profess to believe in. They deserve each other. He must be stopped. *************** "Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't this country's founders worried about exactly this type of situation? And now we have a Trumpian "supreme" court that's aiding and abetting. Serious trouble here, folks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't this country's founders worried about exactly this type of situation? And now we have a Trumpian "supreme" court that's aiding and abetting. Serious trouble here, folks.
You’re not wrong. The founders established 3 separate but equal branches believing any 2 would be sufficient to check the abuse of power by the third. Sounds great in theory. They could not have foreseen the rise of electronic media and hence the extent to which money influences elections. Nor did they foresee nuclear weapons instantaneously targeted from land, sea, air / space. That factor that has led to increased power in the executive branch. Modern warfare isn’t conducive to lengthy deliberation.
Back to OJ’s central point. The founders did make provissions for amending the Constitution. See. So one way to counter abuses by a conservative court is to rewrite portions of the Constitution to be so clear it would ne near impossible for the Court to rule otherwise. For that matter they could conceivably even “amend” the court out of existence. And Congress could impeach any member of the SC if it had enough votes. So the 3-branch “checks” the founders implemented are in place, they’re just not being used.
Why are the checks not being used? I dare say that politicians at federal and state level do not feel sufficiently threatened by loss of seats to effect change. In a sense it falls back on “We the people” - although the obstacles to making it work as intended are huge and mostly not foreseen by the founders. The Repugs have barricaded the doors, thrown every conceivable obstacle in the way of a fair judiciary or reforms.
Also caught a bit from a vid posted on HuffPo where he said that people with children should have more say in the system than those without. But nothing tops Trump's latest, to far-right "Christians" : vote this year, and after that, they won't have to vote again. Actual quote from NYT article:
"Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
I was apparently wrong in suggesting the Constitution could be amended to abolish the Supreme Court. I don’t have a source, but when I posed the question to Google’s AI here’s what came back:
”Based on the search results, it is not possible to eliminate the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to structure the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 1), but it does not provide a mechanism for abolishing the Court.
Congressional Power
While Congress has significant authority to establish and modify the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not permit Congress to abolish the Court. This is evident from the language of Article III, Section 1, which establishes the Supreme Court and gives Congress the power to structure it, but not to eliminate it.
Amendment Process
To amend the Constitution, Congress must propose an amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
Given the constitutional framework and the amendment process, it is not feasible to eliminate the Supreme Court through a constitutional amendment. Any attempt to propose an amendment to abolish the Court would likely face significant opposition and would require a supermajority in Congress or a constitutional convention.
Conclusion
In summary, the Constitution does not permit the elimination of the Supreme Court through amendment. While Congress has authority to structure the Court, it cannot abolish it. Any attempts to do so would require a constitutional amendment, which would be a lengthy and challenging process, and would likely face significant opposition.”
Per the Google AI piece: Why waste time on a constitutional amendment? Better to take over the Supreme Court, which has effectively "amended" the Constitution at least twice in a few months: castrating part of the 14th and inventing presidential immunity.
I sort of dug myself a hole trying to appraise @OldJoe’s reference to what the founding fathers envisioned. Surely they did not envision an out of control SC. But early voting was far from ideal, excluding women, slaves and non property owners. See
Good link, @Hank. Reading thru those pages reminds me of the Bill of Rights national tour/program (~ 2010??). In addition to one of the copies of the BoR that was reputed to have gone to the states for ratification, it featured a short film about the ebb and flow since the founding of the many efforts to extend the flowery "equality under law" language of the D. of I. and Constitution from male property owners to the broad population -- a terrific theme tying American history together.
Comments
Perhaps he's just another opportunistic, power-hungry politician?
Regardless, Trump diminishes everyone in his immediate orbit.
Trump aspires to be a dictator for life.
His admiration for Vladimr Putin and Viktor Orban stems from their "enviable" status.
What a narcissistic SOB!
How can someone with such great disdain towards the Constitution be allowed on the presidential ballot?
***************
"Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
Back to OJ’s central point. The founders did make provissions for amending the Constitution. See. So one way to counter abuses by a conservative court is to rewrite portions of the Constitution to be so clear it would ne near impossible for the Court to rule otherwise. For that matter they could conceivably even “amend” the court out of existence. And Congress could impeach any member of the SC if it had enough votes. So the 3-branch “checks” the founders implemented are in place, they’re just not being used.
Why are the checks not being used? I dare say that politicians at federal and state level do not feel sufficiently threatened by loss of seats to effect change. In a sense it falls back on “We the people” - although the obstacles to making it work as intended are huge and mostly not foreseen by the founders. The Repugs have barricaded the doors, thrown every conceivable obstacle in the way of a fair judiciary or reforms. BARF
Abraham Heschel:
"Few are to blame, all are responsible."
”Based on the search results, it is not possible to eliminate the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to structure the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 1), but it does not provide a mechanism for abolishing the Court.
Congressional Power
While Congress has significant authority to establish and modify the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not permit Congress to abolish the Court. This is evident from the language of Article III, Section 1, which establishes the Supreme Court and gives Congress the power to structure it, but not to eliminate it.
Amendment Process
To amend the Constitution, Congress must propose an amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
Given the constitutional framework and the amendment process, it is not feasible to eliminate the Supreme Court through a constitutional amendment. Any attempt to propose an amendment to abolish the Court would likely face significant opposition and would require a supermajority in Congress or a constitutional convention.
Conclusion
In summary, the Constitution does not permit the elimination of the Supreme Court through amendment. While Congress has authority to structure the Court, it cannot abolish it. Any attempts to do so would require a constitutional amendment, which would be a lengthy and challenging process, and would likely face significant opposition.”
I sort of dug myself a hole trying to appraise @OldJoe’s reference to what the founding fathers envisioned. Surely they did not envision an out of control SC. But early voting was far from ideal, excluding women, slaves and non property owners. See