Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 6 hours ago, Pottervillan said: Unless you control the SCOTUS, then it says whatever you want Although it is not an easy process, the Constitution can always be amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 3 hours ago, bickster said: Looks more like Flashdance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, Jon said: Me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 6 hours ago, Pottervillan said: Unless you control the SCOTUS, then it says whatever you want The controversial members of the Supreme Court are still constitutionalists. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned was because the previous ruling went against the constitutional right of states to decide the issue. The current ruling is a better representation of the constitution, though a worse result for us who would rather see a pragmatic result that defends women’s rights. If the Supreme Court was as corrupt as you are implying, so corrupt that they would ignore the constitutional presidential term limits, then they would have just banned abortion US wide as the conservatives have been (unsuccessfully) trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_75 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 18 hours ago, mjmooney said: Like trying to choose the greatest Lord - Rings, Dance or Flies. Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXD Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 20 hours ago, mjmooney said: Like trying to choose the greatest Lord - Rings, Dance or Flies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 20 hours ago, mjmooney said: Like trying to choose the greatest Lords - Rings, Dance or Flies. Traci 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pottervillan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, LondonLax said: The controversial members of the Supreme Court are still constitutionalists. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned was because the previous ruling went against the constitutional right of states to decide the issue. The current ruling is a better representation of the constitution, though a worse result for us who would rather see a pragmatic result that defends women’s rights. If the Supreme Court was as corrupt as you are implying, so corrupt that they would ignore the constitutional presidential term limits, then they would have just banned abortion US wide as the conservatives have been (unsuccessfully) trying to do. Maybe my attempt at sarcasm didn't come across well. Wasn't implying that SCOTUS is corrupt but that Trump if in power would look to appoint judges, assuming what has been posted on here about Thomas etc stepping down, that are more compliant to his wishes. As has been argued many times the constitution is open to interpretation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, Pottervillan said: Maybe my attempt at sarcasm didn't come across well. Wasn't implying that SCOTUS is corrupt but that Trump if in power would look to appoint judges, assuming what has been posted on here about Thomas etc stepping down, that are more compliant to his wishes. As has been argued many times the constitution is open to interpretation... Trump's not going to be able to get around the constitution. The bar to changing it is too high for the size of the majority he might win, and there's not many actual Trumpist / MAGA judges - the ones he'll appoint are all hardcore Republicans from the Federalist society. They're conservatives who have been slowly taking over the judiciary for decades, and both they and Trump are kind of using each other to advance their own goals. They'll cover for each other up to a point (see most of the recent SCOTUS cases going Trump's way), but their goals don't fully align - and Trump becoming a dictator in breach of the constitution is one of the areas where they absolutely do not align. EDIT: although, that's not to say he won't be able to subtly rig things in favour of the Republicans in future via a conservative SCOTUS. Like permitting gerrymandering, etc. The point is just that the justices will likely do what benefits the Republicans rather than what benefits Trump specifically, and once Trump goes for a third term then his objectives begin to clash with that of the wider Republican party. Edited July 27 by Panto_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted July 27 VT Supporter Share Posted July 27 10 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Trump's not going to be able to get around the constitution. The bar to changing it is too high for the size of the majority he might win, and there's not many actual Trumpist / MAGA judges - the ones he'll appoint are all hardcore Republicans from the Federalist society. They're conservatives who have been slowly taking over the judiciary for decades, and both they and Trump are kind of using each other to advance their own goals. They'll cover for each other up to a point (see most of the recent SCOTUS cases going Trump's way), but their goals don't fully align - and Trump becoming a dictator in breach of the constitution is one of the areas where they absolutely do not align. EDIT: although, that's not to say he won't be able to subtly rig things in favour of the Republicans in future via a conservative SCOTUS. Like permitting gerrymandering, etc. The point is just that the justices will likely do what benefits the Republicans rather than what benefits Trump specifically, and once Trump goes for a third term then his objectives begin to clash with that of the wider Republican party. How does the recent SCOTUS ruling saying that a President can basically do what he wants if he thinks it's a matter of national security, sit with if the President decides the Constitution is a national security problem and needs to he ripped up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Just now, Rds1983 said: How does the recent SCOTUS ruling saying that a President can basically do what he wants if he thinks it's a matter of national security, sit with if the President decides the Constitution is a national security problem and needs to he ripped up? That's not what the ruling said. It said the President was immune from prosecution for anything done carrying out the constitutional role of his office. And ripping up the constitution isn't part of the President's role, so he wouldn't have immunity for doing that. (Apparently, he arguably would have immunity for sending the military in to kill the supreme court - but that's not really relevant. if we're at the point where the military is supporting Trump over the constitution and US government, laws don't matter any more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Has the simpsons predicted the winner yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 27 Administrator Share Posted July 27 25 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Has the simpsons predicted the winner yet? There was an episode when Lisa became the first straight female president. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mark Albrighton Posted July 28 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 28 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 On 27/07/2024 at 21:10, Demitri_C said: Has the simpsons predicted the winner yet? I'd be surprised if anyone would be able to manage to sit through an episode these days to find out. I'm predicting a comfortable win for Harris anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 16 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said: Help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 7 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said: Help? He's on a couch. There was a rumour going around he had sex with a couch. I think the new labels for JD and Donald are better tbh. They're just calling them weird. It's so fitting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 31 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said: Help? Yeah as above, I think it’s really was just a joke comment that gained traction and has become either a rumour people believe or a rumour people know is false but are happy to perpetuate for comedic purposes. It’s farcical but just believable enough to sound true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 11 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said: Yeah as above, I think it’s really was just a joke comment that gained traction and has become either a rumour people believe or a rumour people know is false but are happy to perpetuate for comedic purposes. It’s farcical but just believable enough to sound true. Amatuers. Shagging couches is for beginners. Shagging pigs is where it's at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Pete Buttigieg is such an awesome debater. He's been doing the rounds on TV absolutely demolishing Trump on Fox, CNN and everywhere he can show his face. He'd be a good VP, I just don't think it'll be him as he's from the wrong state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts