Trump's SCOTUS

[StCapps]

I disagree so strongly. These two parties are making us feel like we're watching a tennis match.

For example: Stem cell research? Legal... illegal... legal again...

We need laws that don't change the second the wind starts blowing in a new direction. I think it would be worse for conservatives. They like things to go slow and steady, not too fast... let's process this, study on it, re-think it twice... and finally "Ok, it looks like this indoor toilet thing might be good.. let's experiment with it."

Can you imagine a no filibuster D led Congress/WH? Pelosi, Shumer, the majority whips and the president go out for dinner and decide the 100 new things that will be legal starting next week. Conservatives heads will explode. The democrats want everything to change immediately, all day, every day. Ridiculous to give them that sort of power.

Right but all there bad ideas once implemented will become even less popular and politicians will soon replace them that campaign against their brand of bullshit. It's a long term game, not a short term one. Again you are too worried about passing bad laws, and not worried enough about not passing enough good laws. Bad laws being on the books short term isn't a bad thing if it leads to an increased rate of legal and political innovation through experimentation.

[K@th]

Right but all there bad ideas once implemented will become even less popular and politicians will soon replace them that campaign against their brand of bullshit. It's a long term game, not a short term one. Again you are too worried about passing bad laws, not worried enough about not passing enough good ones.

You misunderstand me. So great, we passed a bunch of shit laws but if we just wait a few years, we'll revoke them and pass some other sort of shitty laws.

Both teams pass shitty laws... Congress would be nothing more than undoing what the last Congress did. That's chaos, not leadership.

[StCapps]

You misunderstand me. So great, we passed a bunch of shit laws but if we just wait a few years, we'll revoke them and pass some other sort of shitty laws.

Both teams pass shitty laws... Congress would be nothing more than undoing what the last Congress did. That's chaos, not leadership.

They can lead if they want and they don't need a super majority in the Senate in order to lead. That's less chaos and more leadership, not vice versa. You Yanks kick the can down road far more often than Canada does, and not having Senate filibuster is a big reason why we don't do that as often as you do, we simply didn't go overboard on the checks and balances like you Yanks did.

[K@th]

You misunderstand me. So great, we passed a bunch of shit laws but if we just wait a few years, we'll revoke them and pass some other sort of shitty laws.

Both teams pass shitty laws... Congress would be nothing more than undoing what the last Congress did. That's chaos, not leadership.

They can lead if they want and they don't need a super majority in the Senate in order to lead. That's less chaos and more leadership, not vice versa.

So you truly believe that the best laws are made when there is no discussion, no opposition, no devil's advocate presenting a wide range of opinions on potential unintended consequences?

Because that's what a filibuster free congress gets you.

[StCapps]

So you truly believe that the best laws are made when there is no discussion, no opposition, no devil's advocate presenting a wide range of opinions on potential unintended consequences?

Because that's what a filibuster free congress gets you.

I truly believe that there will be more discussion, and more devil's advocates presenting a wide range of opinions on potential and unintended consequences without the Senate Filibuster. You only think otherwise because you Yanks fetishize checks and balances, and don't stop to think that moderation, even when it comes to checks and balances, is a good thing. The Senate filibuster is as dumb of a check and balance as America has ever conceived, especially when the rest of the system already overemphasizes them and the status quo is in desperate need of reform.

[The Conservative]

Tyranny of the majority... aka democracy..

That's why we are a Republic and not a Democracy.

[C-Mag]

Who's leaving the court next ?

Red Ruth ?

[Martin Hash]

All the Dems had to do was confirm an impeccably well-qualified appointment & there'd still be opportunities for filibusters, but no... Dems did this.

RBG was the most wingnut SCJ in my lifetime, a clear Marxist, but she got confirmed.

[C-Mag]

I'm not thrilled the filibuster went away, but the bright side I saw on this was that GOP maybe learned some killer instincts. They've been the minority party since FDR, a party of Cucks that the Dems have used as whipping boys for decades. Maybe they are learning how to win. It is still undecided.

[The Conservative]

You misunderstand me. So great, we passed a bunch of shit laws but if we just wait a few years, we'll revoke them and pass some other sort of shitty laws.

Both teams pass shitty laws... Congress would be nothing more than undoing what the last Congress did. That's chaos, not leadership.

They can lead if they want and they don't need a super majority in the Senate in order to lead. That's less chaos and more leadership, not vice versa.

So you truly believe that the best laws are made when there is no discussion, no opposition, no devil's advocate presenting a wide range of opinions on potential unintended consequences?

Because that's what a filibuster free congress gets you.

Heaven forbid we can actually nail the bastards on something.