It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats will take House, Republicans will retain the Senate

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by Zionadebisi removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zionadebisi

I get unhappy when some new member shows up and starts posting links with no attempt to discuss what they are or what they have to do with the topic.

It makes me wonder if they are spammers. Spammers make me unhappy.

edit on 11/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa



it makes it tough for both sides to screw each other over.

Ain't it pathetic that we have to look at it that way?


yes. Oh dems lost some seats,back to 24 seats won now. drop a few more and it migth get intersting.

Hmm 209 to 190 curently. with 35 to go.
edit on 18000000ppam by yuppa because: added info



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Do you think a strongly weighted Court is a good goal to pursue?

The Supreme Court is not designed to be partisan like the Legislative and Executive branches. It is not to make law or policy; its purpose is to verify that the laws and policies of the other two branches meet Constitutional muster.

I have noticed that usually when someone says they want 'balance' on the Supreme Court, they are referring to a balance between Constitutionalists and Liberals. In that sense, my answer is not just "no" but "HELL NO!" I do not think a Supreme Court that is balanced between following the Constitution and not following the Constitution is a good idea.

That does not mean I must agree with every decision. There are circumstances where the Constitution is not clear under the circumstances and a decision must be made as to what it means. That's fine; that is why we have a Supreme Court. Decisions that attempt to understand and acknowledge the intent of the document and its authors are what we want, whether or not we like the result. But too many people today want to use those circumstances to rewrite the Constitution to say something it clearly does not, to legislate from the bench, and that is likely the most dangerous thing we have ever faced to our system of government. If we begin to change the document that gives the government power, by those in the government who crave power, we have lost our way and may never find the way back.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The Supreme Court is not designed to be partisan like the Legislative and Executive branches.
I'm not sure the other two branches were "designed" to be partisan, within or between themselves. I do know that they were designed to provide that system we all know about, checks and balances.




I have noticed that usually when someone says they want 'balance' on the Supreme Court, they are referring to a balance between Constitutionalists and Liberals.
I more often see it used as a balance between conservative and liberal views on points of law. All things considered, I would prefer a balance of the two rather than a bias toward either. Certainly more that than a reactionary approach, which some cloak under the name of "Constitutionalism."


edit on 11/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Legislative branch makes law out of thin air. The Executive branch makes policy out of thin air. Both of those require a check and balance on unlimited power, and the ultimate check and balance on them is the Constitution enforced by the Judicial branch.

On the other hand, the Judicial branch does not make up law or policy out of thin air. It's decisions are to be based on the Constitution and constitutional Federal law. If there is a conflict within the Constitution, then and only then does the court have the right to decide what the founders intended. The Constitution is their ultimate check and balance. The Congress and the states may act as a check upon that by amending the Constitution, but even that is a very difficult process.

Anything else opens up everything in the Constitution to interpretation... and that includes the Bill of Rights. The idea that those protections can be interpreted out of existence by an activist judge or Justice, a'la the way laws and policies come and go within the other two branches, should scare any sane person.


I more often see it used as a balance between conservative and liberal views on points of law.

The literal definition of "conservative" is "opposed to change." The literal definition of "liberal" is "embracing change." Change can be a good thing when laws are antiquated or needed due to a changing society, but not when applied to the very basis of law in that society. The foundation must not change on a whim, or there is no foundation.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Anything else opens up everything in the Constitution to interpretation...

The Constitution is open to interpretation. It is done whenever the Supreme Court is in session.



The literal definition of "conservative" is "opposed to change."
You seem to be confusing "reactionary" with "conservative." I think "wary of change" is a more accurate definition of "conservative."


The literal definition of "liberal" is "embracing change."
"Open to change."



The foundation must not change on a whim, or there is no foundation.
On I that I agree. But times do change. A government that doesn't, or moves backward, is doomed.
edit on 11/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The Constitution is open to interpretation. It is done whenever the Supreme Court is in session.

Interpretation, yes. Re-definition, no. Unrestrained interpretation is re-definition.

That is what I refer to when I reference a Constitutionalist Justice. A Constitutionalist will not re-define, but will keep the original meaning as much as possible during any interpretation.


You seem to be confusing "reactionary" with "conservative." I think "wary of change" is a more accurate definition of "conservative."

"Open to change."

I will accept those corrections.


I that I agree. But times do change.

Times may change, but people do not. If a change is needed, it is not the responsibility of the court; that duty falls to the states.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


That is what I refer to when I reference a Constitutionalist Justice. A Constitutionalist will not re-define, but will keep the original meaning as much as possible during any interpretation.
His interpretation of the original meaning you mean, since the crafters cannot be consulted as to how any particular issue may apply to the document (nor would they want to be, I think).



If a change is needed, it is not the responsibility of the court; that duty falls to the states.
Well, also the Congress. Wouldn't you agree? We know, after all, that the Court does not make the laws. But it is the finally arbiter on how laws made by the states and Congress (as well as executive orders) apply to the Constitution.

I think a balanced approach, ideally a moderate approach (from both points of view) is best suited to the role.
edit on 11/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


His interpretation of the original meaning you mean, since the crafters cannot be consulted as to how any particular issue may apply to the document (nor would they want to be, I think).

Agreed, but it is important for that interpretation of the original intent to be reasonable. Wouldn't you agree?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a single word about reproductive rights, abortion, or unborn children. Therefore, there can be no right to abortion enumerated in the Constitution. But thanks to a decision that injected that right into it, we now operate as though the founders wrote something there that they did not.

I consider that unreasonable. I would consider a Federal law declaring that no one can outlaw abortion as reasonable. There is no Constitutional prohibition on such a law, so it is completely Constitutional and would accomplish the same thing as the court decision without endangering the original meaning of the document.

(I have no intention of debating abortion in this thread. I only mention it as an example of interpretive overreach by the courts.)


Well, also the Congress. Wouldn't you agree?

No.

According to the procedures enumerated in the Constitution, involvement in amendment by the Congress is optional. Involvement by the states is required.


I think a balanced approach, ideally a moderate approach (from both points of view) is best suited to the role.

I do not. I see that as a balance between following the Constitution and not following the Constitution. That's not a balance; it is a mockery of our system of governance and a removal of the checks and balances therein.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:59 AM
link   
At this point at the very least I was 75% correct and 25% wrong... know what though... we all lost... I’ll concede that fact... for the next two years... and then Schiff will hit the fan... and Democrats will be a footnote at best... enjoy your “victory”... one step back... ten steps ahead...



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:00 AM
link   
And with that, boys and girls, this redneck is off to beddy-bye.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




Anything else opens up everything in the Constitution to interpretation...

The Constitution is open to interpretation. It is done whenever the Supreme Court is in session.



The literal definition of "conservative" is "opposed to change."
You seem to be confusing "reactionary" with "conservative." I think "wary of change" is a more accurate definition of "conservative."


The literal definition of "liberal" is "embracing change."
"Open to change."



The foundation must not change on a whim, or there is no foundation.
On I that I agree. But times do change. A government that doesn't, or moves backward, is doomed.


The constitution is not open to interpretation... the Supreme Court is there to determine if laws fall within its confines... the end... you know that... don’t pretend you’re too stupid to get that fact...



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Mirrors, do you lack them?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal>>> I smell the deep state in this election. Right after the 2016 election, there was a push to impeach or force President Trump from office. The phony Russian collusion accusations, the sex charges, the pursuit of his legal advisors. Then there was the redistricting of key congressional districts( admittedly gerrymandered) to favor democrat opponents and the puzzling retirement or refusal to see k re election of GOP congressmen in safe GOP held districts. This is all to throw roadblocks up against Trump. Now watch them push to impeach him. Nancy Pelosi is bat# crazy and senile, so is Maxxine Waters. They will alienate main stream voters and make Trump look like the good guy if they go after him. Trump's popularity is not bullet proof, but it is substantial and underestimated.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

It can’t be that some voters don’t like what Trump is selling. It has to be a rigged election. Just like 2016 was rigged for Clinton right?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Dutchowl

Just like 2016 was rigged for Clinton right?


I didn't vote for trump and don't associate with the republican party but you have to have your head buried deep in the sand to not see how it was being rigged for her.

Heck the head of the DNC had to step down and the reporters getting caught giving debate questions to Hillary prior to the debate. Hillary had to have the DNC and MSM cheat to get her to win even her own party.

Surely not even the democrats were dumb enough to vote for a person that was under criminal investigation , had to cheat to win her party, had her husband impeached for lying,low turn out events, and could outmatch trump on every scandal and lie. Hillary was a forced on the people , not even the democrats liked her or could have been that dumb and full of hatred, right.

Luckily She sucked that bad that even cheating wasn't enough for her.

I say its a pretty fair and rational to come to the conclusion that Al Capone did more crimes than just tax evasions and that Hillary had the system rigged for her.



edit on 071130America/ChicagoWed, 07 Nov 2018 08:07:43 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: BlackJackal


I see very little hope for the Democrats


Agreed, I think that it's because they have no message or policies that Americans are interested in. If they do manage to scramble back some power they will have exactly 2 years to roll out a 'candidate' worthy enough to vote for and they will have to start actually taking the economy, jobs, and border security seriously otherwise come Nov 9th 2020, they'll get torn another new one, especially if they want to keep not-learning from the lessons life dishes out to them. So far they have no one who could beat Trump - not by a country mile.


I am going to have to disagree with you a little. Yes the DNC has # themselves but there is someone that can really give Trump a run for his money. BTW it’s a lady


What's she gonna run on, 4 more years of Trump? That's what most people are wanting.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
The White House, Senate, Supreme Court are important to keep control of. The House? meh..


This. It's good to have it, but it's really a "meh" if you have the Senate.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Oh I agree the primary was 100% rigged for Hillary. Not the general election which is what I was referring to above. You know the election in which at almost every campaign stop Trump kept saying it was rigged, but then he won and had nothing else to say.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join