This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS. — Arkady
Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military). — Arkady
Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make? — Arkady
I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee.What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees. — Hanover
I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee. — Arkady
Yes, and your response was sophistry. You are fully aware that the sole reason for delaying the vote (or refusing to hold it at all) is to deny Obama his right to appoint a judicial nominee while in office, which is his prerogative as president. Ergo, the Senate is failing to fulfill its role of confirming (or not) said appointment. My response was on point.You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't. — Hanover
Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.
It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.
This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world. — Hanover
The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth). — Hanover
The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you? — Hanover
Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion. — Hanover
I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center. — Hanover
You paint a lovely picture, — Sapientia
What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside. — Sapientia
Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here. — Sapientia
The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire. — Sapientia
I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith. — Hanover
Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly). — Hanover
The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.