Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 400
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 282
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70822
biomed163693
Yssup Rider61273
gman4453360
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48819
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37415
CryptKicker37231
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-19-2021, 11:06 AM   #1
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default Protect the Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...TZs?li=BBnb7Kz




Curley: Condescending liberals have zero credibility ( unrelated to topic - but True. Click link to read.)



Constitutional amendments gave women the right to vote and limited presidents to two terms in office. Now we need a constitutional amendment to preserve the independence of the Supreme Court.
© Provided by Washington Examiner At Austin College, where I am a rising senior and a prospective law student, I have had the opportunity to take multiple classes on constitutional law and American political thought. In these classes, my professors emphasized that the Supreme Court is at the nexus of our great system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

I fear that by the time I graduate law school, short-sighted partisans will have damaged this institution permanently as political polarization continues to incentivize tit-for-tat escalations. As a result, I decided to do my summer internship with The Madison Coalition, a group dedicated to “restoring a balance of state and federal power” through constitutional amendments.
The preservation of our great institutions is paramount to our success as a country. As calls for court-packing have become more prevalent, I have grown increasingly worried that power-hungry politicians will follow through on their threats.
The independence of the Supreme Court is at risk.
While Democrats are unlikely to succeed at packing the court this election cycle, progressives have introduced a bill that would expand the number of justices to 13. Additionally, Senate Democrats are only a couple of votes short of eliminating the filibuster and ushering their radical agenda through Congress.
Furthermore, President Joe Biden has established a commission that is exploring Supreme Court reform. Multiple panelists at the Biden commission’s June 30 meeting emphasized that “it is conceivable that we will face a break glass moment in coming years” and that we should “reserve all options as on the table,” including “court expansion.”
If the Democratic Party retains both branches of Congress in 2022 or wins a supermajority in future elections, an event that seems to happen once every few decades, then a nakedly partisan political power grab seems imminent.
Given these circumstances, I believe that the passage of a new amendment called the Keep Nine Amendment is critical to our nation’s future. The Keep Nine Amendment simply reads: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.”
With the backing of more than 170 U.S. House members, 20 senators, more than 700 state legislators, and a growing number of governors and state attorneys general, the Keep Nine Amendment is the most widely backed Supreme Court reform among elected officials.
The amendment is also popular with the public. In 2020, the polling firm McLaughlin and Associates found that voters would support such an amendment by a 62% to 18% margin.
In the same way that a bipartisan coalition led by Texas Democratic Rep. Hatton W. Sumners, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped up to prevent President Franklin Roosevelt from packing the court in 1937, the country needs a new bipartisan coalition of leaders in Congress and the states to come together and save the least broken branch of government from partisan politics.
While ratifying a constitutional amendment is no simple task, my generation must understand how dangerous these efforts to turn the Supreme Court into a political football really are. If Democrats expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, giving themselves a 7-6 majority, what will stop Republicans from retaliating next time they come into power?
We need to make a permanent change that will remove from Congress the ability to erode the independence of our judicial branch. That change is the Keep Nine Amendment.
Jonathan Voos is a rising senior at Austin College.

I agree - nothing to add!
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 11:23 AM   #2
rexdutchman
Valued Poster
 
rexdutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1, 2013
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 12,555
Encounters: 22
Default

I agree however in this politico I don't know if it would have a chance ( sadly) the MSM would go to more racist rants
rexdutchman is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 01:53 PM   #3
reddog1951
Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 29, 2010
Location: mo
Posts: 1,550
Encounters: 3
Default

Nine is fine. 11,13,15, ok by me. I'd rather see a "term" limit (15-20 years to preserve intent of founders to isolate them from political pressure) or mandatory retirement age around 70-75. Of course I'm in favor or term limits for essentially all elected or appointed offices. Average lifespan at the time of the founders was in the 40's.

Old farts have experience, but are sometimes mentally "compromised" . Applies to BOTH Biden and Trump before the haters pile on. We need "new" blood and "young" blood consistently.
reddog1951 is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 04:06 PM   #4
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

'packing' the SC is simply a way to destroy the checks and balances - if the fascist DPST party wasn't controlled by the filibuster and the Sc - they would have unlimited spending and a complete marxist takeover of One party rule - and they are dong their best to skew the education system to marxism and achieve their antiConstitutional goals
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 04:10 PM   #5
texassapper
Premium Access
 
texassapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 19, 2017
Location: Dallas
Posts: 5,360
Encounters: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddog1951 View Post
We need "new" blood and "young" blood consistently.
Why? Opinion without evidence is just word stew.
texassapper is online now   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 04:13 PM   #6
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texassapper View Post
Why? Opinion without evidence is just word stew.

Because Xinn told them it needs to be that way for their marxist revolution.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 04:19 PM   #7
matchingmole
Valued Poster
 
matchingmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2009
Location: Only minutes from downtown
Posts: 7,183
Encounters: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11 View Post
Because Xinn told them it needs to be that way for their marxist revolution.
Xinn...your imaginary friend....
matchingmole is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 04:36 PM   #8
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

MM - cease with the personal insults and demeaning comments
Thank you.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-19-2021, 07:31 PM   #9
matchingmole
Valued Poster
 
matchingmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2009
Location: Only minutes from downtown
Posts: 7,183
Encounters: 30
Default

WTF is a Xinn?
matchingmole is offline   Quote
Old 07-20-2021, 10:21 AM   #10
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

mm - Please - teh topic is teh Supreme Court and how many justices should constitute that Court.


stop the personal insults, demeaning comments, ridiculous non-relevant memes, and stay On Topic
Please.

Thank U,
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-20-2021, 05:20 PM   #11
pfunkdenver
Valued Poster
 
pfunkdenver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 13, 2011
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,853
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11 View Post
mm - Please - teh topic is teh Supreme Court and how many justices should constitute that Court.

stop the personal insults, demeaning comments, ridiculous non-relevant memes, and stay On Topic
Please.

Thank U,
You are the one who brought up Xinn...
pfunkdenver is offline   Quote
Old 07-20-2021, 05:26 PM   #12
Chung Tran
BANNED
 
Chung Tran's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 5, 2013
Location: Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Posts: 36,100
Encounters: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matchingmole View Post
WTF is a Xinn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfunkdenver View Post
You are the one who brought up Xinn...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QkwgMMNXjTc
Chung Tran is offline   Quote
Old 07-20-2021, 08:02 PM   #13
HedonistForever
Valued Poster
 
HedonistForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 31, 2019
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 5,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddog1951 View Post
Nine is fine. 11,13,15, ok by me. I'd rather see a "term" limit (15-20 years to preserve intent of founders to isolate them from political pressure) or mandatory retirement age around 70-75. Of course I'm in favor or term limits for essentially all elected or appointed offices. Average lifespan at the time of the founders was in the 40's.

Old farts have experience, but are sometimes mentally "compromised" . Applies to BOTH Biden and Trump before the haters pile on. We need "new" blood and "young" blood consistently.

No, we do not, not on the SC. I would tend to agree when we are talking about Legislators but not SC Justices.

Young or old, if you apply a textual interpretation, which I believe is essential, your own personal life experience ( like Sotomayor ) doesn't matter. The words are right there in front of you and need little interpretation.


We don't "need" Whites or Blacks or Brown, Men or Woman or a Trans Justice who bring "different views" from their life experience, that is for Legislators to do. Read the words in front of you and if the people through their Representatives, decide they want to change the decision of the court because "things have changed", then they vote to amend the Constitution like it has been done 27 times when the Justices read the words, applied them and "the people" decided to change those words, not the Justices.

Justices do not, should not make new law, period.

It wouldn't matter how many Justices we have if they all followed the oath they took to apply the Constitution as written not as they think it should be.

Just an opinion.
HedonistForever is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved