You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

Merrick Garland was sidelined due to political blocking. Politics is mean and he lost. If it was a like for like (Sotomayor , Kagan) no one would argue and no Republican did. Republican let these go to the SCOTUS with ease.




Kavanaugh replaced a moderate ( Kennedy ), which tilts the supreme court to the right for once in a long time.

Next might be Ginsburg. At 85 and looking frail. A hard liberal stepping down and being replace by a moderate would make replacing Kavanaugh look G rated.

Replacing with a conservative would be an XXX storm by the left.

heh heh

careful... your reference (2 corinthians 11:19) may be showing your christian credentials - that's a big no-no on the sift

and you don't even use the cliché correctly, sheesh!

so... what is it you disagree with?

1. that maddow isn't an attack dog for the left?
2. that the federalist society isn't evil?
3. that it's pure coincidence that the federalist society's annual dinner (planned many months in advance) just happened to take place on the same day as the scotus announcement that it would hear the legal challenge in question? how could any scotus justice have predicted that??
4. that maddow is misinterpreting canon 4c of the code of conduct, which only applies to lower level judges?
5. that virtually all our scotus justices 'violate' the above regularly? heck, ginsberg 'violated' it again just three days ago while being the speaker at an nwlc-sponsored event.
6. that supreme court justices can't have their votes 'bought' by just treating them to a nice dinner?
7. that this whole story isn't just a tit-for-tat over the right's squawking over justice kagan's apparent refusal to recuse herself? i don't necessarily think she should.

so... which is it?

share with us? throw your pearls before the swine...

or is your snarkiness simply a knee-jerk reaction to a true centrist's better erudition and analysis of yet more political polemics?

>> ^marbles:

Well you got it mostly right, the fact is we're not suppose to be a democracy. We are suppose to be constitutional republic of individual sovereign states with democratic checks and balances. Democracy ≠ freedom.

Exactly. The premise of the video, that 5% of the time the "loser" won the election, is only true if you define "winner" as the candidate with the most popular votes. In fact that's a pretty arbitrary definition, even in a democracy. Even if you abolish the electoral college, you'll find all kinds of strains on fairness.


Continue the thought experiment: you'll probably want to start by wiping out the Senate, since it grossly overrepresents the vote of a Hawaiian relative to a New Yorker. Next, onto the Supreme Court. A whole *branch* of government unelected! Where's the democracy?

Now that we're casting our votes for Scalia or Kagan, there's a thorny problem with the numbers. Somehow, even with the electoral college gone, we're still ignoring the will of the 24% of the population under the age of 18. Don't forget the 20 million immigrants living legally in the United States. What happened to one person, one vote? Under what definition of "fair" do only adults and citizens get to determine their own destiny democratically?

After you've rectified that "indefensible" affront to democracy, you'll still find that, because of the typical ~55% turnout, 51% of the popular vote really only wins about 28% of the population. Why should that candidate be president, they don't even represent the will of the majority! How is that democratic?

Don't assume that electing the president by popular vote is somehow more fair. It's not, it's just more direct, and a different set of arbitrary rules. What we should really be concerned about is the same thing the Founding Fathers were thinking about: coming up with the most *effective* system of government within the framework of a constitutional republic. That may not be the Electoral College, but directly electing the president doesn't necessarily make anything better, or more fair.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Monsanto IS the government.
Obama has installed Monsanto exec Michael Taylor as the FDA Food Safety Czar, Monsanto lobbyist Islam Siddiqui as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade, and Monsanto champion, Elena Kagan, to the supreme court.
Monsanto is vicious to any politician that stands in their way, while most Americans don't even have a cursory understanding of this issue. End result is that politicians are terrified of Monsanto and indifferent towards citizens.
It's easier said than done.


Oh holy shit, I didn't know about Taylor. Monsanto controlling our Food Safety. Dammit.

Monsanto IS the government.

Obama has installed Monsanto exec Michael Taylor as the FDA Food Safety Czar, Monsanto lobbyist Islam Siddiqui as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade, and Monsanto champion, Elena Kagan, to the supreme court.

Monsanto is vicious to any politician that stands in their way, while most Americans don't even have a cursory understanding of this issue. End result is that politicians are terrified of Monsanto and indifferent towards citizens.

It's easier said than done.

The GOP considers any judge an 'activist' if they happen to differ from their preconceived opinion of them or pass laws that while perhaps constitutionally in the right, are not agreed upon by the GOP. Their calling Thurgood Marshall a 'judicial activist' is akin to their understanding of law in the first place.

Of course then Kagan turned around and showed them all what douche-bags they really are when it comes to such matters. Likewise it shows how important civil rights are to the GOP.. or should I say how unimportant.

Sign up here to receive their daily updates! http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

Project for a New American Century Directors: William Kristol (Chairman), Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann

Foreign Policy Initiative Directors: Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Dan Senor

I'm not that familiar with USA insider politics/political circles etc. but I found this interesting


Obama the Interventionist by Robert Kagan



some samples:

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

and

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
But, but, but....this makes Colin Powell an un-American SOCIALIST! What happened to this proud military man who honorably served his country on the fields of battle, in the shit, during the Vietnam War? He became a COWARD! Why couldn't he have remained loyal to the dream of a rabidly conservative America that wild-eyed Michele Bachman envisions, like chicken hawks Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, etc. do?
I bet he's secretly an Islamic radical like Obama too.


If any of those assholes you mentioned were Americans they would response with a HELL YEAH too. You will see how American they are shortly.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
But, but, but....this makes Colin Powell an un-American SOCIALIST! What happened to this proud military man who honorably served his country on the fields of battle, in the shit, during the Vietnam War? He became a COWARD! Why couldn't he have remained loyal to the dream of a rabidly conservative America that wild-eyed Michele Bachman envisions, like chicken hawks Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, etc. do?
I bet he's secretly an Islamic radical like Obama too.


He's a scary angry black man too.

But, but, but....this makes Colin Powell an un-American SOCIALIST! What happened to this proud *military man who honorably served his country on the fields of battle, in the shit, during the Vietnam War? He became a COWARD! Why couldn't he have remained loyal to the dream of a rabidly conservative America that wild-eyed Michele Bachman envisions, like chicken hawks Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, etc. do?

I bet he's secretly an *Islamic radical like Obama too.