• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On October - 5 - 2018
Vox Populi, our weekly live chat begins tonight at 7:00pm PDT. Hope to see you then!
AdLib 4 hours ago
Hey PPO!
AdLib 2 hours ago
hey Ad see you soon
pinkpantheroz

2 hours ago
See you then!
AdLib 2 hours ago
Hey glenn!
AdLib 2 hours ago
Rough day.
AdLib 2 hours ago
Evenin’ Ad. Yeah, I’m bummed.
glenn

2 hours ago
Kavanaugh has achieved one item of notoriety already. He has established the disgusting precedents that committing perjury is no longer a crime, and a combative politically biased mien is acceptable on the Supreme Court.
pinkpantheroz

2 hours ago
Apart from that, what a lovely day today!
pinkpantheroz

2 hours ago
PPO–Spot on. However, if a Dem nominee tries any of that crap, you can bet republicans will cry bloody murder.
glenn

2 hours ago
Who is the Dem idiot that voted for him?
pinkpantheroz

2 hours ago
I feel stupid for thinking there was any chance of Collins voting no, she’s a total fraud. This was all worked out between Collins, Murkowski and Manchin when they met yesterday. And Collins attacking Dr. Ford as lying was disgusting.
AdLib 2 hours ago
It was a gorgeous day, here, too PPO
glenn

2 hours ago
PPO – Trump has corrupted and damaged everything he has touched, now the SCOTUS is tainted.
AdLib 2 hours ago
Ad–as someone has written, Collins has shown her true trumpian soul.
glenn

2 hours ago
sad day for USA
pinkpantheroz

2 hours ago
PPO – Manchin from WV. A coward who waited for Collins to give her BS speech then came out as a yes.
AdLib 2 hours ago
Ad–Dems are going to have to fight hard to win in the midterms, too. From what I understand, this has galvanized republican women. The women, mind you. What twats!
glenn

an hour ago
BRB
AdLib an hour ago
is this idiocy enough to keep the blue wave building?
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
The Blue Wave will be The Great Blue Flood now.
AdLib an hour ago
PPO–Not sure. Now the scuttlebutt among the “liberal” media is that issue has made republican women angry at Dems. At Dems!
glenn

an hour ago
another myth gone, that church and state are separate
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
IMO, Dems need to quit framing as an issue of do you believe Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. It needs to be framed as PPO says, as the fact that Kavanaugh, otherwise known as Brat Kegger, committed perjury, and showed a character and temperament completely unsuited for any court.
glenn

an hour ago
All dem god-fearin’ wimmen ‘ll now have babies galore, praise de lord! and keep the evangelicals in jet planes and McMansions.
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
PPO–the myth of church/state separation was gone a long time ago, IMO.
glenn

an hour ago
glenn – I don’t think so, the Repub energy will dissipate now that they won on Kavanaugh.
AdLib an hour ago
hopefully, Ad. otherwise the US will implode
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Ad–Once again, I hope you’re right. And you may well be, they may be so happy that they “owned the libs” that they’ll stay home to gloat. I sure hope so.
glenn

an hour ago
Also read an article today that says Cruz will also win in TX, no matter how much of a good showing Beto puts up. The article claims that Cruz just has the “procedural” advantage because he’s the incumbent, and TX, of course.
glenn

an hour ago
Fivethirtyeight.com is still projecting a 75% likelihood of Dems winning the House.
AdLib an hour ago
I’m getting more and more depressed.
glenn

an hour ago
I’ll be interested in the CBS interview with Cruz and O’Rourke ( we see it n delay)
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Ad–good. I’ll refer you to the 2016 election once again.
glenn

an hour ago
Ad, projections for the Senate?
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
PPO–I knew cruz cancelled the second debate. I haven’t heard anything about a CBS interview. Is it on 60 minutes?
glenn

an hour ago
It does show Repubs likely to hold The Senate though.
AdLib an hour ago
Nope, Ad. Bianna Golodryga was down there for CBS Morning News.
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Ad–and therein lies the problem. If the House is Dem and the Senate is repub, we will see gridlock like we’ve never seen before.
glenn

an hour ago
PPO–Who is Bianna Golodryga and where is “down there”?
glenn

an hour ago
Murph!
glenn

an hour ago
Took a while to get the portal to work….but here I am.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Good to see you, Murph.
glenn

an hour ago
hi murph!
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Hi all……
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Hey Murph!
AdLib an hour ago
glenn, bianna is a new co=anchor with Norah o’donnell on CBS this morning news. She wend ‘down there’ to Texas on her second day to inteview Cruz and O’Rourke
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
glenn – Don’t buy into the MSM hype, Repub women have always been angry at Dems, watch any interview at a Trump rally.
AdLib an hour ago
Hey Gideon!
AdLib an hour ago
The only good part of my week was sitting in the passenger seat of my car while my 15-year-old granddaughter drove us from school and practices. She’s doing very well.
glenn

an hour ago
Gideon?! Have we met.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Hi Gideon
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
PPO–I’ll have to look up the interview; do you know if it has already been aired here in the US? Did she interview them together?
glenn

an hour ago
I spent the last three days on the phone…..pitching this message here in Mo. “Phone script/talking points: I’m calling to urge Senator [insert Senator name] to vote NO on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Trump picked Kavanaugh to be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, to promote access to the most dangerous of guns, to support the idea that big money has the right to speak louder than everyday citizens and to decimate the ACA, destroying health care options for millions. Kavanaugh would jeopardize the health of millions of Americans with pre-existing medical conditions and the safety of millions of women, immigrants, and workers. And, with a president under investigation for multiple impeachable offenses, we can’t depend on him to actually serve as a check on President Trump: Kavanaugh believes sitting presidents should be exempt from criminal prosecution and investigation! The Senate should NOT confirm the nominee of a lawless president, especially now that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies — and that Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women, a matter that was investigated by a hobbled FBI that is giving cover to the GOP. Can I count on the Senator to vote against Brett Kavanaugh and for the American people as a whole.” Limited success as you might imagine.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Ad–true dat. Those republican women don’t have much sense.
glenn

an hour ago
glenn – Dems need to frame this as a corrupt Repub Senate using a corrupt process to force through a corrupt man onto the SCOTUS. And that this damages the SCOTUS.
AdLib an hour ago
Murph–I phoned my two Senators every day with the message to vote no on Kavanaugh because he doesn’t have the character and non-partisan judgement required of a judge. Also that he lied under oath. I also emailed them three times each; from one I got no replies. From the other, I got the same form letter twice.
glenn

an hour ago
glenn – TX is so red that Beto being this close is amazing. He will very possibly run for Pres even if he loses so this is only the beginning for him. TX is rigged against Dems.
AdLib an hour ago
I am reading trending reports that seem to point to low turnouts among blacks, hispanics and young people in a number of states.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Ad–I would love to see a Beto run for pres. With Kamala Harris as his vp.
glenn

an hour ago
glenn – That’s very cool! Good for her!
AdLib an hour ago
Hey Funk!
AdLib an hour ago
Funk! Long time
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
The crowd has grown. Hi funk. Long tme.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Ad–that framing works for me, too.
glenn

an hour ago
Finally on. This entire confirmation has been a farce. The FBI did nothing. I had no faith in Collins but there was a tinge of hope. Her lengthy statment was bull shit and just madr me angry. Tbe problem is that the Dems misjudged again. They have rallied republicans as people are viewing Feinstein’s holding onto the letter as a ploy. She did try to sand bag them with the letter at the kadt minute and now Dems mah pay the price in november.
Gideon

an hour ago
Hi all. Great day for the nation
funksands

an hour ago
Murph–and blacks, hispanics and young people are the ones we need to turn out the most. Especially black women. They are fierce.
glenn

an hour ago
hope not, Gideon. US is in turmoil enough already.
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Just to be clear, a growing majority of Americans oppose Kavanaugh. The country is going to turn against the GOP in a huge way this Nov and in 2020.
AdLib an hour ago
Funk, how come??????
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Thanks for the link, PPO. I’ll check it out after VOX.
glenn

an hour ago
Pink, we found another bottom in our national barrel! I thought we’d found them all. Very exciting.
funksands

an hour ago
fun k, are u really at the DMZ??
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Funk, I think the bottom of the barrell comes out in……Ghina!
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
The formula is simple. The SCOTUS is the linch pin in the scheme to control the national government. Lifelong judges who cannot be touched and will do the will of the plutocracy that owns the GOP. When the legislature and executive are deadlocked the SCOTUS comes through. When not deadlocked the SCOTUS reinforces…..
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Gideon–first of all, welcome. I didn’t see Feinstein’s holding on to the letter as a sandbag move. She was trying to protect Ford’s identity. And, from what I understand, repubs did know about it; they just chose to do nothing about it.
glenn

an hour ago
Yes, I’m here for the next round of peace talks. I’m in charge of getting the KFC
funksands

an hour ago
Funk–great day for the nation of the cult of trumpistan.
glenn

an hour ago
… with kimchee
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Gideon – Don’t believe the hype, Dems are just as strongly favored to win The House as they were before Kavanaugh and the anger of Republicans that was motivating them, will soon evaporate. They won, they’re happy, not motivated to vote.
AdLib an hour ago
looks like gideon has dropped out. hope he/she gets back
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
If the GOP hold the Senate and Trump (or Pence) hang in until 2020….the chances of getting another justice are significant. The constitution is once again a failed instrument…..
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Murph – Hence the logic of a Dem held COngress on WH enlarging the SCOTUS to 11 and adding two justices for the majority.
AdLib an hour ago
Ad, but Trump would never sign that in
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Murph, I think you’ve hit on something a lot of people don’t get; why would the GOP risk everything and pin everything on getting a loser like this on the Supreme Court? Because even if they lose every elected seat in the nation, they still have the votes to wield the will of the moneyed class
funksands

an hour ago
McConnell couldn’t stop the ACA, but the Court gutted the Medicaid requirement
funksands

an hour ago
Funk…precisely.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
spot on Funk’
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Murph–exactly. Which is why Ad’s “suggestion” last week of changing the make-up of the court from 9 to 11 will make sense. Last week when Ad discussed it, I’d never heard of that route. However, today, on the lberal blog in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, another person mentioned it. However, he also mentioned the Judicial Act of 1869, which does call for eight justices with a chief justice, so that would have to be overturned.
glenn

an hour ago
Congress wouldn’t dare eliminate the voting rights act, but the Court could and did. They wouldn’t dare pass a muslim ban, but the court is happy to consider it “legal”
funksands

an hour ago
oops, liberal blog
glenn

an hour ago
Ad….adding justices….yeah….a countermeasure but one that further undermines the already diminished integrity of the Constitution.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Murph – If Trump was re-elected, which he won’t be, it would mean profound and lasting damage throughout the country. Two reasons why he won’t be re-elected. 1: His approval ratings have never risen above 45%, not enough to get elected (and right now he’s at 40%). 2. The economy will slow down and be not so good within the next 2 years as inflation rises and the deficit explodes.
AdLib an hour ago
glenn…I could not recall the judicial act of 1869…good on ya…
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Funk–but most of us knew that before even the 2016 election, but chose to ignore it. We knew the SCOTUS was at stake; and the repubs knew it even more. That’s why they had such a turnout.
glenn

an hour ago
Ad….dearly hope that your crystal ball is sharply focused.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Ad, Dems MUST raise a credible opponent to Trump. ‘Anybody But Trump’ won’t cut it.
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
PPO – No, I mean after Trump is beaten in 2020, Dems can control the House, Senate and WH then they can expand the court. The last two SCOTUS picks were immoral and wrong. Great arguments to justify righting these wrongs.
AdLib an hour ago
Adding justices is not the answer because we could be in the same boat years from now. People are really buying into lindsey grahams bull shit.
Gideon

an hour ago
Murph–wasn’t me who remembered it; it was another person on the AJC.
glenn

an hour ago
PPO….a credible candidate…….yes indeed.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Murph, that’s the very trap well-meaning, honest people fall into. The Court has been and will be a political body. The GOP has finally ripped away the final tiny fig leaf away from the truth by ditching everything to get a naked political operative into the seat for nakedly political reasons. The integrity of the Court is now dead and its a good thing. Spraying Febreze on the rotting court of the court for the next 20 years won’t fix it.
funksands

an hour ago
Spraying fabreze…..great metaphor.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Lysol better, Murph!
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Step 1: Every litigant before the court should request Kavanaugh recuse himself from the case. Every single one. Step 2: Continue to build the case for impeachment. They can start collecting the data on Thomas while they are at it.
funksands

an hour ago
glenn – The Judicial Act can be changed by a vote of Congress, not complicated. Any law Congress makes can be changed by them.
AdLib an hour ago
PPO–Exactly. And, Biden definitely isn’t a credible opponent to trump. I see Elizabeth Warren is now making noises about running; frankly, I don’t think she is a credible candidate either, much as I love her. I’d rather see someone younger. Kamala Harris–a woman and a black would drive repubs crazy. Beto is another good candidate. There are many more out there.
glenn

an hour ago
Funk…every GOP sycophant I know mouths the line that it was the Dems/Liberals who created an activist progressive court…..and the GOP will set it all aright by strict interpretation of original intent. All BS of course, but they do very much believe it……
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Murph – You mentioned this last week as well, it’s mistaken. There is nothing in The Constitution about the size of the SCOTUS.
AdLib an hour ago
Glenn, I’m not sure why those on the left and middle can’t figure out what the radical right figured out in the 60’s. The control of the judiciary is the key. Lifetime appointments filled by young radicals basically born and bred and groomed to fill those roles
funksands

an hour ago
Nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the SCOTUS. Nothing at all. It’s not in The Constitution. It’s been changed 3 times already.
AdLib an hour ago
Funk–great phrase–spraying Febreeze!
glenn

an hour ago
Ad, you are correct. The backlash when FDR tried to expand the size of the Supreme Court was due to his violation of norms, not law. Those norms are deader than dead.
funksands

an hour ago
Cory Booker?
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Ad…never said the number was set there but the number was set based on the use of the constitutional mechanisms that were at hand……
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Ad…when was the last time that the number was changed.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Funk – Which is why I’m all for a Dem controlled government adding two judges to the SCOTUS. It is a political sewer now, the public will support it after seeing their rights taken away by the existing court.
AdLib an hour ago
Funk–me neither. And if there was ever a character born and bred and groomed to fill the conservative utopian dream of the courts, it is Brat Kavanaugh.
glenn

an hour ago
brb covfefe break
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six “judges.” Although an 1801 act would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court’s size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation’s boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.[74] In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[75] where it has since remained. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to “pack” the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt’s New Deal.[76] The plan, usually called the “court-packing plan,” failed in Congress.[77] Nevertheless, the Court’s balance began to shift within months when Justice Willis Van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
It started with six, then increased to nine shortly after it began if aI remember right
funksands

an hour ago
My mistake Murph, the number of justices on the SCOTUS has changed 6 times. Hard to argue any constitutional issue against that. “The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. Since the formation of the Court in 1790, there have been only 17 Chief Justices* and 101 Associate Justices, with Justices serving for an average of 16 years.”
AdLib an hour ago
DC gets 2 Senators, Puerto Rico gets 2 court expands and now we’re talking.
funksands

an hour ago
PPO–I have mixed feelings about Booker. I think he has good instincts, but I also think he lets his ego get in the way too often.
glenn

an hour ago
Gotta switch computers
funksands

an hour ago
And this info is from the SCOTUS website:

AdLib an hour ago
Ad…I provided a full chronology as well…so 1869 was the last change….to 9….150 years….
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
The Dems need to regroup after this and put out a strong statement by someone who can galvanize the country (Feinstein and her cronies is not the answer).
Gideon

an hour ago
I’m getting more and more depressed, gents, so I’m going to call it a night. Lively discussion; but I’m just bummed. Take care everyone; have a good Columbus Day weekend. Hopefully, I’ll see you all next week.
glenn

an hour ago
Good info, Murph. As your quote notes, it has changed along the way and it is not a constitutional issue to change the number. As Americans become more fed up with it and less trusting, a “Febreezing” of the majority will be welcome by most Americans.
AdLib an hour ago
glenn – Hang in there, in a month we will win back The House and you’ll feel better!
AdLib an hour ago
Okay, I’m back. Gotta make some dinner soon and talk my wife off the ledge
funksands

an hour ago
Murph – What does it matter when it was done last, it’s not unconstitutional and if the SCOTUS is untrusted and broken, isn’t that the time to fix it?
AdLib an hour ago
So if Dems win back The House as predicted, will that change things?
AdLib an hour ago
Funk, LOL!
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Ad…does that fix it….the GOP get back control and increase the number to ?????
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
ad…..to do as you suggest requires control of house, senate and presidency…a tall order…
MurphTheSurf3

an hour ago
Murph – Having a SCOTUS that can represent the majority for many years that would otherwise be working for the Repub elitists is a better deal, isn’t it?
AdLib an hour ago
Ad, not for the Court, but that will allow the Dems to start a lot of other investigations into the Executive Branch
funksands

an hour ago
Murph – Dems will win The House in Nov. I will take any bets on that. In 2020, Repubs have like 40 seats up and dems only have half that amount. And Trump’s approval is stuck in the low 40s. As in 2008, Dems will win back full control of government in 2020.
AdLib an hour ago
Murph, Ad mentioned earlier that if the GOP control the SCOTUS, they don’t really need anything else. Hope that is wrong, or we’re all screwed
pinkpantheroz

an hour ago
Murph, I understand where you are coming from, but take th filibuster for example, eliminating the filibuster has enabled T***p to fill a giant number of judicial seats, but I don’t think it was a bad idea to get rid of it. We should do the same with the “gentleman’s filibuster” on legislation as well.
funksands

44 minutes ago
Ad…ok….it goes as you suggest….and then when the GOP regain control….they increase the number of seats to give them back the SCOTUS…yes?
MurphTheSurf3

44 minutes ago
Whoops, had the numbers proportionate but wrong. In 2020, Repubs have 20 Senate seats up, Dems only have 11.
AdLib 44 minutes ago
Funk, agree. But McConnell, Ryan Sessions and Pence have got to go. They have ruined the country enough already
pinkpantheroz

43 minutes ago
Pink, no doubt.
funksands

43 minutes ago
Murph – The choice is between having a liberal SCOTUS every 8 years for 8 years vs. no years at all. Not a bad deal.
AdLib 42 minutes ago
Funk….the 60 vote rule was a great loss…it compelled the choice of someone who could win a real mix of party votes.
MurphTheSurf3

42 minutes ago
Murph, can any of the balancing regs be reintroduced, or is it buggered for all time?
pinkpantheroz

40 minutes ago
Ad….and so we have a court that grows to how large? This is not a fix….it is an improvisation that increases chaos. I do not have a solution. I regard the constitution itself as the source of our pain.
MurphTheSurf3

40 minutes ago
I understand the concern that folks have after this disgusting fraud that the Repubs have committed on the country but the pendulum swings back. And if the SCOTUS stands against the people, enlarging the court will be popular.
AdLib 40 minutes ago
Murph, I don’t advocate getting rid of the real filibuster. But the days of being able to block a vote simply by raising a withered hand has got to end. yes sometimes we come out on the bad end of the deal, but imagine if Strom Thurmond could have derailed civil rights legislation by declaring a filibuster rather than being forced to speak non-stop until exhausted to rally his cause.
funksands

40 minutes ago
I wonder what the other Justices think of this whole debacle?
pinkpantheroz

39 minutes ago
Murph, once again, there is nothing in the Constitution about what the size of the SCOTUS should be. It’s up to Congress.
AdLib 38 minutes ago
Will they work with Kavanaugh at all, or boycott him?
pinkpantheroz

38 minutes ago
Murph – I’ve actually heard lawyers say that a bigger court could get much more done and take on more cases. Have break out groups to focus in areas. Thinking outside the box, it could be better.
AdLib 37 minutes ago
They’ll work with him. They didn’t make a peep about the stolen seat (RBG’s one pithy comment notwithstanding)
funksands

37 minutes ago
Funk …… government by improvisation…frightening.
MurphTheSurf3

36 minutes ago
Ouch! Well, time to head out this beautiful Saturday. See you all next week
pinkpantheroz

36 minutes ago
Funk – You make a good point about filibusters and I do believe in them, they should still be a part of SCOTUS noms so this kind of partisan wouldn’t be put on the court. And the minority needs some power when the majority has awful intentions.
AdLib 36 minutes ago
Ad….I am not arguing that the size of the court is set….my chronology shows that….but a new judiciary act will be required…and then another…and another…..56 justices?
MurphTheSurf3

35 minutes ago
Murph – SIze doesn’t matter…when it comes to the SCOTUS. A majority decides in all cases. Certainly not 56 but if there were 11, 15, 19, how would that be a bad thing if more cases could be heard and decided?
AdLib 34 minutes ago
Murph, there has been a 30 year effort to get a constitutional convention called. They have 34 states signed on. The effort is in to rewrite the very Constitution to eliminate and change inconvenient and outdated pieces. Millions have been poured into the effort. The radical right is already planning on govt. by improvisation. We can either get ahead of it or be at its mercy
funksands

34 minutes ago
Murph, why not 7 justices then? Thomas and RBG retire and the seats are simply not filled. What about that?
funksands

33 minutes ago
Ad……a constantly expanding court….is that how we establish order within government…..I hold that our foundational document is irreparably broken….because it was badly begun.
MurphTheSurf3

33 minutes ago
Funk – Well put! Indeed, Repubs are warping our government on their own, Dems should be willing to roll up their sleeves and get under the hood to fix it. Not be averse to changing things for the better because it simply is change.
AdLib 32 minutes ago
Murph – The control of the WH and Senate will not change every 4 or 8 years. Obama had a Repub Senate most of his presidency, many presidents have. Without that combo, it can’t be changed.
AdLib 31 minutes ago
Wait, let me correct that, it would have to be one party rule for the SCOTUS nubers to change. How often has that been the case? Not often at all.
AdLib 30 minutes ago
Murph, if the foundational document is broken, then what do we do? It will be “fixed” by the wealthy and powerful if we let them. Will we let them because its unseemly to do otherwise?
funksands

30 minutes ago
What the framers created was a structure for constitutional repair…..amendments and constitutional conventions….neither has worked in the long run.
MurphTheSurf3

30 minutes ago
Anyway good food for thought. Glad to see that smarter minds than mine are already working on solutions. Take care of yourselves this weekend.
funksands

30 minutes ago
Take care funk.
MurphTheSurf3

29 minutes ago
Take care Funk!
AdLib 29 minutes ago
Murph – Repubs would need one party rule in Congress and WH to change the SCOTUS. They may occassionally have that but not often. So it wouldn’t be changed that frequently.
AdLib 28 minutes ago
Dems won’t have it frequently either. So once every 20 years or so?
AdLib 27 minutes ago
Imagine how much good could be done in those 20 years.
AdLib 27 minutes ago
I too am going the way of the exhausted…..when I taught U.S. Political Thought…I was regarding as a bit of a crank for my position on the Constitution as a failed instrument…but I am as convinced now as ever.
MurphTheSurf3

26 minutes ago
Change will have to happen, the poison is now in every branch of government, it needs to be diluted.
AdLib 26 minutes ago
Ad…and how much could be undone by a GOP Manufactured Court.
MurphTheSurf3

26 minutes ago
Murph – That’s what we’ve had for far too long. Heck, they chose the president in 2000!
AdLib 25 minutes ago
We can’t let them control the SCOTUS forever.
AdLib 25 minutes ago
Ad…I agree….and then rule that money is speech and cannot be regulated. A Coup by Court. So the Dems do one of their own and the GOP do it again….
MurphTheSurf3

24 minutes ago
What’s the argument for allowing the Repubs’ corruption of the SCOTUS to stand uninterrupted?
AdLib 24 minutes ago
Ad…none…my point is that your solution is temporary…..it does not address the fundamental question of a the broken instrument.
MurphTheSurf3

23 minutes ago
That’s politics. The party in power gets their way over many things. They should be reflecting the majority of Americans and if Dems win big this Nov and in 2020 and a lot of Repub gerrymandering is broken, they may not win back The House for decades. That woud be a change and a fix. Now how do we fix the SCOTUS if not by adddressing the wrongful appointments they’ve made?
AdLib 22 minutes ago
Maybe we have to just accept that the SCOTUS will be like the other branches of government, swinging from right to left from time to time. It’s better than a rigged court standing forever.
AdLib 20 minutes ago
You know that what the framers were counting on was an informed and conscientious electorate representing the interests of society…..ah idealism!
MurphTheSurf3

20 minutes ago
I know, if they saw what was happening now, they’d be beating themselves over the head until unconscious. Then when they woke up, doing it all over again.
AdLib 19 minutes ago
Ad…..true…..Parliamentary systems are more adaptable and generally more effective.
MurphTheSurf3

17 minutes ago
We’re stuck with 1/3 of the nation being ignorant, angry, fearful and easily manipulated. Not what the Founders would have wanted. And we have a poorly informed independent voter population who have no long term vision and can be swayed from election to election based on their emotions. This is not a perfect nation. As you say, a parliamentary government is far more functional. We are stuck with a messed up system that was built for people of education and ethics to operate. Like a Ferrari now being driven by a chimpanzee.
AdLib 16 minutes ago
The framers did not want a Parliament….a complete break with Britain….no king…no ruling class….no lords…..no rabble….AND NONE of it has come to pass.
MurphTheSurf3

16 minutes ago
Love the Ferrari Image.
MurphTheSurf3

15 minutes ago
I know, they saw this structure as being a compromise that balanced the people having their voice through the House, states through the Senate and the nation as a whole through the President. They never imagined the SCOTUS being a corrupt political tool of the welathy against the majority of Americans.
AdLib 14 minutes ago
The Founders couldn’t conceive of free people being so willing to give up their freedoms out of emotional neediness. Or they might have just gone with a parliament.
AdLib 13 minutes ago
What we should be doing now is designing long term plans on how to fix many of the problems that have existed politically and are so much worse now after Trump. And I do think we need to re-imagine the SCOTUS, create laws preventing the abuses of power Trump has engaged in and putting rocesses in place that would never allow another rape survivor from being denigrated when she attempts to help the nation by preventing her attacker from gaining power.
AdLib 10 minutes ago
Ad…we are on the same page….add in this….the Founders and Framers planned to entrust the nation to the educated, hard working, owners of property, or business, or craft…..also male and generally white…..they were off the mark in so much of what they thought. But worship at the altar of the Framers is required it seems when we speak of this.
MurphTheSurf3

10 minutes ago
When our system is so broken that someone like Trump cannot be nailed on the emoluments clause then you know that the whole damn thing is impotent.
MurphTheSurf3

8 minutes ago
There was much wisdom in them but they were products of their time, when slavery, women and the poor as 2nd class citizens and a lack of religious and sexual diversity was the case.
AdLib 8 minutes ago
Ad…I doubt their “wisdom” more and more. Good intentioned, idealistic…yes…..wise….not so much. They so hated British Rule that they could not see the good in it…..and the spots where the flaws could have been addressed.
MurphTheSurf3

7 minutes ago
I think it’s clear that the Constitution is too incomplete to cover modern times. Like a theocracy adhering to fundamentalist reading of the Bible. Times change and living by a rarely changed, 240 year old document is kind of crazy.
AdLib 7 minutes ago
They wanted to create something new and at times in our history, it has worked well. At other times, it’s been a disaster. But many countries with parliamentary systems have been nightmares too, like Thatcher’s England.
AdLib 5 minutes ago
BTW, did you see that Susan Rice tweeted that she would like to run for Collins’ seat?
AdLib 4 minutes ago
She stepped back in a following tweet, because of course you can’t announce you’re running unless you want to start being subject to FEC laws but that would be incredible.
AdLib 3 minutes ago
In general we are in agreement…..and interesting news about Rice…..time to hit the hay!
MurphTheSurf3

2 minutes ago
Sleep well and dream of a Dem House in five weeks!
AdLib a minute ago
More than dream…work for it….
MurphTheSurf3

a minute ago
Better!
AdLib a few seconds ago
Good work!
AdLib a few seconds ago
Categories: Vox Populi Archives

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features