Andrew Anglin eviscerates the "Alt-right" -- Re: USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[jim bell]

    On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 11:42:54 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:08:54 +0000 (UTC)
>jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>>  I had a 'naughty' thought:  What if Trump were to nominate more than one SC nominee, say five of them, and ask the Republican majority in the Senate 

>    yes in reality trump is a radical libertarian, but he's keeping it a secret until the time when he finally destroys the deep state. The Republicans are libertarian anarchists in disguise, too. The democrats on the other hand, are marxists.

That has nothing to do with "libertarian-ness".    I merely want to expose the dishonesty of people who want to change the rules of 'the game' for partisan purposes.  The Democrats did their 'nuclear option' in November 2013, opening the door for the Republicans'  changing  https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed   the standards also for Supreme Court nomination.  From that article:
"Wednesday is the fifth anniversary of an event that is still changing the course of Senate and judicial history. On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats exercised the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibusters of nominations they had pioneered a decade earlier.This is a story of how their best-laid plans went awry.
Senate Democrats started planning a hostile takeover of the judicial appointment process in 2001. Just days after President George W. Bush took office, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said they would use “whatever means necessary” to fight his judicial nominees. At a May retreat in Florida, that vow became a strategy to, as the New York Times described it at the time, “change the ground rules” of the confirmation process.  

Unlike the House, which prioritizes action and does everything by simple majority, the Senate emphasizes deliberation and first requires a supermajority to end debate, or invoke cloture. A filibuster occurs when an attempt to end debate fails — Rule 22 today requires 60 votes.

While the filibuster became part of the legislative process in the early 1800s, it did not become part of the confirmation process until after Republicans captured the Senate in 2002. In just 16 months, from March 2003 to July 2004, Democrats forced the Senate to take 20 cloture votes on 10 different nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Every one of those attempts to end debate failed."        [end of partial quote]


I haven't read the legal decisions issued by the Supreme Court during the mid-1930's that de-railed much of FDR's "New Deal", but I imagine they were quite appropriate.  The Founding Fathers intended that Federal power be limited and defined, and the power of the states would be generally undefined.  That position was mostly respected until the early 1900's.  
               Jim Bell
  

  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7547 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200923/b67f14fd/attachment.txt>