The Supreme Court's Historic Challenge: Saving American Democracy

Vambram · Jan 14, 2024

The Supreme Court's Historic Challenge: Saving American Democracy

Historians have an enormous advantage over the rest of us: they have the unique luxury of looking back through time and, with the power of hindsight, pinpointing the exact moment a new era began. Yet there are events that are so momentous, so crucial,

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Historians have an enormous advantage over the rest of us: they have the unique luxury of looking back through time and, with the power of hindsight, pinpointing the exact moment a new era began. Yet there are events that are so momentous, so crucial, and so obvious, that sometimes even those living in the moment can recognize their historic significance.

We are living through that moment.

Over the last several days, the turmoil surrounding the question of whether bureaucrats can unilaterally remove Donald Trump's name from a presidential campaign ballot has only intensified. Colorado and Maine have already taken this action and other states are mulling the same.

As observed in a previous essay by this author, these actions attack the very fabric of our representative form of government. The idea that without so much as due process unelected persons in an individual state can remove a potential presidential candidate is the stuff of nightmares for a democracy.

Even leading Democrats have voiced opposition to this latest con by "ballot bandits."

What this means, however, is that the future of our nation is now to the be in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To their credit, they have recognized this threat and their need to consider the arguments as a matter of urgency for, make no mistake, this is an existential threat to our nation.

Occams Barber · Jan 14, 2024

Vambram said:
The Supreme Court's Historic Challenge: Saving American Democracy

Historians have an enormous advantage over the rest of us: they have the unique luxury of looking back through time and, with the power of hindsight, pinpointing the exact moment a new era began. Yet there are events that are so momentous, so crucial,

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Lousy source. You should try to do better next time. Your credibility is wearing a little thin.

Gatestone Institute - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

OB

jacks · Jan 14, 2024

Changed my mind.

Vambram · Jan 14, 2024

Occams Barber said:
Lousy source. You should try to do better next time. Your credibility is wearing a little thin.

View attachment 341405
View attachment 341406

Gatestone Institute - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

OB

LOL. The website mediabiasfactcheck.com is a biased organization, in my opinion.

stevil · Jan 14, 2024

I wonder which current restrictions the SC is supposed to decide no longer apply to a USA presidential candidate?
And of course, on what legal and constitutional grounds is that decision made?

Age > 35
Must be born in USA
Must not have been president already for 2 terms
Must not have been part of, or provided support or comfort to an insurrection.

jacks · Jan 14, 2024

stevil said:
Must not have been part of, or provided support or comfort to an insurrection.

I think it is this point, that is in contention.

QvQ · Jan 14, 2024

Occams Barber said:
Lousy source. You should try to do better next time. Your credibility is wearing a little thin.

These Checker Organizations are highly suspect.

Remember when Snopes Fact Checked Babylon Bee?
'

stevil · Jan 14, 2024

jacks said:
I think it is this point, that is in contention.

What is special about that point?

I think it applies all of them.
i.e. whether any restrictions at all should apply, or whether it should simply be upto the voters to choose from whomever is on the ballot.

If Trump wins this ruling in court, then maybe Trump can apply for a third term next time.
Also, maybe Putin can put his name in the ring for USA president too and maybe Obama can take another shot at it too.

jacks · Jan 14, 2024

stevil said:
What is special about that point?

As I'm sure you already know there are competing views on that point. It isn't as clear to everyone as the other criteria. (Every one thinks his is over 35.

)
HERE is an example.

GoldenBoy89 · Jan 15, 2024

Vambram said:
The Supreme Court's Historic Challenge: Saving American Democracy

Historians have an enormous advantage over the rest of us: they have the unique luxury of looking back through time and, with the power of hindsight, pinpointing the exact moment a new era began. Yet there are events that are so momentous, so crucial,

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

The solution to unelected bureaucrats deciding on electoral requirements for their state is to have another set of unelected bureaucrats decide the matter?

Hans Blaster · Jan 15, 2024

Why does the Supreme Court need to "save democracy" and why would we trust them to do so?

stevil · Jan 15, 2024

jacks said:
As I'm sure you already know there are competing views on that point. It isn't as clear to everyone as the other criteria. (Every one thinks his is over 35. )
HERE is an example.

The judges have already stated that it was an insurrection attempt. There are people sitting in jail right now for seditious conspiracy, and the Judges already stated that Trump participated.

stevil · Jan 15, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
Why does the Supreme Court need to "save democracy" and why would we trust them to do so?

Who is it in USA that has ultimate authority on what is constitutional or not?

KCfromNC · Jan 15, 2024

GoldenBoy89 said:
The solution to unelected bureaucrats deciding on electoral requirements for their state is to have another set of unelected bureaucrats decide the matter?

It depends. How many of of the unelected members were appointed by the guy trying to overturn states' rights to oversee their own elections?

Hans Blaster · Jan 15, 2024

stevil said:
Who is it in USA that has ultimate authority on what is constitutional or not?

The people with the power to change the Constitution.

stevil · Jan 15, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
The people with the power to change the Constitution.

No individual can change the Constitution. It takes a 2/3rds majority. Which means it most likely requires votes from both parties.
In the meantime the Supreme Court ensures the Govt don't operate outside the bounds of the constitution.

DaisyDay · Jan 15, 2024

QvQ said:
These Checker Organizations are highly suspect.

Mostly to those who prefer highly suspect sources.

QvQ said:
Remember when Snopes Fact Checked Babylon Bee?
'

No. All the Snopes articles on the Babylon Bee labeled it as satire.

Hans Blaster · Jan 15, 2024

stevil said:
No individual can change the Constitution. It takes a 2/3rds majority. Which means it most likely requires votes from both parties.
In the meantime the Supreme Court ensures the Govt don't operate outside the bounds of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past and been corrected by those with the power to change the text. (The Dred Scott case, the "no income tax" cases were all "corrected" by the people.) I happen to think the SC is wrong on some recent decisions and other people think *other* decisions were legally wrong.

The Supreme Court doesn't really "ensure" anything. They only make rulings on cases brought before them based on the full law and Constitution.

It is also a supremely non-democratic institution so its moral power to "preserve democracy" is limited.

probinson · Jan 15, 2024

QvQ said:
These Checker Organizations are highly suspect.

I always find it a bit odd that people rely on other organizations to tell them how they should feel about a certain source. I don't know about anyone else, but I have the ability to read an article and decide for myself whether I think the source is biased, but then, I tend to think for myself and form my own opinions. I really don't need some flunkies on the inter-webs to tell me how I should feel about something.

But I guess maybe that's just me.

stevil · Jan 15, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past and been corrected by those with the power to change the text. (The Dred Scott case, the "no income tax" cases were all "corrected" by the people.) I happen to think the SC is wrong on some recent decisions and other people think *other* decisions were legally wrong.

Sure, it's really weird when 4 judges vote one way and 5 judges vote another way, I mean almost half of them think there is nothing wrong with what you did, and just over half think you are wrong, but the consequences could be pretty extreme. Hard thing to swallow, I would expect most of the time the judges should all vote the same way.

Hans Blaster said:
The Supreme Court doesn't really "ensure" anything.

Well, it is their job to uphold the constitution and to stop politicians going too far.

Hans Blaster said:
They only make rulings on cases brought before them based on the full law and Constitution.

Of course.

Hans Blaster said:
It is also a supremely non-democratic institution so its moral power to "preserve democracy" is limited.

Huh, not sure what you mean by a non-democratic institution and don't know what you mean by "moral power"

The Supreme Court's Historic Challenge: Saving American Democracy

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Newbie

Er Victus

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Godless and without morals

Er Victus

Member

Godless and without morals

Er Victus

We're Still Here

Hood was a loser.

Godless and without morals

Godless and without morals

Regular Member

Hood was a loser.

Godless and without morals

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Hood was a loser.

Legend

Godless and without morals

Similar threads