I agree but after watching what the Dems have done the last 4-5 years you really think they are going to stop?bear2be2 said:And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.riflebear said:Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. Abear2be2 said:The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.BornAgain said:
The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple
Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.
nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.
I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.
I think term limits and the addition of two more parties (a progressive liberal party and a moderate conservative party) would solve most of our government's problems. The first would take special interests and profit motive out of public service and policy, and the latter would take away the binary choice that leaves us choosing the lesser evil in every election.HashTag said:Yep.... I think they all suck. We NEED term limits. Sad it will never happenbear2be2 said:I honestly don't care who does it. I loathe both of these parties, neither of which has this country's best interest at heart. But don't pretend that Republicans are different or better when it's beyond obvious that they're other side of the same ****ty coin.HashTag said:I nominate for the democrats to stopt he BS first.bear2be2 said:And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.riflebear said:Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. Abear2be2 said:The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.BornAgain said:
The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple
Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.
nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.
I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.
The problem is Republicans have too much dirt on their hands to claim innocence. Both parties take part in this nonsense. And as long as they do -- and their voters are content to let/defend them -- nothing will change.riflebear said:I agree but after watching what the Dems have done the last 4-5 years you really think they are going to stop?bear2be2 said:And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.riflebear said:Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. Abear2be2 said:The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.BornAgain said:
The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple
Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.
nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.
I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.
After Kavanaugh they were already talking about packing the court and adding SCOTUS picks, plus the filibuster.
I'm not for playing dirty at all but playing games is fine if they want to do that. The problem is Dems will do illegal and corrupt things and the press will cover for them. Doesn't matter if Trump/Senate nominates someone or not, if the Dems win they will do everything they've threatened anyway. Yesterday I wasn't for the nominee but seeing every President in history has nominated someone in the last year of a Presidency then there is literally no reason not to this time.
Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?
It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Actual advice and consent would require the senate, as a body, to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
bear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
His opposition of the Civil Rights Act and anti-discriminatory laws in general.JXL said:bear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
What exactly was "problematic" about Bork?
bear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.blackie said:
Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..
End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.
Too qualifiedJXL said:bear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
What exactly was "problematic" about Bork?
p*igs of a p*collarfubar said:Yep. The kooky man nailed it.william said:just the opposite. I would think.Baylor3216 said:
They're not going to try to rush it through.
Trump now wins in a bigger landslide though.
this motivates the moderate middle left-ish woman - at least those for whom (varoom) abortion is a top 2 or 3 itthue - to vote for Plugs and Pal.
- KKM
Jack Bauer said:
Nothing pisses off a feminist more than an attractive conservative family woman.Bearitto said:Jack Bauer said:
Hot, smart, religious, and honest about our Constitution. She's the anti-RBG. What a wonderful pick for a new shift of the court toward actual justice.
You thought Beckie Falwell was too.Jack Bauer said:Nothing pisses off a feminist more than an attractive conservative family woman.Bearitto said:Jack Bauer said:
Hot, smart, religious, and honest about our Constitution. She's the anti-RBG. What a wonderful pick for a new shift of the court toward actual justice.
Agree completely.Ski8103 said:
The main problem with the Supreme Court and to some extent the Presidency is the legislative (particularly the house) abdicating it's responsibilities. Neither Rep or Dem houses have executed on a high level since maybe the Clinton presidency.
bear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
So if I'm reading that correctly, only 25 percent of all people polled said that a hearing should not have been held in 2016, compared to 32 percent now.Gruvin said:
The public wants us to move forward with hearings https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/09/19/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/
At which part specifically? You're not adding much to this conversation as is.FWBear said:lmfaobear2be2 said:The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.Osodecentx said:Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?bear2be2 said:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments ClauseFWBear said:lol wutbear2be2 said:The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.BornAgain said:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?Section 2
- Clause 2
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...
I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.bear2be2 said:The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.BornAgain said:
The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple
Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.
HashTag said:
So.... any chance Trump could nominate Judge Wapner?
Ah! That makes total sense!Jack Bauer said:HashTag said:
So.... any chance Trump could nominate Judge Wapner?
Silly. Its going to be a female so Judge Judy!
There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.Sam Lowry said:I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.bear2be2 said:The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.FWBear said:bear2be2 said:Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.BornAgain said:
The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple
Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.
You'll say the same thing in 2024 and be just as wrong.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.blackie said:
Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..
End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.