Election 2024 Foreplay

[Cuddles]

Representative of the country in what way...are the Dems looking to put more justices to represent the people or to make sure their policies stay in place. If all the people truly wanted abortion legal they would have voted that way in 2016 and in the states that passed abortion bans. The idea that 100 SCs would better represent the country is just hiding partisan bias.

I wonder how you would have felt in the 1950s if GOP packed the court to undue segregation laws since the country mostly wanted Blacks separate. It would seem like a proper response from the GOP after the liberal court banned segregation, laws against mixed marriages, etc...

you have not presented a cogent argument that separates you from a short sighted political viewpoint enough to justify why Biden should have packed the courts with Congress approval because it lost the 2016 election and forgot elections have consequences when it comes to the SC. What is the purpose of the SC if th other party can simply adjust the minority every time until we get to 100. That is not representative of the country, that is representative of the 1% who run the parties.

Show me where on article three is expanding the court disallowed. You might as well argue that reforming/ridding the filibuster is against the republic.

A bigger body of judges quite frankly is harder to corrupt than a smaller one hence "more representative" be it to pass confirmation or reduce impact of interest group appointments.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

"Court-mandated busing, which continued until 1988, provoked enormous outrage among many white Bostonians, and helped to catalyze racist violence and class tensions across the city throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Anti-busing protests and iconography became national news in these years, and cemented Boston’s reputation as a city plagued by racial and socioeconomic strife."

I could post links and links of this but to think the South was the only ones who wanted Blacks separate ignores a lot of pain and suffeirng in the North as well...

.

Busing was a complicated and ugly scenario. Kids and families of both/all races just wanted to go to school in the area where they lived. Not be bussed across town. For those who are not familiar with the history, it would be a mistake to think that hating that scheme was just on the side of white racists. Y;all may recall Kamala berating Joe Biden and making him out to be a racist because he participated in/advanced busing/bussing. She reminded Joe that she "was that little girl." Kamala is another one who needs a few history lessons. She said those shaming/accusotorial-tinged words to Biden just as though busing was somehow a republican racist scheme. Nope.

 

[gwb-trading]

Nikki Haley is Trump's next target...

Trump starts 2024 with new target to 'crush': report
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...4-with-new-target-to-crush-report/ar-AA1mm03z

 

[El OchoCinco]

Busing was a complicated and ugly scenario. Kids and families of both/all races just wanted to go to school in the area where they lived. Not be bussed across town. For those who are not familiar with the history, it would be a mistake to think that hating that scheme was just on the side of white racists. Y;all may recall Kamala berating Joe Biden and making him out to be a racist because he participated in/advanced busing/bussing. She reminded Joe that she "was that little girl." Kamala is another one who needs a few history lessons. She said those shaming/accusotorial-tinged words to Biden just as though busing was somehow a republican racist scheme. Nope.

Ok busing was specific but i can find plenty of instances were integration of schools was fought against hard. The de facto segregation in Brooklyn was quite real and so was white flight. My point was the idea that only the South wanted to separate Blacks is laughable when you see the history in Boston and other Northern cities. The idea that a majority of Americans accepted Brown v. Board of Ed is also laughable. So what would our progressives think if the next GOP packed the court to allow states the right to govern their racism.

Packing the court now is simply a partisan whine because they lost and didnt get to pick justices.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Show me where on article three is expanding the court disallowed. You might as well argue that reforming/ridding the filibuster is against the republic.

A bigger body of judges quite frankly is harder to corrupt than a smaller one hence "more representative" be it to pass confirmation or reduce impact of interest group appointments.

No one said it was illegal which means you skipped over my point and filled in your own argument....good talk though

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Ok busing was specific but i can find plenty of instances were integration of schools was fought against hard. .

Yeh, I don't argue against that.
Just sayin, or should have said, that one of the lessons of that Boston busing nightmare was that the emphasis should be or should have been on integrating housing and when that is done, the integration of schools happens more naturally.

You never know where resistance- OR SUPPORT- can crop up in these scenarios.

A large number of students in Boston attended Catholic schools, that were long since integrated before the busing issue and all the forced integregation hoopla got intense.

 

[Cuddles]

No one said it was illegal which means you skipped over my point and filled in your own argument....good talk though

Because you keep trying to bothsides every issue as if a centrist approach is the enlightened one here. Your scenario is mot because the right already control SCOTUS so if they wanted to re-segregate, they already could. It's a failure of understanding that the right figured the weakness in SCOTUS, figured how to corrupt the branch, and not countering these life time appointments for fear of being considered "radical" in the name of civility politics will just postpone the inevitable likely expansion and/or impeachment of a judge in some future term.

 

[gwb-trading]

Nikki Haley Finally Takes the Fight to Trump Over Falsehood-Filled Ad
FINDING HER BACKBONE
New Hampshire voters were recently bombarded with an ad focusing on a non-existent gas tax supposedly enacted in South Carolina during Haley’s time as governor.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-finally-takes-the-fight-to-trump-over-falsehood-filled-ad

After months of steadfastly avoiding any direct attacks on former President Donald Trump, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley took the gloves off on Tuesday night.

Haley hit back at Trump over his political operation’s first negative ad against her this cycle, with New Hampshire voters recently bombarded with an ad calling her “High Tax Haley.”

The ad, which focuses on a non-existent gas tax in South Carolina during her time as governor, marks the first major dustup between the two candidates, as The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday.

“I see the commercials that you see, and I’ve noticed that President Trump is giving me some attention,” Haley said before kicking off a Q&A with voters at Wentworth by the Sea, a swanky ocean shore country club. “And I appreciate that, because that means he sees what we’re seeing, but in his commercials and in his temper tantrums, every single thing that he’s said has been a lie.”

Haley not only reiterated she never raised the gas tax in her state, but hit Trump for proposing a 25-cent-per-gallon hike in the federal gas tax back in 2018.

“So if he’s gonna lie about me,” Haley said, “I’m gonna tell you the truth about him.”

Just the declaration of a shot across the bow at Trump earned Haley one of her strongest applause lines of the night.

Haley also hit Trump on the economy, something she’s only done in passing previously when referring to the national debt.

“It was great,” Haley said of the economy under Trump, “but at what cost?”

Haley said “our kids will never forgive us” for Trump putting the nation in more than $8 trillion of debt.

“You don’t go and pretend to have a good economy by putting us in debt,” Haley said, before moving on to take questions from voters.

 

[Tony Stark]

Every Black person I know voted for Biden in 2020.With the exception of those over 65 every Black person I know will not be voting for Biden in 2024.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Because you keep trying to bothsides every issue as if a centrist approach is the enlightened one here. Your scenario is mot because the right already control SCOTUS so if they wanted to re-segregate, they already could. It's a failure of understanding that the right figured the weakness in SCOTUS, figured how to corrupt the branch, and not countering these life time appointments for fear of being considered "radical" in the name of civility politics will just postpone the inevitable likely expansion and/or impeachment of a judge in some future term.

It is not enlightened, it is ridiculous to be upset that Biden and Congress didnt expand the court simply because they lost and are unhappy with the results. Those same people would cry foul if GOP attempted same judicial coup. It is not enlightenedment it is pointing out a hypocritical position to stop supporting Biden and be happy about another trump term. That makes no sense.

The right simply waited for the election to make a run at their key issues in 2020 and focusing on abortion on cutting taxes and immigration got trump elected. I am tired of watching the Dems fail over and over and rather than try and address issues and win, it is always a backdoor tactic...flooding the SC was the latest one.

I am pointing out the desire to change an institution like the SC simply because the losing side is not happy with the results is not some grand cause to reflect the will of the people.

(Resegregation could not occur becuase congress finally acted to ensure that although de jure segregation was made illegal, that it would also make de facto segregation illegal too as well as all other forms of Jim Crow still in existence.)