It's quite amusing that you don't know the difference between the news pages of a newspaper and the opinion pages of a newspaper. I'm a little embarrassed for you. You should have picked up on that distinction at some point in your life.
Obama threatens 'unelected' Supreme Court over health care reform
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
It's quite amusing that you don't know the difference between the news pages of a newspaper and the opinion pages of a newspaper. I'm a little embarrassed for you. You should have picked up on that distinction at some point in your life.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board is in a class all its own among major US newspapers.
All editorial boards have their biases. That's what they do. They're opinion pages.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Everyone bitches about the "unelected Supreme Court" at some point or other. Teddy Roosevelt once argued that the American people should be given a national referendum which could be used to overrule the SC whenever it made bad rulings. Teddy had disagreed with the Court enough times that he was simply annoyed...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
True dat.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
So did his cousin. So did Abe Lincoln.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I see you dodged answering it though. afraid to try?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
For that matter, Wilson wrote extensively in defense of the Senate Fillibuster -- its history and application. Then he became president, and began to get really annoyed with the whole thing...
Your question was nonsense. A strong majority is not manufactured through arm-twisting political maneuvering, that stuff is unnecessary with a "strong majority" supporting your legislation.
The law was passed with a manufactured and largely threatened or bribed majority, many of them even losing seats due to the nature of the employed political maneuvering and strong arm tactics necessary to pass the law.
It takes spin capacity at near superpower levels to pretend that is a "strong" majority.
I can't help but follow this case and link it to guns (and other freedoms) as well. I am concerned to say the least. The way I look at it, we are about 1 Supreme Court appointee away from having gun laws becoming even more severely restrictive....something that I am definitely against. This is exactly why I will vote Republican this time (as if it will do any good), for the first time since George W. ran the first time. Even Romney would be better than what we have gotten and would get with Obama, IMO. I know my closed-mindedness in this seems irrational but I can't help but feel the way I feel in my heart of hearts.
It's a very simple question regarding your opinion as to what constitutes a strong majority. Not too tough, Damo. Pick a number between 1 and 100. I think anything around 60 is pretty strong.
Threatened or bribed majority? That's awesome. What were these threats and strong arm tactics you refer to and who are the specific victims of these tactics?
By the way, even SF has acknowledged that it passed the Senate with a strong majority so you may want to limit your statements to the House.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
The breakdown was 50.8% - 49.2% in the House. Do you consider that to be a large majority?
cawacko
Well-known member
The discussion is really does 60-39 constitute a strong majority?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It is quite amusing that you seem to think the 'news' pages are any less biased. Just look at Krugman's 'news' pieces. Non-stop partisan BS.
The phrase activists judges is a fairly new phrase, and is used by both sides when they do not like rulings of the Supremes. I remember hearing it from the Republicans quite a lot during the Clinton administration and in regards to the ruling of the Ten Commandments and pray in schools.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, ignoring that it was a purely partisan vote, for the Senate that is a strong majority.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is just nonsense. The NYT's editorial board is every bit as liberal as the Journal is conservative.
Krugman writes an opinion column which appears in the op-ed section of the newspaper. My comment was intended to be snarky but it's apparently true that you don't know the difference between the opinion pages of a newspaper and the news pages of a newspaper. Yikes.
I think I clearly explained my position, and your attempt to create a straw man underlines that. An otherwise intelligent man reduced to babble and obfuscation in a desperate attempt to defend the President only makes my point that much clearer.
Only the delusional, or the brain dead, would consider a bribed and threatened majority to be a "strong" one. The strength of a majority isn't in the number, it is in what is necessary to build it. A strong majority in support of your legislation does not require political maneuvering on an epic level so obvious that even constituents who normally support their Congressperson can't stand what you had to do to get it and vote them out...
I understand what you think a strong majority isn't; I'm just trying to understand what you think a strong majority is.
Also, asking "what is a strong majority" is "babble and obfuscation?" Strange. It seems to me that the guy that writes several paragraphs of unsubstantiated horsehit instead of typing out a two digit number is the more likely to be engaged in "babble and obfuscation" than the guy asking a fairly simple question.
I don't think they were "bribed and threatened" and am asking you to substantiate your claims. I also think it's pretty odd to claim that a "strong majority" isn't in the number. Interesting usage of the English language there, Damo. I guess it could mean a majority of Congressmembers than can bench 250 or something.
Bribed and threatened? Is that your definition for compromise?