[Political Junkie Too]

I'm curious - if an amendment were passed that simply says the 17th amendment is hereby repealed, and original language fully restored, what would SCOTUS twist, given 120 years of state legislature selection of Senators? Be specific, don't say they just will and point to some other twist.

-PJ

[dware]

Be specific, don't say they just will and point to some other twist.

If I can't point to the utter BS they have used TWICE to twist obolacare, then I'm afraid you aren't interested in true debate. Gruber himself said that states that didn't create exchanges wouldn't qualify for subsidies, the law itself is pretty damn clear, and others said it too (Kathleen Superdumba$$, IIRC).

The point is, I don't know how they will, but they will, just as they continue to do with obolacare and deviant marriage. It WILL happen. Common sense backs the historical data up.

[Hostage]

PJ - you’re asking an obnoxious chimpanzee to sit down and write like a refined legal scholar. You know they can’t do that. All they can do is act like a chimp and write words that reflect their jumping up and down and screeching.

[Jacquerie]

<>. . . if an amendment were passed that simply says the 17th amendment is hereby repealed, and original language fully restored, what would SCOTUS twist . . . <>

Crickets roar in response.