Ted Cruz Has A Plan to Fight Judicial Tyranny – And Here It Is

The Political Insider ^ | Rusty Weiss

[SoConPubbie]

Which studiously ignored the very important fact that we average about 100 amendments proposed a year and the only one that’s been passed in the last 40 was actually proposed in 1789.

I didn't ignore anything, again, you are somehow "divining" the motivations of people, something only God can do.

Also, you are being Dishonest or deceitful. We weren't talking about when they were proposed, just if they got passed. In fact, that is how you started this part of our debate. If you are going to debate, don't be dishonest and try to change the basis of the debate.

And, BTW, in the last 51 years, at least 4 have passed.

[discostu]

Yes attacking.

Notice you still haven’t tried to answer the questions:
how will he get it out of committee?
how will he get it past congress?
how will he get it through the legislatures?
where is the proof that retention election fix judiciaries?

Those are the things I’m presenting facts against. And those are things you flee from like they’re on fire. Answer the simple questions.

[SoConPubbie]

I got nobody. Politics has been taken over by loud mouths. I think we are now fully in the situation Douglas Adams described, the process now fully guarantees that anybody who should be trusted to be in charge doesn’t want anything to do with politics.

Cruz is the one to trust.



    CRUZ or LOSE!

[SoConPubbie]

how will he get it out of committee?
how will he get it past congress?
how will he get it through the legislatures?

Don't know, however, I do know that Reagan was elected, he had BIG coattails, and the President does set GOP Policy when he is a Republican.

And again, I don't intend to give up, just because there are no guarantees that the effort will be successful.

[discostu]

I’m not divining the motivations of the people, I’m pointing out historical truths. Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789, 27 have passed. No divining there, simple historical truths.

Yeah we got 3 through in the 60s. And then 1 in ‘71. And then 1 in ‘92, but that one was actually proposed back in the original wave, so it 202 years to pass. And nothing since. Even in the 60s when they were “frequent” over 1000 amendments were proposed and only 3 passed.

It’s kind of like the lottery. You’ll win a lot more money betting nobody will win the lottery this week than you will playing the lottery. Assume, for the sake of process, then any constitutional amendment proposed will fail. Because there’s a 99.9% chance it will. If you really honestly think the only way to a particular problems is an amendment then functionally you think the problem is unfixable.

[discostu]

Reagan’s coattails weren’t that big. And given the numbers already in place a GOP winner in ‘16 probably won’t have big coattails either (there just aren’t many seat TOO gain). And setting GOP policy (especially with a uni-party) is frankly meaningless.

I’m not saying give up. I’m saying find a better plan. Because there is a guarantee this plan will fail.

I also noticed you skipped the 4th, and honestly most important, question:
Where is the proof retention voting has ever actually fixed a judiciary?

[SoConPubbie]

I’m not divining the motivations of the people, I’m pointing out historical truths. Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789, 27 have passed. No divining there, simple historical truths.

B.S. again!

You just accused me of "Studiously ignoring" the fact that the last Amendment was originally proposed at some previous date. I did nothing of the kind.

Furthermore, now you are redefining the terms of the debate because your original "opinion" that Amendments don't pass, has been disproved.

You're not a very honest poster are you?!

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan’s coattails weren’t that big. And given the numbers already in place a GOP winner in ‘16 probably won’t have big coattails either (there just aren’t many seat TOO gain). And setting GOP policy (especially with a uni-party) is frankly meaningless.

You don't know that. It's a supposition.

Furthermore, Reagan was down 30% to Carter after the Primaries and then went on to thoroughly trounce him.

Anything can happen in politics.

[discostu]

That’s not BS. That’s the truth.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/measures_proposed_to_amend_constitution.htm

As of December 16th 2014 the number is 11,623. Given that they average 100 year and we’re already half way through this one, figure it’s closer to 11,670. The fact that the ONLY amendment to pass in the last 40 years had been sitting around for 200 is also a fact, and important to understand.

I’m 100% honest. You just find the facts inconvenient.

[SoConPubbie]

I’m 100% honest. You just find the facts inconvenient.

No you're not. You stated that they NEVER pass, and yet, 27 have passed.

And then, instead of admitting that statement was maybe a little too strong, you change the terms of the debate.

[indthkr]

Ted Cruz Has A Plan to Fight Judicial Tyranny

Maybe we would be better off with Ted Cruz as the next Supreme Court nominee....

[SoConPubbie]

Maybe we would be better off with Ted Cruz as the next Supreme Court nominee....

That would be a horrible waste of the best potential GOP candidate for POTUS we have!

In terms of ability to communicate, fidelity to conservative principles, fidelity to the Constitution, and just plain fearlessness, Senator Ted Cruz stands head and shoulders above all the other GOP candidates for POTUS.



    CRUZ or LOSE!

[discostu]

It’s not supposition at all. It’s math and history. In the House the Dems only have 188 seats, given the average re-election rate is around 95% we’re talking about a 10 seat gain being pretty much the best the GOP can hope for. In the Senate the Dems only HAVE 10 seats on the line, again retention rate is over 90% so we’re talking maybe 2 seats, maybe 3. Gaining seats is harder the more you already have, it’s math, with a finite number of seats the fewer seats your opponent has the fewer seats you CAN gain.

And history shows setting the party policy really is just paper.

We’re not talking about polling, we’re talking about coattails.

[discostu]

I didn’t say they never pass, I said they don’t. Because by and large, they don’t. Amendments are 27-15,996. That’s a win loss record that even the current 76ers would find pathetic.

If somebody is changing the terms of the debate it’s you.

I notice you still won’t answer when a retention vote has fixed a judiciary.

[caww]

....”I got nobody..... anybody who should be trusted to be in charge doesn’t want anything to do with politics.”....

Such as?

[discostu]

I already said I got nobody.

[Patton@Bastogne]

[upchuck]

How bout instead electing judges, and all the political skullduggery that implies, we term limit judges. Say four years.