The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[jimnyc]

Well ... ahem ... you could choose ours ! Just saying that you decided against ours, long ago, doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your minds.

Unlike your own doubts as to how much longer your system will last, I've no reason to think that the demise of ours is at all likely. Ours has endured the test of time .. tried 'n' tested, over a very long time ! Yes, occasional and VERY rare tinkerings occur, these decided upon by our Parliament, though always with the caveat inbuilt allowing for the authority to reverse them if so desired.

Not sure about others, but I think ours is as strong as ever and will last a long, long, long time. I see no reason whatsoever to think it won't last lifetimes. The very complexity, structure, size and locations more or less make it so that it cannot fail. It's been perfect from the outset, and NO ONE has a constitution as solid and as believed and followed as the USA has. Our justice system revolves and grows from it and the bill of rights. And then our system evolves into international law as well, while only holding force in America, or if civil we have international contracts and torts and everything imaginable.

[Kathianne]

Not sure about others, but I think ours is as strong as ever and will last a long, long, long time. I see no reason whatsoever to think it won't last lifetimes. The very complexity, structure, size and locations more or less make it so that it cannot fail. It's been perfect from the outset, and NO ONE has a constitution as solid and as believed and followed as the USA has. Our justice system revolves and grows from it and the bill of rights. And then our system evolves into international law as well, while only holding force in America, or if civil we have international contracts and torts and everything imaginable.

I agree with you about the system and design. Not so sure though it will hold, the problem is not the system but an informed and concerned citizenry.

As many here have stated, though imperfectly, for a generation or two at least, we are not educating the youth in their civic duty or how the system should work.

Last evening I spent most of my time on a highly regarded education site, arguing with some teachers on the appropriateness of hanging posters on 'LGBTQ Month.' Seems some believe that resources and time should be spent on that, I disagreed, though would support any struggling student and would try to get them help. Funny thing, I was slammed right and left, suddenly noticing I had like 180 likes-they just didn't say much on the topic, for fear of the response. We all know the responses didn't both me. LOL! There are far more who agreed with my positions than those 6 or 7 so vehemently opposed.

My point is along the lines of my conclusions of what is right or important isn't much different than most on the right. How I got there and how I choose to express those ideas is quite different than many who reach the same conclusions.

I don't think the left will ever convince me of their correct thinking by calling me names, belittling, or questioning my thinking. On the other hand, I'll nearly always respond and consider those who aren't condescending or self-righteous. Can any of us 'go there?' I certainly have more than once. Thing is though, no one listens when I do, I just piss others off.

Now back to the system, a very complex and well thought out, designed system. It cannot be understood without help, it's not what it seems. Drummond spent a lot of time yesterday, once he understood that he wasn't understanding all of it. Yet, he questioned the 'rightness' and still didn't understand the design. He was as caught up in what he saw as 'bias' of judges, something he, I believe, still sees as absent in the English judicial system. If I understand him correctly, somehow they have judges that have zero biases, something that is as rare as unicorns in an educated person.

Teaching the system is the first serious flaw. Then the fact that so many of our politicians have made it the norm to be 'above the law,' and in general reinforce the position that those with power truly don't give a fig about those they are supposed to labor for.

For the 'Common Good,' is now considered a joke and nothing but a joke. Common good means 'for all' and no one is for that. Each person for themselves and for their clan of like thinkers. Close only works in horseshoes.

For the system to work, there has to be compromise, something that is ridiculed by the vast majority today. We see that in discourse, family, marriages, and politics. Only fools compromise. It's all about winning. Kind of brings to mind, 'Win the battle and lose the war,' but I'm an idealist.

I'm not going to rant on, just kind of putting some of my thoughts out. I am pretty removed for today's politics, I have adopted a more observer role, with an occasional foray like the gay stuff with teachers. I think I just like to get contrary once in awhile. For the most part, staying out of the fray, a fray that beyond depresses me, I think has kept my blood pressure under 200.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Never imagined I'd spark off such a long discussion. But enjoyably, it's remained rather well behaved.

Yes our SCOTUS is "supposed to be" only one of a three "co equal" branches of government, but I think it's been given more power than it should have. I don't believe their decisions should be the end all, be all, unquestionably, when we all know that the judges that sit on SCOTUS are either conservative or liberal, and they will adjudicate based on their own personal political bias. At that point they're no longer simply interpreting law according to the constitution. They're legislating from the bench, and there's so many examples of it it's pathetic, like calling the obamacare penalty for not buying it a TAX. That was just bizarre, and a gross maligning of the constitution's Commerce Clause.

I think there should be an avenue for either the Executive or Legislative branch to quickly challenge a supreme court decision. The only problem is... to who?

[jimnyc]

I agree with you about the system and design. Not so sure though it will hold, the problem is not the system but an informed and concerned citizenry.

I guess my point there was that our justice system won't some day collapse and be over with. What we may see, is many changes/updates to the system should it ever be necessary, and of course constitutional and in the best interest of America.

I think the system is great, but the flexibility allows for corruption and/or biases. I think some areas need to be sewed up there as well, and ensured that such things are 'remedy available' (just made that up). That's kinda why folks can now appeal and appeal, to eliminate incorrect decisions, if they or their counsel believe so.

[jimnyc]

For the 'Common Good,' is now considered a joke and nothing but a joke. Common good means 'for all' and no one is for that. Each person for themselves and for their clan of like thinkers. Close only works in horseshoes.

Not to me! I still see it as necessary for our country to be fully healthy and fully functional and criminal free.

I've come to the conclusion - teachers aren't the police. I said that all along, and I know the SC decision is the law of the land. So difficult to fight that, but only can say one would like to see it changed perhaps.

But US citizens, as a citizen alone, outside the scope of employment, folks shouldn't be penalized for reporting any illegal behavior in our country. Then the problem comes - teachers would NOT be being punished via the law for reporting crime, but rather punished via the school system for doing so. And that happens already, in many areas of employment, where employees are also accountable for their actions on their free time. I sure as hell don't believe that reporting a crime is a bad action... but undoubtedly some would argue that it's then still a teacher doing the reporting. --- And then I guess I go full circle, they are not cops or investigators, but whether reporting here or there, a simple incident report of what someone knows should be allowed and not punishable. I'd love to see this change some day. But fully understand where we are right now.

[Kathianne]

I guess my point there was that our justice system won't some day collapse and be over with. What we may see, is many changes/updates to the system should it ever be necessary, and of course constitutional and in the best interest of America.

I think the system is great, but the flexibility allows for corruption and/or biases. I think some areas need to be sewed up there as well, and ensured that such things are 'remedy available' (just made that up). That's kinda why folks can now appeal and appeal, to eliminate incorrect decisions, if they or their counsel believe so.

I don't think it will be one branch that 'collapses.' The problems are systemic and will result in the 'system' being left, just not working as envisioned, but rather at the behest of whomever seizes the reins at the opportune moment in time. That side will celebrate, though I don't think it will come at once or even be noticed until it's too late. Indeed, we may be in the midst of the process already. 20/20 and all that.

[jimnyc]

I don't think it will be one branch that 'collapses.' The problems are systemic and will result in the 'system' being left, just not working as envisioned, but rather at the behest of whomever seizes the reins at the opportune moment in time. That side will celebrate, though I don't think it will come at once or even be noticed until it's too late. Indeed, we may be in the midst of the process already. 20/20 and all that.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen, not if attorneys know the law, and of course judges follow that law - and judges that don't, either ultimately get removed from the bench, or voted out. Not counting the SC of course. It would take the biases and an awfully shitload amount of them NOT being somehow recognized, overturned in appeal and bypassing all those checks and balances. I see exactly what you're saying and mean (probably not nearly as well), and I know that of course folks always want things in their favor. And of course what that can lead to. --- but we can't "widen home plate" and not have accountability over the justice system. So lawyers can be disbarred and sanctioned and/or held in contempt. Judges can be overturned on appeal and/or removed from the bench for egregious behavior. Up and up and up. It would take a catastrophic failure for all of it to collapse.

Now, if one side politically should nominate folks that are conservative, or liberal, then I can see the persuasion on the bench. And that's where of course judges 'interpret' the law differently than their counterparts. Then you have them appealed. UNLESS, of course you are in the SC and arguing a very conservative case, you may have a better chance now, as IMO the conservative judges tend to base things off the constitution more. And sometimes in the past it was more liberal for folks out there. But even when things were "leaning" one way or another, the overwhelming majority of cases are still judged properly. Only a handful always get looked at - by us citizens in a political manner as well, and we see/think they are judging based on biases, depending on who is in there at the time. Ok, I know I'm rambling as I lost train of thought a few times! LOL Time for a coffee.

[Kathianne]

That shouldn't be allowed to happen, not if attorneys know the law, and of course judges follow that law - and judges that don't, either ultimately get removed from the bench, or voted out. Not counting the SC of course. It would take the biases and an awfully shitload amount of them NOT being somehow recognized, overturned in appeal and bypassing all those checks and balances. I see exactly what you're saying and mean (probably not nearly as well), and I know that of course folks always want things in their favor. And of course what that can lead to. --- but we can't "widen home plate" and not have accountability over the justice system. So lawyers can be disbarred and sanctioned and/or held in contempt. Judges can be overturned on appeal and/or removed from the bench for egregious behavior. Up and up and up. It would take a catastrophic failure for all of it to collapse.

Now, if one side politically should nominate folks that are conservative, or liberal, then I can see the persuasion on the bench. And that's where of course judges 'interpret' the law differently than their counterparts. Then you have them appealed. UNLESS, of course you are in the SC and arguing a very conservative case, you may have a better chance now, as IMO the conservative judges tend to base things off the constitution more. And sometimes in the past it was more liberal for folks out there. But even when things were "leaning" one way or another, the overwhelming majority of cases are still judged properly. Only a handful always get looked at - by us citizens in a political manner as well, and we see/think they are judging based on biases, depending on who is in there at the time. Ok, I know I'm rambling as I lost train of thought a few times! LOL Time for a coffee.

I'm not looking at just the judiciary, that would be a logical problem. It's all 3 branches: that partisanship, corruption, lack of responsibility in the legislature. It's the partisanship and focusing on the partisan electorate in the executive. (See DOJ, FBI, NSA, etc., don't think it's only the democrats either, it never is just one.) Personally I think the judiciary is the most close to following the rules-for the simple reason that the Constitution IS written and the far off rulings are examined in a public forum. There aren't all the committees of the legislature, nor secrets of the executive that make it so difficult for the average person to follow or be persuaded. When the court legislates it is covered and those that agree cheer and the opposition can clearly react-enough so that our 'representatives' often have to make corrections, however temporary they envision.

[jimnyc]

When the court legislates it is covered and those that agree cheer and the opposition can clearly react-enough so that our 'representatives' often have to make corrections, however temporary they envision.

All you say is true and I agree. But I think the above is what I mean - it would likely be temporary - whether that be victories in congress quite often, and what I was referring to about courts. How many times have we seen folks on either side, get elated over a court decision - because they agree with it - only to see it later reversed or overturned. And 99/100 times it's due to the constitution or laws or incorrect rulings and such. With the abundance of checks and balances we have, I'd like to think that most things that may be wrong can eventually be righted. Sometimes it takes a long long time though, and without an injunction, that could be problematic at times. Started, stopped, started, stopped./

[Kathianne]

All you say is true and I agree. But I think the above is what I mean - it would likely be temporary - whether that be victories in congress quite often, and what I was referring to about courts. How many times have we seen folks on either side, get elated over a court decision - because they agree with it - only to see it later reversed or overturned. And 99/100 times it's due to the constitution or laws or incorrect rulings and such. With the abundance of checks and balances we have, I'd like to think that most things that may be wrong can eventually be righted. Sometimes it takes a long long time though, and without an injunction, that could be problematic at times. Started, stopped, started, stopped./

Here's where we seem to disagree, I see it happening in a planned way. Most are celebrating their 'victories' while ignoring that those involved are taking turns. It would not be possible with 'high character' in the citizenry or in office holders. It wouldn't happen if people understood which branch is responsible for which actions, and even those that 'do know' don't seem to care-when it's their side usurping or giving away responsibilities of another branch. They scream like little girls when it's the hated enemy. While it's the office holders that benefit; it's the citizens sports-like mentality or apathy that is allowing it all to happen.

[Abbey Marie]

@Kathianne

I was wondering how you feel about teachers reporting suspected child abuse, given that both that and being in the country illegally, are crimes. And if teachers are required by law to report abuse (I don’t know the law on that), wouldn’t that make teachers “cops” also?

I agree with you that our teachers already do much more than teach, and it’s taking away from teaching.

[Kathianne]

@Kathianne

I was wondering how you feel about teachers reporting suspected child abuse, given that both that and being in the country illegally, are crimes. And if teachers are required by law to report abuse (I don’t know the law on that), wouldn’t that make teachers “cops” also?

I agree with you that our teachers already do much more than teach, and it’s taking away from teaching.

Teacher are mandated reporters of any 'suspected' child abuse. I have no problem with that. FYI, social workers are subject to the same restraints as teachers regarding children and ICE.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Teacher are mandated reporters of any 'suspected' child abuse. I have no problem with that. FYI, social workers are subject to the same restraints as teachers regarding children and ICE.

I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister, many of my friends here in town had her as their teacher), and both her kids are college professors, one at SWTC in Fennimore where I got my degree in Electrical Engineering, and one at UW Platteville... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.

[Kathianne]

I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister), and both her kids are college professors... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.

It seems we are destined to disagree on this topic. I’ve posted plenty and am not going to repeat. If there’s something new, have at it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It seems we are destined to disagree on this topic. I’ve posted plenty and am not going to repeat. If there’s something new, have at it.

I hear ya... no need to repeat yourself. We've all hashed this over pretty good.