Jindal: SCOTUS Is 'Out of Control, Let's Just Get Rid of the Court'

[DKW 86 7,410]

We can't and don't want to get rid of it entirely but it has to be brought under control and be put back into the role intended by the founders. It will require some constitutional amendments I believe. Mark Levin and others have talked about this at length. The Congress won't ever do it. It will require a convention of the states to bring about needed reform in this and other areas of our government.

CT, quoting Levin is not rational. ML is at the forefront of the Right Wing Crazies. I mean he is "The Great One" as all the Right Wingers call him.They all look to him and parrot him. He is in many ways the source of some of the worst screaming banshee messes this country has ever endured. Please, i beg you, read or listen to others before you make up your mind on anything. Dont be closed to just one view.

[cooltigger21 0]

We can't and don't want to get rid of it entirely but it has to be brought under control and be put back into the role intended by the founders. It will require some constitutional amendments I believe. Mark Levin and others have talked about this at length. The Congress won't ever do it. It will require a convention of the states to bring about needed reform in this and other areas of our government.

CT, quoting Levin is not rational. ML is at the forefront of the Right Wing Crazies. I mean he is "The Great One" as all the Ringht Wingers call him.They all look to him and parrot him. He is in many ways the source of some of the worst creaming banshee mess this country has ever endured. Please, i beg you, read or listen to others before you make up your mind on anything. Dont closed to just one view.

We've got this insane idea that partisanship is a bad thing. I listen to everything. One thing I do know is that a convention of the states as provided for under Article V is the only way we're ever going to get anything done. I've read his proposed amendments and they make perfect sense for reigning in this out of control federal government. Socially liberal and economically conservative are a joke and unworkable in real life. You have said you could support Elizabeth Warren so that tells me a lot about your judgement

[autigeremt 6,569]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

Define majority. I know you are familiar with the term, gerrymandering.

[autigeremt 6,569]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

Define majority. I know you are familiar with the term, gerrymandering.

Overall majority. Not the political definition that both parties use and contort.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

Define majority. I know you are familiar with the term, gerrymandering.

Overall majority. Not the political definition that both parties use and contort.

You are correct. It is amazing what people vote for when, they vote on issues and not a party or politician. Do we need more democracy?

[quietfan 233]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

And in some things majority opinion is completely irrelevant. Or did Jefferson misspeak when he spoke of inalienable rights?

Even with a majority approval of 99.999% to 0.001%, I would never tolerate the re-introducing slavery, imprisoning homosexuals for being homosexual, or the forced acceptance of a single state religion. And I see Friday's SCOTUS ruling as simply recognizing everyone's already existing inalienable right to equality before the law.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

And in some things majority opinion is completely irrelevant. Or did Jefferson misspeak when he spoke of inalienable rights?

Even with a majority approval of 99.999% to 0.001%, I would never tolerate the re-introducing slavery, imprisoning homosexuals for being homosexual, or the forced acceptance of a single state religion. And I see Friday's SCOTUS ruling as simply recognizing everyone's already existing inalienable right to equality before the law.

Or, is it? Our country seems to move with the majority, or near majority, opinion. I am not sure the perspective of the question is, what would you tolerate today. Would you have tolerated any of those things 200 years ago?

I think the lesson here is, that we need to exercise caution in an environment that seeks to shape our opinions rather than inform us. Are our "opinions" our own? And, that our opinions and, the expression of those opinions, are important but, we can never forget that we have to, no matter how wrong, respect democracy.

I think, when we drift away from our appreciation of democracy, we encourage the concept of "big government". Whether we are attempting to maintain the status quo or, shape the future, we are inadvertently undermining the concept of "self rule". In other words, instead of the government reflecting the "will of the people", we encourage the government to dictate the "will of the people". We shift the base of power in the hopes that our will, will be imposed by that power.

I don't think Jefferson misspoke. I think he was keenly aware of right and wrong. I think he was also realistic enough to understand that change is slow. Freedom and democracy have to acknowledge this reality and, the right of the majority to be to be wrong and, the responsibility of the opposing view to change opinion by making a moral, intellectual argument, not by physical or political force.

If there is one great failing in our system today, I believe that it lies in the fact that we have traded our belief in, and respect for, democracy, and all that the word implies. We have traded the concept for a "win at any cost" mentality that promotes the goals of political parties (and the inherent power they hold in big government) while, undermining the principles of the country.

Our political problems are not some inherent flaw in "conservatism" or "liberalism". Our problems are a product of the arrogant and idiotic belief in either, our foolish desire impose either, our inability to see through those who wish to elevate the status of either above, and with total disregard to, the principle of democracy.

[WarTim 3,456]

I kind of appreciate Jindal's total disregard for our democracy. It seems to be part of the new definition of "conservatism".

Really! Democracy doesn't exist for either party unless there's a punchline attached. The majority rarely wins anything anymore. Lol!

And in some things majority opinion is completely irrelevant. Or did Jefferson misspeak when he spoke of inalienable rights?

Even with a majority approval of 99.999% to 0.001%, I would never tolerate the re-introducing slavery, imprisoning homosexuals for being homosexual, or the forced acceptance of a single state religion. And I see Friday's SCOTUS ruling as simply recognizing everyone's already existing inalienable right to equality before the law.

Or, is it? Our country seems to move with the majority, or near majority, opinion. I am not sure the perspective of the question is, what would you tolerate today. Would you have tolerated any of those things 200 years ago?

I think the lesson here is, that we need to exercise caution in an environment that seeks to shape our opinions rather than inform us. Are our "opinions" our own? And, that our opinions and, the exp<b></b>ression of those opinions, are important but, we can never forget that we have to, no matter how wrong, respect democracy.

I think, when we drift away from our appreciation of democracy, we encourage the concept of "big government". Whether we are attempting to maintain the status quo or, shape the future, we are inadvertently undermining the concept of "self rule". In other words, instead of the government reflecting the "will of the people", we encourage the government to dictate the "will of the people". We shift the base of power in the hopes that our will, will be imposed by that power.

I don't think Jefferson misspoke. I think he was keenly aware of right and wrong. I think he was also realistic enough to understand that change is slow. Freedom and democracy have to acknowledge this reality and, the right of the majority to be to be wrong and, the responsibility of the opposing view to change opinion by making a moral, intellectual argument, not by physical or political force.

If there is one great failing in our system today, I believe that it lies in the fact that we have traded our belief in, and respect for, democracy, and all that the word implies. We have traded the concept for a "win at any cost" mentality that promotes the goals of political parties (and the inherent power they hold in big government) while, undermining the principles of the country.

Our political problems are not some inherent flaw in "conservatism" or "liberalism". Our problems are a product of the arrogant and idiotic belief in either, our foolish desire impose either, our inability to see through those who wish to elevate the status of either above, and with total disregard to, the principle of democracy.

"libtard"....... :-)