Yes that’s her ‘win’ Take that Jeff Bezos! No highly educated software engineers living in her district!!
I don't remember what it was I was quoting. Let's say he did. I was just curious about JR I do not remember him ever posting political stuff and was just curious.
“How Much Does The Current Structure Benefit Us?”: AOC Questions Role Of Supreme Court In Defending Court Packing https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/...-of-supreme-court-in-defending-court-packing/ Turley: It often seems that our politics of rage has created a new age of berserkers, warriors revered for their blind destructive fury. In order to distinguish yourself from the rest of the mob, you must show a willingness to lay waste to any structure or institution on the path to victory. That type of blood-lust politics was on display this week when House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey , D-Mass, and others unveiled a raw court packing bill to add four new justices to the Supreme Court to give liberals a one-justice majority. Not to be outdone, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” That current structure is called judicial review. It is the very thing that prevents authoritarian rule. Notably, there is little difference in nine or the proposed thirteen justices overturning laws “hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” Unless she is suggesting requiring thousands of jurists to review laws in equal numbers, her problem appears to be with the concept of judicial review. In the 1803 Marbury decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.” Part of that right to review is the challenging of unconstitutional federal laws. Marshall noted that “[t]he powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.” He then wrote most famously: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” AOC seems as emphatically convinced that a small number of jurists should not stand in judgment of the demands of thousands. There is a term for that type of system. It is called ochlocracy, or mob rule. Another term, most associated with John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty (1859) is “tyranny of the majority.” Mill explains that “the will of the people […] practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people.” Framers like John Adams referred to this form of tyranny and it is precisely what motivated figures like George Mason to demand a Bill of Rights protecting individual rights against the government – and the will of the majority. You do not need a First Amendment to protect popular speech. It is designed to protect the unpopular views of an insular and even despised minority. What was an enlightened view in the Eighteenth Century is now reactionary in the Twenty-First Century. The Court is an impediment to progress. Indeed, the privileged few justices – whether nine or thirteen – is intolerable for those who seek transform our society. This however is only a tyranny of the majority by the smallest margin. These structural changes are being pushed through despite an election that left the Senate in a 50-50 tie and the House with a now two-seat majority. It is really “tyranny of the mere majority.” What is most chilling however is AOC’s question “How much does the current structure benefit us? It reflects a crisis for faith. No constitutional system can long survive with a type of leap of faith by the govern – faith not only in the system itself but each other. That faith is now gone. Instead, we have the rise of the berserkers, politicians promising to yield to no institution or tradition that does not “benefit us.” Back in the age of Vikings, berserkers would throw off their armor and even bite their own shields in pure rage. Accounts of the time describe a type of trancelike state called berserkergang that could describe many in our current politics: a “shivering, chattering of the teeth, and chill in the body, and then the face swelled and changed its color. With this was connected a great hot-headedness, which at last gave over into a great rage.” Norse leaders used the berserkers for their own ends. However, the berserkers had other plans and soon their lust for destruction threatened these leaders themselves. In 1015, Norway officially outlawed berserkers. President Joe Biden has continued to stand mute as these figures rampage through his party and now the country. He is clearly unwilling to confront them directly and risk AOC or others asking how Biden “benefits us.” Indeed, he is enabling them by refusing to denounce court packing or other extreme demands. These extreme forces could be useful in maintaining Democratic control in the 2022 and 2024 elections. However, if the White House hopes they will serve as Biden’s berserkers, history shows they won’t be for long.
You are definitely the arbiter of who is a moron and who isn't. 3 out of the last 4 GOP presidents were morons. Reagan, Bush Jr and Trump. Bush Sr was the only "wonky" GOP president in decades.
I don't want them to have great power either. That's why I voted for the LP candidate in the last 2 presidential elections. I don't want the Federal government to have significant power over the daily lives of individuals, because there is a chance that the American people (which is 50% made of people of below average intelligence, by definition) will vote for idiots. Idiots who think low unemployment is caused by people having more than one job, don't understand how many states there are, don't know the difference between whales and Wales, think wildfires are caused by Jewish space lasers, think that Vietnam is still split into two countries, that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that putting American troops in Guam might cause it to tip over. The further toward the individual we can push power, the better.
What about idiots who believe unemployment rates and gdp growth are the be all end all of economic health of the working American laborer or what about the idiots who believe that genuine economic growth that benefits the middle class and poor come from throwing money at corporations and lowering the tax burden(supply side) while giving two ***** about demand which results in economic bubbles forming from speculative markets that eventually bust? Quick, tell me the gdp growth rate and unemployment rate in the United States 1.5 years before one of the greatest economic crashes in world history? Please underestimate AOC's intellegence. Go ahead and beat up strawmen of things she said to make her sound dumb. And if you are referring to someone not knowing the amount of states in America with Obama saying 57, that shows more of how dumb you are and cannot reconcile with someone slipping up in speech. Obama was talking about how many states he visited in the campaign trail the past couple of months. He intended to say 47. If you sincerely believe s constitutional law professor doesn't know there are 50 states, then you are telling me that you believe that knowledge is common and therefore it shows how dumb you are. And the Libertarian party is the epitome of a child like view of how the world works. They are busy debating whether drivers license impede on Individual rights.
Yes, them too. Are you talking about the crash caused by COVID? 2008? 1929? 1637? It isn't a strawman. It is a quote (or a paraphrase not affecting the meaning). She said the unemployment rate under Trump was so low because so many people were working two or more jobs. She thought working more jobs affected the unemployment rate. That explanation doesn't make sense, because he said he had been to 57 and he had 1 to go, meaning he thought there were 58. If he meant to say 47, that would mean he thought there were 48. Driver's licenses do impede on individual rights. The correct question would be, do they do so to an intolerable degree. Even the UN recognizes freedom of movement as a human right. I gave alternating stupid quotes from both major parties. It is pretty telling that you only took issue to those associated with Obama and AOC.
No it means that he wasn't planning on visiting 50 states. Look dude, I acknowledge smart GOP Individuals like Cruz, Mconnel, Bush Sr etc. Assuming that Obama doesn't know there are 50 states shows more about your intellegence because I wouldn't even assume the dumbest Individuals in politics like Boebert who got her GED months before running for office to not know there are 50 states. This is a stupid hill to die on.
Fair enough, how about politicians that say facial recognition technology is racist. Sure, some politicians are smart. Unfortunately, smart is not even a minimum requirement. I would love to see every congressperson's SAT score.
I am OK with packing the court because this will give the Republicans a sweep in the midterms and later on they can just add more conservatives and have all three branches and then control everything. NOT. Are people going mad? Packing the court is a ridiculous exercise in futility because it literally makes the Supreme Court a rubber stamp for **** legislation on either side.
Well the system in place seems to rather worthless. The republicans have won a single solitary popular vote in a presidential election since 1992. But have nominated 6 of 9 judges. Mitch really screwed any semblance of fairness of representation of what voters have voted.
It is just timing of Presidential and Senate control. Reagan had 3 in 2 terms, Bush had 2 in 1 term. Clinton had 2 in two terms, Bush had 2 in 2 terms, Obama had 2 in 2 terms, Trump had 3 in 1 term. Mitch and Co. could have just voted not to confirm, same outcome.
The popular vote doesn't decide president or the supreme court, so your point is largely irrelevant. It basically dissolves the third branch of our gov't and effectively eliminates our system of checks and balances.
How sustainable is stability of a nation when a plurality don't get their voices heard? How many years?
