I know we CAN, but I also know that many voters are apoplectic about voting in California when the news stations report the races over by the time we get off work, so many don't even bother. I think there should be a news media blackout until Hawaii polls are closed. I hate the time zone handicap that we have to deal with out here.
I hate being so pessimistic, but I just don't think we're ready to sacrifice everything. We have become too "rich", and no one wants to go it alone. I've daydreamed of a mythical group of assassins, terminally ill patriots, who begin a campaign of selective eliminations, designed to make the biggest dent in the swamp, taking out the real sources of the disintegration of America, with Soros being first on the list. Alas, it's just a silly fiction...
Well, it seems that we have too much to lose to actually go out and do anything. We have seen that the swamp is not only in Washington, but it is in every DA's office around the country, so we are going to be arrested as soon as we even begin to "rise up" against the swamp. None of us wants to be first, so we will simply wait and watch our neighbors be arrested and carted off to jail. We will comply when the authorities show up to confiscate our "assault weapons", because we value our careers and pensions more. We will not fight back, we will not do a goddamned thing, and it really pisses me off.
Oops... from a confirmation hearing question from Sen Feinstein :
- When Chief Justice Roberts was before the Committee for his nomination, Senator Specter referred to the history and precedent of the Roe case law as “super-stare decisis.” One textbook on the law of judicial precedent, co-authored by Justice Gorsuch, refers to Roe v. Wade as a “super-precedent” because it has survived more than three dozen attempts to overturn it. (The Law of Judicial Precedent, THOMAS WEST, p. 802 (2016)) The book explains that “superprecedent” is “precedent that defines the law and its requirements so effectively that it prevents divergent holdings in later legal decisions on similar facts or induces disputants to settle their claims without litigation.” (The Law of Judicial Precedent, THOMAS WEST, p. 802 (2016)) a. Do you agree that Roe v. Wade is “super-stare decisis”? “superprecedent”? Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is binding precedent of the Supreme Court and I would faithfully follow it as I would follow all precedent of the Supreme Court regardless of whether it is referred to as “super-stare decisis” or “superprecedent.” b. Is it settled law? Yes. For lower court judges, all Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is settled law. If confirmed, I would faithfully apply this precedent and all other precedents of the Supreme Court.
If the Electoral College did end up tied, the Constitution dictates that it's the incoming Congress who breaks the stalemate, with the House of Representatives determining the president – but instead of voting as 435 individual members, each state votes as a single bloc. The Senate determines the vice president, with each senator casting one vote.
Under Congress' current makeup, the Trump ticket would almost certainly win: Republicans control majorities in the Senate and 26 House delegations. But if Democrats took back the Senate, under the rules, they could end up determining Trump's vice president. "It's conceivable," says Alexander. "It's a weird process."
There should be a simple Senate rule that requires the President to make a nomination within 30 days of the vacancy, regardless of party. Take away the politics of it, the SCOTUS is not supposed to a political appointment anyway.
Wrap it up, the lead is insurmountable. Let's party!