Not to mention that these discussions were arguments leading to the compromises that formed the Constitution. It's the Constitution itself that is final.
-
-
-
Good point. Repeating an absolutist position that a Founder compromised away is not a good argument against the compromise.
-
Never-the-less, the point will go over many people's heads. Keep pitching anyway.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting debate. These weeks, I wondered how a SCOTUS nominated by a POTUS could be expected to be impartial? Term limits and election by a large (biartisan) majority in both houses (from a large list) is required in other countries. Not perfect either but worth a thought...
-
That was a norm in the US, but not a legal requirement. And “who cares if it’s right or wrong—it’s technically not illegal!” has increasingly dominated American politics.
-
Agree. Requiring a larger majority (without allowing the seat to remain open) might trigger more moderate choices.. and broader consensus..
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.