2020 Election early voting and eventually results

And the fact that there is ANYONE over the age of 12 in the US that is NOT aware of all of this can only be through their willfully deciding to ignore ALL of the reporting about this that has been done over the last four years as well as all of the history of Trump failures and bankruptcies when it comes to business.

Which brings up the issue of whether there will be any presidential pardons.As 2020 comes to a close, we may yet see just how corrupt this previous administration actually was.And I'm sure that the opponents of President Elect Biden will keep trying to expose dirt on Hunter.I have heard that Republicans in general fear China more than Russia and that the Democrats seem less worried about China. I don't trust them. The CCP is a threat to the world and to our economic growth.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Don’t believe that the Democrats are not worried about China. Obama was going for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to counter Chinese influence. Trump dropped out of that.

*sigh*...Your ego is nearly as big as Trumps! The fact that I don't know more about this stuff is that I was lazy and didn't read all of the news sources. I didn't really care where Trump did business or how he did it. I don't really care too much about Joe Biden's family business and Hunter Biden and all that stuff either. I only begin caring when it effects me. And so far I trust the new administration. About the only rumors I have heard is that Pelosi, McConnell, and Biden all have financial interests in China., And I don't trust China largely because I don't trust unbridled competition and don't want them running the world.

Exactly.We got Trump because tens of millions of Americans are lazy and don't pay any attention to reality; instead preferring "Reality TV".

Just so those who may think I was being a wee bit negatively pessimistic (Who? Me? Message 176) about the damage that Lame-Brain Cheeto-Duck could inflict upon the universe (or at least our quasi-quadrant of the galaxy) during his rump rule in the next 70-+ days, here is a clarion call from a news power on high to warn as well of the impending Trumpian doom.Wrecking ball: the damage Trump could do while still president until January | Donald Trump | The GuardianEdited by AZPaul3, : cuz

But your political position is what determines where you think the "balance point" should be!Or . . . wait a minute . . . are you talking about the distribution of political opinion in the electorate? Justices should be about half-and-half Republican and Democrat?So that if, say, one ninth of the population believed in white supremacy you'd support the nomination of one justice (out of nine) who is an avowed white supremacist? How about the people who believe religion should be taught in public schools? How about the global warming "deniers"?

Justices and judges should be apolitical. Separation of powers, as Montesquieu got right a couple of centuries ago.Split power between the executive, the legislature and the executive. They don’t stray into each other’s territory, but they each have power to hold in check any attempt at despotism. That’s why the judiciary should be apolitical - so that they aren’t beholden to the masses which can propel a despot to power.

quote:

---

But your political position is what determines where you think the "balance point" should be!

---

Then I guess that makes me a Centrist.

quote:

---

Or . . . wait a minute . . . are you talking about the distribution of political opinion in the electorate? Justices should be about half-and-half Republican and Democrat?

---

No, roughly half conservative (which the Republican Party largely isn’t now) and roughly half liberal.

quote:

---

So that if, say, one ninth of the population believed in white supremacy you'd support the nomination of one justice (out of nine) who is an avowed white supremacist? How about the people who believe religion should be taught in public schools? How about the global warming "deniers"?

---

You do like inventing strawmen.

But what does apolitical mean? They surely will have views on the important issues of the day. Presumably you mean they shouldn't be campaigning to have their views put into law, or (even worse) allow their views to affect their rulings.That I do agree with. The last thing we need is a judiciary saying, "I know the law says X but my ruling is that, instead, it means Y."

Most people, in my experience, like to think of themselves as centrists ("Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, ...")But anyway, the idea of trying to fix a political makeup of the court falls apart when you realize that justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views, as you've conceded by ridiculing the idea that a white supremacist or global warming denier justice would be justified by public opinion.Justices have enough trouble just reading the laws, reconciling the contradictions, cutting through the confusion of poorly written legislation and trying to apply laws to new situations as they come up.

For the most part you are right that ...

quote:

---

Justices have enough trouble just reading the laws, reconciling the contradictions, cutting through the confusion of poorly written legislation and trying to apply laws to new situations as they come up.

---

But there are political, social justice, human integrity and privacy issues bubbling up the Fed Court system since forever.The invented (some would say "uncovered") right to privacy in the Constitution (which led directly to RoevWade and so many other personal rights) is open to interpretation along ideological lines. There are others.The temperament of those justices in aggregate will determine if we keep those rights. And it appears we will not.Supreme Court reinstates restrictions on abortion pill - POLITICOThe political makeup of the court is central to how the court will decide on many social issues.It is not some side issue to be debated in academia. The court is the central core of how our society will conduct itself. Their ideological leanings are crucial to many of their more significant decisions in the past. The same as it will be in the future.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Ideological leanings, unfortunately, are the problem here. When courts decide to be legislators, as they did in Dred Scott, Korematsu, Kelo vs. City of New London, Roe vs. Wade and others it negatively affects how society will conduct itself.

quote:

---

Most people, in my experience, like to think of themselves as centrists ("Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, ...")

---

Then maybe that’s your problem. You are much further to the Right than you like to think.

quote:

---

But anyway, the idea of trying to fix a political makeup of the court falls apart when you realize that justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views, as you've conceded by ridiculing the idea that a white supremacist or global warming denier justice would be justified by public opinion.

---

This is foolish again. Judges are not supposed to rule according to silly dogmas associated with ideologies, but that is hardly the limit of politics. There is the whole question of judicial philosophises, for a start. Not to mention biases based in political standpoints.It seems to me that the Supreme Court of all courts is badly in need of checks on judge’s bias - and especially when judges do let their political views colour their decisions.

Dred Scott was decided on the racist views of the law held by society at the time. The court did not legislate but affirmed racist law. Blacks were not citizens and did not have recourse to federal courts. Court ruled with the law at the time. Not legislated. Right but missed major opportunity to legislate and apply equal citizenship to blacksKorematsu was not legislating by the court but is the court being cowed by the social fears of a society at war. Not legislation. Just wrong decision.New London was not legislated but was, in keeping with their duty, the court interpreting the language of "public use" and "public purpose". And they had ample SCOTUS precedent for their ruling.Roe was either the "invention" (legislation) of a right to privacy or was the "discovery" of such a right deep in the language of the constitution. You say tomato ...Roe v Wade has had a major POSITIVE role in expanding and strengthening individual and group rights to marginalized peoples that are already enjoyed by the privileged white class.Ideological leanings are part of the landscape. In our human institutions and dealings they cannot be avoided. That is why no one court has a solo say in anything. Not even the Supremes.This is a reality of the human condition.