No right is absolute. And when rights come into conflict, they need to be balanced. It’s not illegitimate to draw a line for a constitutional right that is less than absolute for the purposes of public benefit.
How, precisely, can the Dems “push through” the Supreme Court nomination? Or even bring it to the vote? Or even discuss it?
Oh, the demonstration in the House is not relevant–the* Senators* consider Supreme Court nominees. Unless they’ve decided to hold their breath &pout until a president they prefer is sworn in…
Which I hope will be many a year. In the meantime, we also need to replace a bunch of the Republicans in the Senate. And the House.
He started it.
Regards,
Shodan
Did not !!!
Human rights don’t actually exist, we made that up. “…We hold these truths to be self-evident…” just means we can’t prove shit, and we don’t have to. They are gifts we give each other, in a collective endeavor for justice in government. By the same token, the limits on those rights are also gifts, one to another, for the same purposes.
Free speech, for instance. We recognize that “free speech” doesn’t mean you can print pamphlets calling your neighbor a pedophile. Limits. We also recognize that in the political arena, rules need to be a bit looser, if you step up to commit politics, you take your lumps.
In 1934, we decided not to let people own the Thompson Submachine Gun, and the nation’s violin players rejoiced. Did the Republic collapse? But…but…but…that’s abridging the 2nd Amendment! Can’t do that!
Did. Taught men to carry one, taught them to use it against our enemies, and when they turned in their uniforms, they turned in their weapons. Didn’t get to keep them for home defense against the Wermacht. Why not? Because that would be stupid. Often, we are not stupid. Not often enough, but still.
Congress makes no significant changes to gun laws in 10 years:
“You lazy bastards, do something! Children are getting killed by crazies in schools!”
Congress introduces legislation, and Democratic Senators filibuster to put the eyes of the nation on the legislation, and to put pressure on the Republican party:
“You guys are acting like children!”
:rolleyes:
I know you are, but what am I?
Regards,
Shodan
You are Shodan. Alas.
[sticks tongue out at elucidator] … don’t call him that, you’ll just encourage him …
Of course they won’t. But the fact that the Republicans suck doesn’t make this action suck any less.
This sounds like bumper sticker logic. I see no reason that this is true, just that it sounds important. We banned crack cocaine, but not table salt. It’s possible to legislate one thing and not another, and is pretty much the basis of every single law in existence.
All these people care about are the voters in their own districts. I’m sure the Congressional district voting for Paul Ryan or Louis Gohmert have a single digit approval rating for new gun laws. That’s why I think Ryan should just let the vote go ahead. His own constituents will see that he’s voting against gun regulations and re-elect him. Blocking the vote harms the GOP overall, because by this time, Congressional Republicans are synonymous with obstruction and government inefficiency. And if his constituents support the regulations? Then he should vote for them and get re-elected that way