Could you please provide a theory on how the members of that particular minority group have been denied the equal protection of the laws?
Unless this is a new Republican legal theory - the minority party gets to ‘top’ from the bottom, as long as it’s the GOP that’s a minority - I don’t yet see where you’re going with this.
I’m not going to claim my feelings would be identical. I’m biased. It’d be like watching the goddam Yankees beat the Red Sox. But my opinion on the general fairness of the issue would be similar. As much as it’d be nice to get another Democrat in the Senate, I’m not going to suggest that some higher principle demands that the voters of a state have one appointed who is clearly out of step with the electorate. Although, a Senate being a rare occurrence, I doubt there’s going to be a completely analogous situation anytime soon.
Yea I’m not seeing the moral outrage with this either. I was just using it as a mechanism for contrast. Lets say Republicans feel wronged by this, than this as an ant hill compared to their mountain.
I don’t think equal protection has much to do with this. This goes right to the rule of law in general. If the law is changed with such caprice and for such nakedly partisan purposes, it becomes instead arbitrary governance according to the needs of the party in power.
They may feel they need to dress their deeds in the wrapping of a new law, but it is no less arbitrary and it is no less damaging to the general order, as people perceive that the powerful operate by different rules.
Okay then, could you provide a theory linking that last statement to the realm of fact?
That same old hypothetical tu quoque shit again? :dubious: Don’t you ever get as tired of it as the rest of us? FTR, my answer is “Yes, right, that’s how democracy works. Sometimes you lose fairly. Duh.”
jsgoddess, you have a very strange notion of how representative democracy is supposed to work if it doesn’t involve representatives being chosen democratically.
Captain Amazing, if you can explain how anything I’ve said is wrong, please do so, m’kay? And bring pie.
“I’ve done far worse than defeat you. I’ve hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left Weld and Romney and Swift: marooned for all eternity in the center of a Democratic-leaning state…buried alive. Buried alive.”
Dude, was Mitt Romney elected or not?
You said:
You’re just kinda throwing a tantrum without reading what you’re actually claiming at this point.
Should Senators be elected or not?
The opinions of at least three people in this thread would flop like a dying fish if the parties were reversed.
Okay. According to Lon Fuller there are eight elements to to the rule of law:
Now, it seems to me that these actions were in violation of Rules 1 and 7, as circumstances had not changed sufficiently to require changing the rules twice in a short timeframe. And this action also violates Rule 2, as it is clear to many that there is an unpublished and unwritten rule in place here - one that states that the laws will be rewritten as needed to benefit the Democratic Party.
Now, as the rule of law depends entirely on the perception by most people that these rules are in place, arguing that this just a perception issue won’t hold water. The intent of these rules is to ensure confidence that laws apply to everyone - if that confidence is shaken the rule of law is damaged.
Was that a yes?
I’m going to assume it was. And I’m going to assume that, despite your blustering, you know what a representative democracy is–assigning a significant power to a single temporary hired hand instead of to the people themselves.
See my post. At worst this a lesser evil then republican influence. That Bricker still identifies with tortures shows what kind of person he is. Do we want more of the party of war, religious persecution, suffering, death, and bankruptcy in power?
No. :rolleyes:
So what is your answer? Should Senators be elected or not? Or does it depend on the parties involved? :dubious:
Sure they had. The circumstances had changed from hypothetical to real. What sort of change would you consider “sufficient”?
Okay, never mind, you’re simply pouting too.
Well gee. That makes it all right then. So long as the right people are always the ones that get picked, it’s perfectly OK. The ends justify the means.
Ah, so you don’t think Mitt Romney was elected. Interesting.
I begin to see a glimmer of why you have such difficulty having conversations on the internets.
Yes, yes. I’m secretly a Republican. You found me out, you sly, sly creature. I only voted for Obama to make you Hillary-lovers cry. I only vote for Democrats otherwise for nefarious reasons that I haven’t really figured out yet but it’s bad, I tell you, bad and sneaky and vile, o yes. Karl Rove actually lives in my pantry. I give him DoubleStuf Oreos and Yoo-hoo and the occasional baby and he’s happy as the proverbial lark in there.
So you admit you were just bullshitting.
Actually, the ends quite often justify the means. If I shoved you out of the way of a speeding automobile, I’d feel quite justified in having shoved you, thankyewverymuch, despite the fact that adults aren’t supposed to shove one another, and even my 2 year old would get put in time-out for engaging in shoving with other kids.
jsgoddess, should Senators be elected or not? :dubious:
I do give you credit for answering honestly.
So your view is that it’s Constitutional for a state legislature to make these kinds of changes to favor Democrats, but not to favor Republicans, because Republicans are evil?
And the courts should take judicial notice of the fact that Republicans are evil, and guide their decisions thereby?