Morgan wrote:
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional changes, we should think what is the highest good for the country, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, because sooner or later things are going to come full circle and they'll be standing in their shoes.
I'm of the thought if a sitting president has done treasonous acts, we should not have to wait to bring him to court and allow him to finish his term. If these treasonous actions have been validated and have been proven, we should not wait for a vote by the house to impeach nor to depend on the Senate to possibly absolve him because he's their party guy, as I say what goes around, comes around.
Have we lost our true justice? Now with a party majority influence in the Supreme Court, a righteous verdict may not be possible, and we are beginning to see the signs of an absolute authority of one party.
Are we too late?
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional ... (
show quote)
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be guided by the letter of the Constitution, not by what he believes to be "right" or "just" according to his/her personal political beliefs.
Conservative leaning justices, BECAUSE they are conservatives, tend to do just that because it was what the founders invented SCOTUS for to begin with.
Ginsburg and the other "progressives," however, let their mares-eat-oats and does-eat-oats liberal dogmas guide their decisions, and that is not what the founders intended.
The purpose of the Electoral College was and is to make sure that Americans in every segment of America have a voice in electing presidents. The founders were a hell of a lot smarter than anyone fielded by today's Democrats. They knew that it was human nature that a) the large coastal states would inevitably have the most concentrated of U.S. populations, along with the most people of academic background, that b) such people have a tendency for what is today called "progressive" thinking and would be most likely, seeing themselves as an intellectual elite, to try and enact change, not necessarily a good thing, according to the fiat of their "progressive" political beliefs, and that c) due to their sheer numbers could nullify the votes of Americans living throughout the rest of the country.
In other words, the Electoral College prevents "mob rule." It is a sound principle.
Your talk of impeachment is purely politically motivated; Trump has done nothing to deserve impeachment, in fact his administration thusfar has seen nothing of the magnitude of Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS kerfuffle, Hillary's pay-to-play stint as SecState, Uranium One, treaties signed without consent of the Congress and other fun things that occurred on Obama's watch, all conveniently ignored by an irresponsible left wing mainstream media.
The only reason Trump is under constant assault as he is? Because he won the election that "belonged to Hillary" according to a system that's served this country well for most of our history.
The only thing you've posted above that I agree with is that parties should be careful about enacting policies that might come full circle, and interestingly enough, the party that needs most to heed that advice is the Democrats, since they're the folks who keep straying from the norms for the convenience of the moment.
From where I sit, that in itself is one of many indicators that the Democratic Party is no longer fit to lead the country: they are incapable of evaluating the long term consequences of actions for which they are responsible, whether it is setting bad precedent or obligating the taxpayer to indelible long term economic disasters.