Politics, Supreme Court

Poll: Only 36 Percent Support Biden’s Pledge To Exclude Supreme Court Candidates on the Basis of Race and Gender

We previously discussed the ABC poll showing that 76 percent of Americans opposed President Joe Biden’s pledge only to consider black women for the seat being vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. The pledge was unnecessary as it was unprecedented as a categorical exclusion of any candidates on the basis of their race and gender.  While many in the media and academia have attacked those raising concerns over such a threshold exclusion, the public continues to oppose the pledge according to a new poll.  Only 36 percent stated that they thought that the pledge was “a good idea.” 
      The poll found that 55 percent believe that nominating a Black woman is either “not very” important (19 percent) or “not at all” (36 percent) important to them. Only 23 percent said it was very important as a criteria.The poll reflected that most citizens are uncomfortable with such threshold exclusions as opposed to diversity as an element to be balanced.
      One of the more interesting questions in the poll was whether “the best possible candidate should be chosen regardless of race, gender or sexuality” or whether “the best possible Supreme Court should include qualified justices with a variety of backgrounds and experiences.” Almost half (49 percent) of those polled did not want race, gender or other criteria to be weighed in the selection. Some 41 percent supported the inclusion of such issues as an element in the selection of a nominee. That is just 5 percent more than the core 36 percent who thought it was a good idea to exclude candidates on the basis of race or gender.

 

282 thoughts on “Poll: Only 36 Percent Support Biden’s Pledge To Exclude Supreme Court Candidates on the Basis of Race and Gender”

  1. It is unfortunate that President Biden has inserted identity politics into the selection process i.e. to exclude other qualified candidates as a threshold matter. From my perspective, it’s hard to imagine three more years of the Biden Administration.

  2. 36 percent of Americans don’t want a black woman on the supreme court.
    Succinctly said.

  3. Music

    Turleydog!
    You are driving us frantic.
    Up and the the Atlantic!
    With your racist triste.

    It ain’t racist to end racism!
    Turleys a racist for saying that’s true.

  4. Of course it makes perfect sense to use identity politics and at the same time pay off a partisan political deal when picking a Nominee for the United States Supreme Court…..just ask any Left Wing Loon!

  5. The title, i.e., headline, of this piece reads oddly. The word “Only” should be elided.

  6. I’m not a Biden fan. I’m definitely a supporter of most of Trump’s policies and his successful Supreme Court nominees. But I’m getting a bit tired and slightly embarrassed by the attention being paid to this matter. While I think it was stupid at best for Biden to box himself in so far in advance, I also think it makes perfect sense for the next nominee to be a minority woman. Not as requirements but as factors in being open to the continuing evolution of a diverse court. More important for Republicans is the necessity to keep a jurist left of Breyer off the bench.

    1. The solution, the control, provided by the Framers, in the case of unelected Justices, is impeachment and conviction.

      That process must be streamlined and accelerated apropos of current demand.

      Justices swear an oath to “support” the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, they do no such thing; they do the opposite, as demonstrated by the irrefutably unconstitutional communist American welfare state.

      The next conservative Congress must definitively reign in the rogue judicial branch.

  8. A black woman will sympathize with welfare queens, which is good for my Section 8 neighbor and her clown car vagina.

  9. Patton was right. Russia should have been demilitarized just like Germany and Japan were. Then we wouldn’t be in this jam right now. If there is a war, what was done to Germany will need to be done to Russia, after all is said and done.

      1. You realize that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop non- aggression pack on August 23, 1939, in which they partitioned Poland between them and defined the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland.

        Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, 1939, In 1940 the Soviet Union annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania.

        None of this came out until the Nuremberg Trials.

        But, why am I surprised by such ignorance, when they don’t teach history anymore unless it’s “woke” history.

        1. It’s odd that you assume I’m unaware of things I haven’t commented on, when you actually lack evidence either way.

          Do you often make such unfounded assumptions? Should I likewise assume that you are unaware of the subsequent WW2 history involving Germany and the Soviet Union simply because you didn’t comment on it?

          1. It is not odd to assume your knowledge of history is limited based on the comments you make and the conclusions you draw. You only have a smattering knowledge of history and look things up to fill in the voids. Your understanding is likewise limited. Just watch how you use the links you provide. Some don’t prove what you wish. Some no longer are timely, yet you use the data as proof. If there is a chance the link can support your claim, you all too frequently don’t mention what the link says because you are incapable of putting the right concepts into the right words.

    2. Patton could barely get to Germany, much less to Moscow. Had he tried, the Soviets would have wreaked havoc in the areas of Europe occupied by the United States and Great Britain, and those that were not, thanks not only to the Soviet armed forces, which were superior to those of the US and GB in Europe, but also to the various resistance movements, most of which were staffed with people loyal to Moscow, not London or DC. The Soviets defeated the Germans, and in all likelihood, they would have annihilated the Americans and British. They also suffered more than ten million combat deaths and fifteen million civilian — the British had 70,000 killed in the Blitz, the Americans just 3,000 at Pearl Harbor and another 300,000 in combat.
      As for Patton, he was lucky he did not run up against Soviet armor, rockets, and tactical aircraft.
      In 1941, the Soviets moved ten million people an 1,300 industrial plants from the areas occupied by the Germans and had them up and running by 1942, when they began to outproduce the Germans in tanks, aircraft, and infantry weapons.
      It’s a pity they don’t teach history any longer, and that the popular history in film, on TV, and even in scholarly publications is so distorted.

      1. “Patton could barely get to Germany, much less to Moscow. ”

        And yet, certain decisions raise questions. Why was the decision made to fight up the length of Italy rather than just land in France to begin the drive to Berlin? And why stop short of Berlin and give the Soviets time to take eastern Germany and on past Berlin, thus condemning tens of millions of people to the horrors of Bolshevist tyranny?

        1. C Will asks:

          “And why stop short of Berlin and give the Soviets time to take eastern Germany and on past Berlin, thus condemning tens of millions of people to the horrors of Bolshevist tyranny?”

          Maybe FDR did not want Americans to pay the heavy price in taking Berlin in which 70,000 Russians ultimately died taking it. Maybe FDR did not want to risk American and Russian forces getting in the way of each other in the street-to-street warfare. Maybe FDR realized that Stalin was not going to be deterred from taking Berlin and its spoils given the horrific atrocities inflicted upon Russia by the German army.

    3. The barbarian communist hordes of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the U.S. Department of State and the American democrat party, should have been committed to the righteous, definitive resolution of the Lord at Jericho.

      “…every living thing in it…”
      _____________________

      Joshua 6 Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

      2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

      20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

  10. If you look at the Biden “team” you will realize that race, sex and sexual preference have no bearing on the level of incompetence that we will get from said nominee to the Court. Kamala Harris, black, female and incompetent, Mayor Pete, white, gay and incompetent, Blinken, white, straight and incompetent, Grenholm, white, straight, female and incompetent, Bacerra, Hispanic, male and incompetent, Garland, white, straight and incompetent, Lloyd Austin, black, straight and incompetent, Mayorkas, white (Greek), straight and just plain old evil, Ambassador to the UN, black, female and anti-American, “Dr Cardonna (education), Hispanic, male and incompetent. Janet Yellen, female, white and out of touch. Now add Mark Milley, Ron Klain, Susan Rice, DOCTOR JILL and Biden himself and you will see that it is the worst accumulation of political hacks, payoffs, corruptocrats and layabouts that we have ever seen. Add in a nomination for a SOVIET monetary fan for Comptroller of the Currency and a rabid censor for Chairwoman of the FCC and you see why were are where we are. Throw in Neena Tanden just for laughs as well.

    The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter what race or gender the nominee to the SCOTIS is, she will be black, female and either radical or totally out of her league. Not because she is female and black, but because Biden and his crack team will be doing the picking and the above shows their track record.

    1. Yep, it couldn’t possibly be that you’re biased in your personal opinions about competence.

    2. Hullbobby, very well said. There are others too, like John Kerry, Jake Sullivan, Kristen Clark at DOJ and the first allegedly “female” admiral, to add to your list. And of course Fauci, whom Trump would certainly have dismissed had he been re-elected. What this incompetent crew has done in one year to damage the country is extraordinary.

      1. Nothing stopped Trump from firing Fauci while Trump was in office, except the fact that Trump didn’t want to fire Fauci. Trump had 4 years to fire Fauci if he thought Fauci incompetent.

        1. I doubt he thought much about Fauci until the pandemic, and then it took a few months for him to see him for what he is. By that point, election year politics made firing him a bridge too far. By there is no doubt that Trump made some terrible personnel decisions, especially early on. In part that was due to his reliance on Washington Republicans to advise him.

          1. If Trump didn’t think about Fauci until the pandemic, then Trump wasn’t doing his job, as a President should think about the Director of every significant executive branch agency (and really, should think about many others beyond the Director), including NIAID. Even if Trump were following your argument, he could have fired Fauci right after the election, since election year politics were no longer in play at that point.

            People’s opinions about Trump’s personnel decisions vary. Personally, I think the primary reasons he made terrible decisions are because he valued personal loyalty above competence and loyalty to the Constitution, and because he made no effort to inform himself about what kind of knowledge and experience would make for qualified nominees, and because he wanted to be able to use the Vacancies Act to avoid Senate confirmation as much as possible.

            1. “If Trump didn’t think about Fauci until the pandemic, then Trump wasn’t doing his job, as a President should think about the Director of every significant executive branch agency”

              Dumb. Neither Trump nor other presidents can do what you suggest. They do not have that type of knowledge. They rely on others to help with such things and frequently think that such jobs aren’t political. Many should not be. Trump’s Rolodex was sparse. Obama and Hillary illegally destroyed much of Trump’s ability in that area.

              Biden is incapable of thinking. Therefore, where he is concerned, it is a moot point.

              Obama treated everything as political. He may not have known the difference between good people and bad people for the job, but he acted based on politics. That is not good.

          2. Trump’s biggest failure was his Rolodex. It was meant for business not dirty politics that came from both sides of the aisle.

            Perhaps that is why we need an outsider to threaten the insiders that are not working for the American people.

    3. Hullbobby,

      Perhaps we should compare how many people in his administration Trump pardoned versus how many people Biden pardoned at the end of his. That might be a good indication of which administration was more corrupt.

      I want to go on the record now that I vehemently oppose any pardon of Hunter Biden just so you know that I am not a partisan. I want ALL wrongdoers held accountable unlike lying Trumpists who will NEVER accept ANY criminal accountability for Trump.

    4. The impeachment and conviction process must be dusted off, brought up from the cellar, streamlined, accelerated and wielded with the force of righteous retribution if conservatives are elected, the inane, effete attempts at the subject by dastardly liberals notwithstanding.

      It is well past time to “keep” Ben Franklin’s restricted-vote republic.

  11. What if the President was given a cognitive ability test and the results proved impaired mental capacity could all his choices be vacated?

    2. Margot asks:

      “What if the President was given a cognitive ability test and the results proved impaired mental capacity could all his choices be vacated?”

      I answer:

      What if Trump is given a lie detector test and the results prove he is a pathological liar, would Trumpists accept the results?

      1. If Trump took the lie detector test and found not lying, what would Jeff do?

        Jeff would demand another lie detector test and test Trump until Trump failed. That is Jeff’s nature. He accuses everyone else of what he is.

        1. Meyer the Liar, you’re the one who accuses everyone else of what you are. That’s your nature.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, thanks for the flattery by copying what I said, but it’s time for you to write your own script.

            1. Actually, Meyer, I’ve previously pointed out that you “Attribute your own failings to others.” Projecting your faults onto others is part of your trolling. Do you need a link to where I’d previously said this to you?

              1. Your problem, ATS, is that everyone can see that what you say is not credible, and though one might disagree with me, most recognize that I can back up what I believe.

        2. Meyer,

          I trust Turley’s judgement about Trump; you don’t trust Turley’s opinion.

          Turley called Trump a “carnival snake charmer;” you don’t accept it.

          Turley called Trump’s 1/6 speech “reckless;” you did not add your voice to his condemnation.

          Turley called for Trump’s Congressional Censure; did you second his call?

          I’m with the NeverTrumper Turley; you are not.

          1. Listen to yourself, Jeff. You slobber all over Turley’s words, imagining you could be him but for your lack of intellect and honesty.

            Turley’s comment wasn’t far off the mark. Trump at the time was a performer, and that is what Turley was commenting on. It was a nothing statement, but to you, it was gold, fool’s gold, but what does that matter?

            1. It was the truth then. If Turley now thinks otherwise, I invite him to say so. Why don’t email him and ask whether he still holds Trump in such utter contempt.

              Do it. He’ll likely not reply, but who knows.

              1. It doesn’t matter whether you, I or Turley like or dislike Trump. The question is whether we like his policies compared to the policies from the other side.

                I don’t like illegals, criminals drugs, sex traffickers, murderers, etc. crossing our border.

                You do.

                That is the point. Turley will agree with sensible policy and Trump’s policies are mostly sensible.

                1. I’m hearing that a lot from you Trumpist liars nowadays. You are more than willing to throw Trump under the bus as long Conservative policies are push forward.

                  You sound just like alot of RINO’s.

                  1. Obviously, you are ignorant. I have certain principles that I adhere to. That is why I can disagree with Turley yet still listen to him respectfully. You have no principles. That is your problem.

                    2. You are very obtuse. Turley and I have different perspectives, but we tend to merge where civil liberties are concerned. In your terms, he is left of center, and I am right of center. Of course, we differ, but we can sit at the same table without problems. You are a completely different story.

                    4. It would be a very cordial discussion with a lot of agreement despite the fact I like Trump and his policies.

                    5. If Turley stands by his assessment that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer,” will you accuse him of Trump Derangement Syndrome?

                    6. You seem to have difficulty in civilized company. Turley seems like Alan Dershowitz, except I think Turley sounds a little easier going. I’ve spoken a couple of times to Dersh, who has strong opinions without the drama you are always looking for. I don’t care that Turley made that comment. I explained that before, but it seems that things go in one ear and out the other with you. Political differences are not the problem when dealing with civilized people that believe in civil liberties. You are the problem.

                    7. Don’t evade my question. Will you accuse Turley of TDS if you become convinced that he is a NeverTrumper?

                    8. What do you mean, don’t evade your question? You have yet to answer the fundamental questions asked of you.

                      When a statement’s context has rationality, why would one accuse that person of having TDS? That is reserved for the crazies that sound irrational and repeat those foolish things over and over again. You have TDS. You can’t even prove your case. Instead, you repeatedly shout all sorts of insults like a crazy man.

  12. It’s kind of embarrassing and condescending when someone thinks they need to get involved to bring the races together. When left to their own devices, the races get along just fine. This has been my experience. Many accusations of racism come out of thin air, directed towards innocent people. It is unfortunate, unfair, and unjust.

    1. “It’s kind of embarrassing and condescending when someone thinks they need to get involved to bring the races together. When left to their own devices, the races get along just fine. This has been my experience. Many accusations of racism come out of thin air, directed towards innocent people. It is unfortunate, unfair, and unjust.”

      Just possibly, your experience isn’t the same as others?

      1. “Just possibly, your experience isn’t the same as others?”

        Right, his experience is probably as a human observing human behavior, in which case, yes, it’s true: for the most part the races get along just fine on a day-to-day basis. A committed racist’s experience of the world won’t be the same.

          1. How ’bout skinny people and fat people and ugly people – do they get to caterwaul for centuries about skinnyism, fatism and uglyism?

            You embarrass yourselves with your ceaseless protests and supplications, your acceptance of generational welfare and affirmative action.

            Ah, the crutch of “free stuff” is so addicting.

          2. People were getting along better and better before Obama came around. Since then the race-hustlers have been quite active.

            1. You only recognize what you call race hustlers on the left. There are dozens of race hustlers on the right, some of them Black. The main attribute to run for the Republican nomination is to be anti -CRT (something that barely exists and only in graduate schools), pro voter suppression, and recently “Don’t Say Gay” is picking up steam. DeSantis just told Joe Rogan to never apologize for his liberal use of the word n***** and seems like he’d support its continued use. BTW, Obama didn’t create the current situation, his Presidency revealed what was always there.

              1. Why would you say I only recognize race-hustlers on the left? That wouldn’t be very bright. They are on both sides, but instead of trying to unite the people, Obama divided them and made good use of race-hustlers for his own agenda. He could have been a great President for the minorities, but he screwed them even though the race-hustlers will say that isn’t true. CRT had little to do with the damage Obama caused to race relations. Both extremes have used race as a weapon, but today “CRT” is a weapon aimed at school children. One must be insane to indoctrinate young minds into thinking all white people are privileged and black and brown are not. It’s crazy to discriminate against Asian Americans who have a history of building this country and providing children whose parents want them to learn.

                All you are doing is playing the race-card and doing it badly. I don’t know what is in your mind, but it doesn’t sound like you wish the races to be treated equally under the law.

                1. “Both extremes have used race as a weapon, but today “CRT” is a weapon aimed at school children. One must be insane to indoctrinate young minds into thinking all white people are privileged and black and brown are not. It’s crazy to discriminate against Asian Americans who have a history of building this country and providing children whose parents want them to learn.”

                  You are truly brainwashed. Give me an example where CRT is being taught to children. I’d ask if you could define CRT but that would be hoping too much.

                  1. A person so unaware of his surroundings cannot be taught so I will start at an end product instead of videos, news articles and testimonies from parents and teachers. I will provide the Parent Guide Book.

                    https://christopherrufo.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Parent-Guidebook.pdf

                    Enigma, please note that the various authors who write about CRT do not agree on a singular definition. That is one of the reasons I put “CRT” in quotes, along with the fact that various people describe it differently. Accept “CRT” as a whole set of things that parents find objectionable and are linked to race. The attempt, by some, to treat people differently based on race is unAmerican. I agree with MLK and always have. Race-baiting is unAmerican and shouldn’t be tolerated. Black people are not the only people that have suffered, though you seem to think so. The white man is not the cause of black slavery, and the English, Americans and the French were among the first to abolish slavery. Slavery is still practiced among the blacks in Africa.

                    3. I did but could only read the first few sentences. I mote it was an editorial from an institution with a point of view. I can’t really judge it from what I did read.

                    4. “I mote it was an editorial from an institution with a point of view.”

                      Do you prefer no point of view?

                    5. My experience with the WSJ editorials point’s of view are that they can be far from fact based. Still, I would judge each by its merit, I can’t judge this one.

                    6. I’ve sent you various addresses with complaints, videos, and actual documents. They are being compiled in one place so you can follow all the links to see what has been compiled there so far.It is extensive and provides the proof you have been asking for, but I believe no proof provided will every make you reconsider. There are loads of videos on the Internet from various people, school board meetings, children etc. that you can avail yourself of. Even those pushing CRT are beginning to admit the truth in these claims.

                    8. Critical race theory in schools

                      Seattle Public Schools told teachers that the education system is guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and that white teachers must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.” Link.
                      San Diego Public Schools accused white teachers of being colonizers on stolen Native American land and told them “you are racist” and “you are upholding racist ideas, structures, and policies.” They recommended that the teachers undergo “antiracist therapy.” Link.
                      A Cupertino, California, elementary school forced third-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then rank ….

                      https://christopherrufo.com/crt-briefing-book/

                    9. This whole thing is a propaganda piece full of strategies but no EXAMPLES except anecdotes from those who may truly believe things are happening.

                      ” Critical race theorists argue that America was founded on racism, slavery, and white supremacy—and remains a fundamentally racist nation to this day.”

                      Well that part’s true, though you could add misogynist as well.

                      :

                    10. “This whole thing is a propaganda piece full of strategies but no EXAMPLES except anecdotes from those who may truly believe things are happening.”

                      Enigma, all that means is you haven’t bothered to read the whistleblower documents.

                      We can discuss each one individually and you can explain you position. There were many from this one site which is only the tip of the iceberg.

                    11. I read the “documents,” Ilive in Florida where Ron DeSantis banned the teaching of CRT in K-12 and listed a number of things that weren’t true. The anti-CRT movement is well funded and producing a lot of materials to back their cause. Tell me, did you speak out when Trump and Texas and elsewhere demanded schools teach American Exceptionalism? When Texas referred to the International Slave Trade as immigration and slaves as “workers.” One of the reasons history is taught is to prevent making the mistakes of the past. If you deny the past because white children might feel bad, you get Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Ron DeSantis who supports Joe Rogan using n***** and says never apologize. A school board meeting with parents yelling at people isn’t evidence, it’s a sigh of just how much brainwashing has been done, to people that need to believe something other than the truth.

                    12. Don’t change the subject. Tell us which of the documents wasn’t true and state why. Better yet, I provided many documents. For everyone’s edification, why don’t you tell us why all of them aren’t true.

                    13. Unlike some here, I don’t live to participate in these discussions and have found my time isn’t worth researching and documenting things that people refuse to believe.

                      I haven’t been in public school in decades and am living vicariously through my grandchildren. None of them are taught much aboiut Black history except Ruby Bridges was the first Black child to attend segregated school in New Orleans. None of them are exposed to the history I write about which I suspect is taught in no public schools anywhere.
                      You probably know nothing anout the forced breeding of slaves to produce children for profit. How the end of the International Slave Trade was not a prelude to the elimination of slavery but protectionism to increase the price of domestic bred slaves, particularly in Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland where they had excess slaves due to their mismanagement of tobacco fields and ruining the land. White historians had a name for this high production of babies due to forced matings and rape, they called it “natural increase.”
                      IMy grandchildren aren’t old enough to be taught this yet. I wouldn’t advocate it be taught to them at their current grade levels. Yet the story they are being told is the exact opposite of the truth, apparently so as not to hurt feelings.
                      I’ll never be able to prove to you what isn’t being taught and that the reasons to talk about actual history aren’t racist. The reasons to rewrite history are but that’s another thing. It isn’t just about Black people, Texas officials are freaking out about new information about the Alamo which they have to deny because certain heroes reputations would be diminished.
                      Your beliefs are entrenched, you believe your “documentation” is insurmountable yet an honest look shows many holes that you can’t see. I won’t convince you and the effort to do so is a waste of my time.
                      Feel free to keep sending me other peoples propaganda pieces and passing them off as documents. The forged electoral papers from contested states are documents too, they just aren’t real.

                    14. Enigma, you asked for documentation, and I provided it. Now you want to run away. This is not the first time.

                      All you do is change the subject. I won’t disagree that our nation’s history isn’t taught very well, nor is social studies. For instance, nowhere decades ago did I learn in history class that the British, French and Americans were among the first to make slavery illegal. Nowhere did I learn in school how much slavery existed in Africa among the blacks or that black Africans brought black people to the markets to sell to the traders as slaves. I also didn’t learn in school that blacks were slave owners.

                      None of that diminishes the horrors of slavery or the stain on America for slavery to have ever existed under our Constitution. It did. We had a Civil War that cost the lives of over one-half million people and the destruction of the south. White people and blacks fought that war, but the ground was stained mostly with the blood of Caucasians.

                      Should the history of slavery be taught in our schools? Of course, because we don’t want it to happen anywhere, including in Africa today. So should the Holocaust and many other acts of genocide be taught? Though not genocide, the Holodomor should also be taught along with the slaughters by Mao, Pol Pot and a host of others. Not to be forgotten should be the topic of eugenics which would include the discussion of the origins of abortion clinics and on a slightly different subject, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which when curtailed by communist nations and fascists, caused the deaths of over 100 million outside of war.

                      All of the above are closely related to our natural rights but take a considerable amount of time to teach, so you can tell us what you think there and elsewhere should be deleted from the discussion of the history of human rights.

                      You write about many things you think others do not know, but you’re mistaken. Many educated people know those things and even more than you because many knowledgeable people understand the need to protect the rights of individuals. You are ignorant of the experience and knowledge of others because your tunnel vision only sees human rights violations when it affects you directly.

                      From prior discussions, we already know that you have little interest in improving the education of low-income black children that live in the most densely populated areas. That is on you because with all your talk of history, better education is what is needed. How to do that is something you have no interest in. I do.

                      It’s funny how you, the black individual, don’t care enough to read about the lack of education standards of those you say you care about. Read Thomas Sowell’s book Charter Schools and Their Enemies. Thomas Sowell is black, but you don’t care what he says because he is a conservative. You won’t look at one of the best-researched studies on the subject because you don’t care. You are too wedded to Victimhood.

                    15. You say you’ve provided documentation which amounts to a bunch of links to other people’s alleged proof which is mostly their beliefs and pieces of paper they claim means something. Don’t provide twenty links, just submit one piece of evidence that can be documented really happened and is CRT? Just one!
                      Telling me what I believe and and who you believe I don’t care about is meaningless and untrue

                    16. You didn’t bother to read the links. I provided you with multiple links to take you through all the pages of quotes, explanations, and statements, to individual schools with a link to what happened there and the documentation. It is clear you are disinterested.

                      On one page, there were two discussions with links to each discussion and a link to the proof. The primary link took you to a whole bunch of others. One of them discussed a school with original source documents. You can trace back many other examples with original source documents as well.

                      The original source documents have multiple pages, but all one has to do is glance at the first couple of pages to see what exists. You want proof beyond doubt, but you want it in a single sentence. That is impossible.

                      I also provided you with a source having to do with a quick remedy for school systems. You have told me before that it is not your interest until you chastise the schools for not providing the history you want.

                      I also provided a bunch of things that need to be taught. I ask you to divide time for dealing with those problems, so all are included. You didn’t bother to do that either.

                      It seems victimhood is the only thing of interest to you. If I’m wrong, then we can discuss things. I am interested in educating the children of NYC that have fallen so far behind. With the proper education, some could go to college, be scientists, doctors, and lawyers, and have an even more educated follow-up generation. I am not interested in Ph.D.’s that don’t advance income ability and skills. Those subjects are dead ends for the rest of the community.

                    17. ” You have told me before that it is not your interest until you chastise the schools for not providing the history you want.”

                      I never said any such thing, stop putting words into my mouth. Your summary of the things you wish were taught are what you believe are the mitigating factors for white behavior when white chattel slavery was worse in some ways than anything done in the history of man.
                      You do have one thing right, I’m certain I know much more than you about American history and the treatment of enslaved people. Information you’ll never bother to learn because you’re objective appears to ignore or diffuse it.

                    18. We discussed this before and we discussed Charter Schools. That was not your interest. I understand that. I believe good education is the key. You think that expanding discussion on slavery in lousy schools is the solution. I’m sorry Enigma, but your ideas lead nowhere but the streets, drugs and death.

                    19. I think expanding discussion on slavery, the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the present is a good idea in all schools. You have no idea what you don’t know which wouldn’t be so bad bhy itself but you don’t want to know. Not that it would make you feel bad. It would make you work harder to deny history or to make excuses why something else was just as bad so it doesn’t count.

                    20. “I think expanding discussion on slavery, the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the present is a good idea in all schools.”

                      I agree, but first, one must make sure the students are proficient in math and English. The kids we worry about can’t read well enough, so what you want them to learn cannot be achieved. What about those other things I talked about earlier. Would you get rid of any of them or condense them? How much time do you think we should give to your specific subject matter?

                      “You have no idea what you don’t know which wouldn’t be so bad bhy itself but you don’t want to know. Not that it would make you feel bad. It would make you work harder to deny history or to make excuses why something else was just as bad so it doesn’t count.”

                      I am sure there is a lot I don’t know. I have listened to the things you think people don’t know, and none of them are new to me except some of the errors you make. Do you know anything about Greek history? That has importance. How about religious history? That is important as well. How about the history of the different people all over the world? Now, how about integrating that history into the history of this country. I don’t think you know any of that. Do you know about WW2 and the other great wars? I doubt it. You are focused on one area, and to date, you haven’t provided anything new, making your repetition boring.

                    21. Example with documents: Some of the rest can be seen by following the links of previous addresses
                      —-

                      An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”
                      Based on whistleblower documents

                      https://www.city-journal.org/identity-politics-in-cupertino-california-elementary-school

                      documents at: https://christopherrufo.com/woke-elementary/

                  3. enigma:

                    “You are truly brainwashed. Give me an example where CRT is being taught to children. I’d ask if you could define CRT but that would be hoping too much.”
                    ******************************
                    Well, hope no more since here it is. It’s one particularly insulting activity (of many) known at the privilege walk being inflicted on white high school age children by some woke-damaged propagandist. What you call brainwashed, I call clear thinking. Oh and imagine if we singled out black students this way. Oh the heavens would fall, right?

                    1. “Stay right where you’re at.”

                      – Teacher
                      _______

                      Ah, the ubiquitous dangling preposition.

                      This teacher-cum-brainwashing communist should be sent to the re-education camp for grammar and ideology.

                    3. No offense, that isn’t CRT although it makes some valid points. Elected officials in my state (Florida) and most others are using the pretense of CRT to eliminate any discussion of American history that might make white people look bad. The truth is, American history isn’t a good look for what white leaders have done. What is your preference; American history not be taught at all. be changed to reflect only things that put white leaders in a positive light, completely rewrite it like an infomercial?

                    4. Enigma:

                      “No offense, that isn’t CRT although it makes some valid points. … What is your preference; American history not be taught at all. be changed to reflect only things that put white leaders in a positive light, completely rewrite it like an infomercial?”
                      ************************
                      Guess you didn’t watch the video. it wasn’t American history being taught. it was white shaming being taught. So yeah it was racism under its most recent Dim marketing campaign – CRT – but with another group in the cross hairs for their usual hegemonistic reason. My preference is that if you don’t like it the way it is, put it on the ballot and do it the democratic way. Not with some Maoist playbook of using subterfuge to indoctrinate children.

                  4. “One of the reasons history is taught . . .”

                    So CRT is not being taught. But when it is, what’s being taught is merely American history.

                    That latter, of course, is a Big Lie. Race relations have long been a standard part of the American history curriculum.

                    And to be precise, CRT advocates are not *teaching* anything. They are conducting “struggle sessions,” with a captured group of children — of children!

                    Still waiting for your definition of “racism.” Since you fancy it everywhere, surely you must be able to define it.

              2. Obama never wanted to “unite” the country. That was never his intention. The “fundamental transformation” of America was always his agenda and it was inherently a divisive one.

                Obama always says nice lofty words, and repeats them over and over, yet does something else entirely….his actions never matched his words….and he denies it, always, and in many ways, including ridicule of his critics. Rules for Radicals is exactly Obama’s playbook — to this day.

                1. Anonymous:
                  “Obama never wanted to “unite” the country. That was never his intention. The “fundamental transformation” of America was always his agenda and it was inherently a divisive one.”
                  **********************************
                  He wanted to “woke” the country. You know, like Hirohito did.

    2. Can we get rid of generational welfare, affirmative action, forced busing, quotas, public housing, social services, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, Obamacare, Medicare, food stamps, utility subsidies, public assistance day care, minimum wage, rent control, state disability, SS disability, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, etc., now?

  13. This poll proves President Biden is following the mandate of a large majority, small minority of racist, leftwing radicals.

    His wife should be prosecuted for elder abuse.

    1. Olly says:

      “His wife should be prosecuted for elder abuse.”

      Now that’s very helpful to a civil debate. Why don’t you do something righteous by following Turley’s admonition to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric?

      Be more like Turley and less a Trumpist.

    2. Wait. You finally and succinctly expressed an irrefutably correct and rational position. I like it!

  14. The court is a collective, not an individual. As such, it should broadly represent the people of this country, and we know that each person comes with certain perspectives and values connected with their position in our society.The best person, in any given nomination, is the person who will bring the most completeness to the Court’s ability to make the best decisions for the country within its legal parameters. Its never just a simplw formula such as Biden is proposing now.

    1. The best person, in any given nomination, is the person who will bring the most completeness to the Court’s ability to make the best decisions for the country within its legal parameters

      You just described the legislative branch of govt.

      SCOTUS is limited to the laws, and Constitution.

      Scalia said in an interview if there some of his decisions he did not like.
      He responded that if a Justice has never written an opinion he hates, he is doing it wrong. Meaning, The constution required him no rule in a way he disagreed with, but was bound by statute/Constitution.

  15. Nominating the right person for the job is the crucial thing. Biden’s racist desires and his wish to virtue signal should have nothing to do with his choice.

    1. Biden’s exclusion of all but black women is entirely the result of his deal with Clyburn to get Clyburn’s endorsement, which Biden’s team thought essential to win in South Carolina and thereby avoid being eliminated as a candidate. Had he now not stuck publicly to this deal, Clyburn and the Democratic Party base would have screamed, since they do not trust him to do what he promised without a public commitment. Clyburn has been promoting Childs, and my guess is there has been a secret deal to appoint her. Given the options, she may be the least bad alternative.

  16. Amazing how far lefties have strayed from the Constitution.

    Or even from the teachings of MLKing.

      1. In my experience, most people on the right have read very little of what MLK Jr. wrote. They avoid reading things like his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. They can’t even bring themselves to listen to his entire I Have a Dream speech.

        1. I try not to feed Trolls but every now and then I see such a stupid post I cannot help myself from replying.

          MLK was a Great Man who was exactly right in his belief and goal to see everyone. regardless of Skin Color be treated equally….with justice….and respect.

          The modern Left and the Race Baiters are rejecting MLK’s teachings which is far worse than not. having read them.

          Equality is exactly the right notion and Equity is just prejudice dressed up in fancy clothes.

          As a City Police Officer in the 1970’s in a large Southern City…..when in homes in the Black Community…..very often there was a small plastic cube holding a three photographs and one drawn image……MLK, JFK, RFK, and Jesus.

          That small cube was very remarkable in what it said about the beliefs held by the members of those families.

          Far too many people have turned their backs on the teachings of MLK.

          He did not speak of racial justice….he spoke of justice.

          He did not speak of racial freedom…..he spoke of freedom.

          He did not speak of equity…..he spoke of equality.

          He did not speak of division….he spoke of peace.

          1. “MLK was a Great Man who was exactly right in his belief and goal to see everyone. regardless of Skin Color be treated equally….with justice….and respect.”

            Yes. And he also recognized that we hadn’t reached that goal yet.

            “He did not speak of racial justice….he spoke of justice.
            “He did not speak of racial freedom…..he spoke of freedom.
            “He did not speak of equity…..he spoke of equality.
            “He did not speak of division….he spoke of peace.”

            Actually, he spoke about all of those things, not just the 4 you wish to highlight.

            As I said: In my experience, most people on the right have read very little of what MLK Jr. wrote. They avoid reading things like his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. They can’t even bring themselves to listen to his entire I Have a Dream speech.

            I suggest you start by reading these in their entirety:
            https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
            https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety

        2. “In my experience, most people on the right have read very little of what MLK Jr. wrote. They avoid reading things like his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. They can’t even bring themselves to listen to his entire I Have a Dream speech.”

          That’s your experience, huh? Gosh, I can’t think of anything that anyone I know “avoids reading.” In fact, of those extremely limited number of Things People Avoid Reading, a fair number are avoided by people who themselves are only vaguely aware of the fact. But your experience has taught you what “most people on the right” have read very little of.

          In my experience, most people on the left are quick to indulge in group defamation and have no problem with dishonestly disparaging their political enemies. But I’m honest enough to concede that most people on the right do the same; projection is universal.

          1. “I can’t think of anything that anyone I know “avoids reading.” ”

            Really? I can think of things that lots of people avoid reading. How often do the people you know read in their entirety the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy of all of the websites and applications they use? (Here’s one study suggesting that few people do: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757465, here’s a related survey based on self-reports: https://www.axios.com/few-people-read-privacy-policies-survey-fec3a29e-2e3a-4767-a05c-2cacdcbaecc8.html) I’m sometimes guilty of that myself. Or if you don’t like that example, many people have chosen not to read a calculus textbook.

            “But your experience has taught you what “most people on the right” have read very little of.”

            I was talking about the people on the right that I have experience with, which obviously is a tiny fraction of everyone on the right and only a convenience sample, not a random or representative sample. In my experience, a lot of people on the left also haven’t read much of what King wrote, but in that personal convenience sample, those on the left are more likely to have read more of MLK Jr’s writings than those on the right. YMMV.

        3. He was a plagiarist, fraud, philanderer, sacrilegious charlatan, and anti-American communist promoting the antithetical, illicit, unconstitutional and still illegitimate positions of comrade Abraham Lincoln.

      2. Just because he said a riot is the language of the unheard does not mean he supported rioting, which he did not.

          2. addressing the needs of the people could/would lead to violence.

            what specific needs, addressed by who?

            Talking in SJW babble prevents understanding

      3. Enigma, Monument was talking of actions and the Constitution. A riot is not an action that MLK supported. MLK recognized the existence of riots and the rationals behind them, but the context behind your rebuke of Monument was wrong. It is you who is wrong.

        1. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Some of the participants on Jan. 6th were unheard white people. The leaders and planners are the most heard ever, Their goal was to subvert the election to keep being heard.

  17. More interesting from this poll, is maybe it tells us that the ‘woke’ and “cancel crowd” in America are not as much in control as they think. This poll reflects a very traditional stance from our citizens.

  19. This reminds of the controversy a while back about a white professor teaching a course on Africa. Yes, there probably are white professors who are more knowledgeable about Africa than many African-Americans. Being black doesn’t automatically, necessarily make one an expert on Africa.

  20. Does this mean the approximately 36% of our citizens have a total lack of understanding our constitution and laws? Personally I think that percentage is much higher. Heck, most members of the dem party think that we are a democracy.

    1. We ARE democracy: a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic.

      “Democracy” comes from two Greek words: “demos” (the people) and “”kratia” (power or authority). All countries in which the ultimate power is held by the people and the government’s powers derive from the consent of the governed are democracies.

      1. We use democratic methodology only to fill the positions of government of our constitutional republic. It is a misrepresentation to say that we ARE a democracy and you should know better than that.

        1. No, it is NOT “a misrepresentation to say that we ARE a democracy.”

          We ARE a representative democracy, which is the most common kind of democracy. We directly elect both Senators and Representatives to represent us, and our government derives its powers from our consent.

          You should know better than to suggest that we’re not a democracy. I’m amazed by the number of people who don’t understand that a democracies can have several forms, including a constitutional federal republic.

          1. With all due respect, I believe Alma Carman is right on this one. Not only does the public en masse NOT DIRECTLY vote for presidents or for their national interests, but more importantly, members of Congress are NOT REQUIRED to vote as directed by their constituents. Even electors for presidents (ex post facto referred to as “faithless electors”).
            Although constituents’ views/positions are probably the most important factor, congressional members also consider their party’s position as well as their own experiences/position/knowledge when they vote. Their commitment is to vote in accordance with their constituents’ best interests in mind, -not as their constituents’ DIRECTED them to vote.

            1. ***I distinguish “popular vote” (which does not control) from “electoral vote” (controlling) in presidential elections.

              1. All the terms need defined.
                The United States is not a Democracy. Defined as majority rule
                The United States governing documents, repeatedly erect barriers to majority rule. The Smallest States are vastly over represented in the Senate. The Electoral College protects against majority control of the executive branch, and give preference to the States, over the People. Lots of this goes back to the negotiations required to get all thirteen colonies to sign on to the Union. Give low population States powers to counter balance high populations of Boston, Philly, NYC.

                Some basic study of Early American History and Civics. Clears this up this debate. We all agree. But pedantry takes over, as face saving supercedes accuracy.

                1. “The United States is not a Democracy. Defined as majority rule”

                  But that’s not the sole definition.

                  That’s the definition of a direct democracy, which is a proper subset of democracies.

                  For example, here’s part of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition:
                  1.a. Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly; (more generally) a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, etc., in which all members have the right to take part or vote. In later use often more widely, with reference to the conditions characteristically obtaining under such a system: a form of society in which all citizens have equal rights, ignoring hereditary distinctions of class or rank, and the views of all are tolerated and respected; the principle of fair and equal treatment of everyone in a state, institution, organization, etc.

                  Here’s part of the Merriam-Webster definition:
                  1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority
                  b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

            2. Is there anything or anyone that could convince you that we’re a representative democracy?

              Just how are you defining “representative democracy”?

              “Not only does the public en masse NOT DIRECTLY vote for presidents or for their national interests, but more importantly, members of Congress are NOT REQUIRED to vote as directed by their constituents.”

              Duh. No one said otherwise. Being a representative democracy does not require that people “DIRECTLY vote for presidents” or that MoCs be “REQUIRED to vote as directed by their constituents.” Again: a democracy is any government in which the ultimate power is held by the people and the government’s powers derive from the consent of the governed.

              1. Please go back and reread what I said. what you seem to misunderstand, for all your semantic argument, is the difference between democracy and constitutional republic. Goes all the way back to our founding, when the idea of “democracy” was REJECTED (look it up). I would agree with a term like “democratic republic.” There is academic argument surrounding the use of “representative democracy,” because some interpret it to mean that “representatives” are required to vote as directed by their constituents. They are NOT. I stand by what I said. thanks

                1. and by the way, we are founded on the principle that the CONSTITUTION controls, not the people. The elected representatives “govern” according to the Constitution, NOT by orders from their constituents. Look up the definition of “constitutional republic.” Alma Carman was correct. Thanks anyway

                  1. “Alma Carman was correct.”

                    No, her claim “It is a misrepresentation to say that we ARE a democracy” is false.

                    I’ll ask you again the questions you chose not to answer:
                    Is there anything or anyone that could convince you that we’re a representative democracy?
                    Just how are you defining “representative democracy”?

                    “we are founded on the principle that the CONSTITUTION controls, not the people”

                    That’s a false dichotomy. The Constitution was ratified by the people via their democratically elected representatives, and the Constitution can be (and has been) amended via the same process.

                    1. the Constitution can be (and has been) amended via the same process
                      .
                      But, again, not by a majority of the People. and not without congress.

                      Amendments must be approved by 3/4 of the States, not 3/4 of the people. 13 states overrule the voice of the majority. Yet another Constitutional protection against the People .

                    2. Which only underscores that we are a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. You cannot argue against the former, so you argue against the latter, when no one has claimed the latter.

                2. “what you seem to misunderstand, for all your semantic argument, is the difference between democracy and constitutional republic”

                  Please do quote what I said that you believe demonstrates this. I think you won’t be able to. I think you’ve inferred things I did not imply.

                  1. This is what Alma Carman said, and this is your response. (Please note that Alma capitalized “ARE”) I agree with Alma. I answered all your questions in my last post. Period. I know you try to win by getting the last word in, so I’ll walk away.. thanks anyway

                    Alma Carman says:
                    We use democratic methodology only to fill the positions of government of our constitutional republic. It is a misrepresentation to say that we ARE a democracy and you should know better than that.
                    Reply
                    Anonymous says:
                    February 13, 2022 at 11:06 AM

                    No, it is NOT “a misrepresentation to say that we ARE a democracy.”

                    1. “I know you try to win by getting the last word in, so I’ll walk away”

                      That’s utter Bullsh*t.

                      You can convince me to change my mind with good evidence. You are choosing to walk away rather than present good evidence. You repeatedly make this claim as an excuse for not digging into the evidence. To be clear: an argument is not won by the person with the last word. Evidence determines who wins an argument. Either you can and will present good evidence or you cannot/will not.

                      “I answered all your questions in my last post.”

                      No, you didn’t. You didn’t answer either of the following questions:
                      Is there anything or anyone that could convince you that we’re a representative democracy? (To answer this, you’d either need to say “no, no person or thing can convince me” or “yes, I can be convinced by ____,” filling in the blank)
                      Just how are you defining “representative democracy”? (To answer this, you’d need to give a definition.)

                      “I agree with Alma.”

                      Duh. You already said that, and I heard it the first time. The question is: are the two of you right, or are the two of you instead wrong?

                      For example, could conservative law professor Eugene Volokh convince you that we’re a democracy as well as a republic? Because he’s made that argument and quotes the Framers to do so:
                      https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
                      Maybe you’re open to considering his argument and evidence, maybe you aren’t. No way to know, since you choose to walk away rather than resolve it.

            1. No, they’re not right.

              As for the rest of your claim, which you’ve now repeated in 4 different comments …

              What you’re quoting isn’t a “Definition.”

              Here’s how Diffen describes its pages: “Diffen, inspired by Wikipedia, is a wiki that anyone can edit.” (source: diffen.com/difference/Diffen:About)
              Unfortunately, Diffen wasn’t inspired to use a bunch of tools that WP uses, such as (1) footnoted external references for individual claims in the body of the page and (2) viewable edit histories. So we have no idea how many people have edited that page or what edits have been made. Given the frequency of complaints here about WP, it’s pretty funny the only references that are given for that Diffen page are:
              Wikipedia: Republic
              Wikipedia: Democracy
              Wikipedia: Direct democracy
              This list notably ignores the WP page on representative democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
              That WP page undermines the Diffen page’s claim, as it provides evidence that representative democracies often have constitutions that constrain the elected representatives.

              You’re free to trust your wiki that solely uses WP pages for references yet can’t manage to even include all of the most relevant WP pages. I won’t join you, though.

              I encourage you to read more broadly, such as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh’s column about this: reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

            2. I know this will be shocking, but I am going to, in part, stand up for Anonymous the Stupid. If one wanted to parse the meanings of these words, I believe one would find scholars having slight differences of opinion. When put together correctly, some of the different variations of words will have essentially the same meaning.

              I have a slight potential disagreement with this anonymous poster (not ATS) because I don’t believe that a Republic necessarily has to have a Constitution, even though it seems to be logical. Note how many refer to our Republic as a Constitutional Republic. Would that be a tautology? Some will add The additional description of a Democratic Constitutional Republic or a Constitutional republic with a representative democracy.

              WHILE DEBATING THE SMALLER POINTS one misses the larger points of the American experience. We should not forget our federalist system and the things the founders attempted to do to spread power and prevent power from being consolidated.

              Instead of trying to define this American Republic, we should be looking at what is happening today. Power is becoming concentrated to such an extent that we are beginning to look like an oligarchy where power is concentrated among the few. The Constitution is becoming less and less meaningful while failing to protect its citizens from a government out of control.

              Terrible nations can be considered Democratic Republics, and they might even have Constitutions supposedly protecting rights, but they function outside the rule of law.

              1. Hello S. Meyer! just returning and going through comments this morning. Of course, always enjoy reading yours! -I would simply add that neither A. Carman, Iowan2, nor I referred to our government as a
                “republic.” –So your comments talking about confusion, distinctions and tautology (while technically correct) do not apply here. Both A. Carman and I made it unequivocally clear that we were referring to a “constitutional republic.”

                1. Thank you, Lin, for your pleasant statement and for promoting good dialogue. I stood up for ATS because I didn’t think anyone in this non-academic discussion had the upper hand, and the non-ATS may have slightly erred, though I am not sure.

                  I wanted to point out that, though some do not fully appreciate our government’s design (ATS), they tend to nit-pick as a way of diverting discussion away from the fact that our government is no longer what it set out to be. It is moving in a leftist, autocratic direction that they prefer.

                  “WHILE DEBATING THE SMALLER POINTS,” the discussion of minutiae seemed to forget the reason for our government to be formed in the way it was. The reason was to prevent any group from gaining too much power, which is why I added federalism to the mix.

                  The lefties, like ATS, want concentrated power. To accomplish that, they are happy when any branch oversteps its boundaries, when the Constitution is not upheld, and when federalism is diminished. They talk a good story about freedom and the American way, but they are very much opposed to it whether they recognize it or not. The leftist criteria for a free people is generally in the fashion of those nations that have acted most terribly in the 20th century.

      2. “ultimate power is held by the people”

        It’s a compelling idea, this democracy, with its “majority rule” and “one man one vote” anachronisms, but when half the people (and, deep down, probably more like three quarters) don’t believe we have majority rule or one-man-one-vote, it is no longer government by the consent of the governed. I.e., not a democracy.

        1. A representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic does not imply “we have majority rule.” We are not and have never been a direct democracy ruled by a simple majority.

          Regardless of what people believe, we do have one-person-one-vote for those eligible to vote, in electing representatives (and sometimes elsewhere, such as passing propositions in those states that allow that).

      3. “We ARE democracy . . .”

        Wake me when there’s a vote to ostracize a person from the country.

        And if you don’t know what I’m referring to, then you don’t understand the essential difference between a democracy and a constitutionally limited republic. And you don’t grasp the basic distinction between a government of men and a government of laws.

        Thankfully, the Founders understood those differences.

        1. Who are you quoting?

          The text “We ARE democracy” doesn’t appear anywhere on this page prior to your 2:21pm comment. Looks like a straw man argument where you pretend to quote someone but aren’t actually quoting anyone.

            1. Thanks, my mistake. Not sure why it didn’t show up when I did my initial text search; perhaps I mistakenly included your opening quotation mark or the space after “democracy,” which weren’t there in the original.

              I’ll also take this opportunity to correct my typo: it should be: We ARE ademocracy: a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic.

              I stand by my statement, and you’ve said nothing to contradict the fact that the US is a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic. Your claim that I “don’t grasp the basic distinction between a government of men and a government of laws” is BS. I’ve explicitly noted that the form of our representative democracy is a constitutional federal republic. That’s a government of laws.

              Can conservative law professor Eugene Volokh convince you that we’re a democracy as well as a republic? Because he’s made that argument and quotes the Framers to do so:
              https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
              Maybe you’re open to considering his argument and evidence, maybe you aren’t.

                1. What you’re quoting isn’t a “Definition.”

                  Here’s how Diffen describes its difference pages: “Diffen, inspired by Wikipedia, is a wiki that anyone can edit” (diffen.com/difference/Diffen:About).

                  Unfortunately, Diffen wasn’t inspired to use a bunch of tools that WP uses, such as (1) footnoted external references for individual claims in the body of the page and (2) viewable edit histories, so we have no idea how many people have edited that page or what edits have been made. Given the frequency of complaints here about WP, it’s pretty funny the only references that are given for that Diffen page are:
                  Wikipedia: Republic
                  Wikipedia: Democracy
                  Wikipedia: Direct democracy
                  This list notably ignores the WP page on representative democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
                  That page undermines the Diffen page’s claim, as it provides evidence that representative democracies often have constitutions that constrain the elected representatives.

                  You’re free to trust your wiki that solely uses WP for a reference but can’t manage to even include all of the most relevant WP pages. But you might want to read more broadly, such as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and the Founders he cites: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

                  1. what YOU’re quoting isn’t a definitiion, you idiot. It is a multi-page argument/opinion by a California scholar on his own BLOG .MINE is a definition, and comparison. did you look up the source to show that it defines and DISTINGUISHES between the two? Enough.

                    1. I agree that Volokh’s discussion is not a definition. I also didn’t say that Volokh’s discussion was a definition. Unlike you, I didn’t falsely claim something to be a definition that isn’t a definition.

                      And no, yours is not a definition. It’s simply a quote with a false claim from an unknown editor on a wiki that can’t even use its chosen references correctly.

    2. “…to exclude such persons…of indigent fortunes…, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own…but are under the immediate dominion of others,…”

      America is a restricted-vote republic with discretion on voting criteria left to state legislatures. Voters must have been male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, and turnout was 11.6% by design in 1788. The Founders never intended for one man, one vote democracy. Since inception in Greece and perpetuation in Rome, representative governance has been of the restricted-vote variety. No person who receives a paycheck or welfare check should ever be allowed to vote – it is known that they will vote for more and evermore pay and benefits. Women who are capable and not busy making, nurturing and raising Americans, have always been allowed to vote.
      __________________________________________

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
      “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

      – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
      _______________________________________

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln opened the flood gates to the ultimate, incremental implementation of communism and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Comments are closed.