You should have continued to this part.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This is the basis for Congress to strip jurisdiction and therefore judicial review.
I don't know who you think "they" is, but the "they" to which I belong is currently out of power in all three branches. I don't change my opinions for convenience. You don't know me so please stfu about things you have no way of knowing.
Based on what part of the constitution? Congress has the right to define the scope of judicial authority as far as I am aware. That actually is the separation of powers. Congress is elected and judges aren't. Judicial review is not in the US constitution at all. I don't know about the Texas constitution.
Not actually true. Judicial review is not in the constitution. It has been interpreted as being implied by the constitution, but not as absolute. My understanding is that the US Congress has the right to exclude things from judicial review. I've never heard consideration of doing it at the state legislature level though. It's definitely ballsy.
They can redo their little procedural vote. But, if Hogg doesn't win, we will have our list of every member that thinks the DNC exists to serve it's members and not the public. Every one of them should be tarred and feathered, and I'm not sure I mean that as a metaphor.
The leadership is old as fuck. Most of them will be out soon enough, one way or another.
Let's apply your logic to another organization with exactly the same entrenched philosophical flaws and built in corruption - the US government. If you think the Democrats are impossible to crack, then why are you trying to fix the government?
As much as I hate Harris, that was a dumb decision.
This might be an attempt to extract himself from that embarrassment, in which case he might not fold. On the other hand, it does raise the question of why he wasn't doing it before now, and what else could he be doing and isn't?
while a third party who makes it to the general only has to contend with the normal difficulties of the media.
When you look at how Democrats control primaries, it's almost entirely through their cozy relationship with the media. It was more direct in 2016, but in 2020 it was a consistent message from the media that Bernie was less electable and Trump had to be defeated.
If you were familiar with running as a third party in even local elections, you would know that just getting on the ballot as a third party is a massive effort. Also, the controls that Democrats have over the primary process, Democrats and Republicans together have over the general election process.
choosing that old guy over AOC for that committee seat
That has nothing to do with popular elections, but it does bring up a good point. Do you think AOC would have been more likely to get that seat if she were in a third party? Once you start getting people into office, you will still be dependent on coalitions with Democrats to get anything done.
A lot of anti-establishment voters went from Bernie to Trump, so I think the right candidate can maneuver this middle path
Here is the thing that drives me nuts. You are not proposing anything that hasn't been tried over and over again. Third party advocates point to the limited gains of progressives within the Democratic party, and ignore their own elong history of total failure. What you "think" defies pretty obvious reality.
That's absolutely a legitimate path, though you better have a network of like minded folks doing the same thing in at least 30-40 states if you want to succeed at the transition to the national scene. You are also talking about at least a 40-50 year effort.
I also wonder what the plan is to keep this new party from becoming just as corrupt as our other two. Remember that Kyrsten Sinema and John Fetterman both ran as progressives. I'm sure it could be managed to at least some degree, but it would be no easier than cleaning up the Democrats.
You also won't just have to vet your politicians, you will also need to vet your primary voters. You are going to have to recruit them from many of the same crowd that keep voting in the Schumers and Pelosis of the Democratic party.
I've been playing in my head with the idea of trying to create what would amount to almost a new religion, but devoted to shared reality instead of anything supernatural. Get people together once a week for refreshers on how to recognize and push back on all the various psyops the world is plagued with. Kids go to Sunday school to learn about logical fallacies and contemplate ethics and moral questions inside various logical frameworks. It would be a beautiful thing.
Exactly. A minority candidate absolutely can win, as long as they can rally Democratic voters.
Cool. I guess I was a little harsh and assuming there myself. That's my bad.