The 28th Amendment to "reform" the SCOTUS

As is usually the case, you don't know what you're talking about.

Nixon's Drug War was global, and was drastic. It was a massive and disastrous escalation that has killed many thousands, and it was all because Nixon wanted revenge on the hippies.

There was a panel of Docs and they recommended pot be decriminalised. He said there was a study (which he dreamed up because he needed an excuse) and that if the study was in line with their call, he would decriminalise pot. As a supposedly interim measure, he put pot in with the worst drugs, Schedule 1. And, of course, when the study finished, he ignored it.

Most people are not aware of the damage the Drug War did to other countries, but we've spent a lot of money over the years propping up governments that would otherwise collapse due to the Drug War.

I could keep going. You really shouldn't.

 

Because all Nixon did was to continue. Democrats drug policies is what Nixon continued.

Although Nixon declared "drug abuse" to be public enemy number one in 1971, the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914.

War on drugs - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › War_on_drugs

 

I refuted the above argument. See post #252

 

Your first sentence derailed your entire post.

Nixon had no control over planet Earth.

Your hyperbole is not remotely appropriate. Were it as you speak, Democrats would have long ago seen their errors and got out of the business of using laws to manage humans.

Democrats major love is control over other humans. That is the basis of their drug law inventions in the very first place.

 

That does not counter what I said, that the Drug War was a vast expansion, or why Nixon did it.

"Last week, the internet exploded with a fairly shocking allegation: President Richard Nixon began America's war on drugs to criminalize black people and hippies, according to a newly revealed 1994 quote from Nixon domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

The accusation was shocking, characterizing the war on drugs as a racist, politically motivated crusade."
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs

There was also a vast increase in spending that just grew and grew for decades. We had to prop up countries on the edge of collapse with large amounts of aid and direct and indirect military support.

That was in addition to the massive increase in costs here, and the equally massive increase in lives ruined by the Drug War.

I know what you are going to say, countries that put an emphasis on treatment fare a lot better than we do.

Sometimes, an example tells the story. In the 1970s, cancer Docs noticed that their pot smoking patients lived longer. So naturally they started studying it. The Drug War came down on them like a ton of bricks, and they had to stop. All that stuff you are seeing about medical pot now... that started in the 1970s. How many people had to die because Nixon was an assh*le?

 

Enacted October 27 1970
Senate: 57 / 43 Dem
House: 242 / 189 Dem

Passed the house 342-7
Passed Senate 54-0

Looks like the Demcratts had a very heavy hand in setting drug policy.
I wonder if they hated hippies, too.

 

Nixon?
You mean the Democrats. See post 256.

 

Why would I waste my time?

Who the hell cares who passed a law that needs changing?

Nothing I know about. There are too many people who don't know about marijuana and other drugs for pols to spend political capital on the issue. Instead, anti-drug warriors are still locking people up for smoking pot.

I don't care how old the law is. Locking up people for smoking pot is absurd.

The abortion ruling is a SCOTUS decision while marijuana laws are a legislative matter. That said, I'm no fan of Roe v. Wade, but I'm also aware of stare decisis considerations around court decisions.

As if you're a good writer...

 

I like the "shall not serve past the age of 78". As for a 9 Justice limit? Change that to 7. Save a little salary money.

 

Geezuz, who cares what they did fifty years ago? About that time, Ronald Reagan was governor of California and supported inshrining abortion rights unto the state constitution. Are you going to trash him for that?

 

President Lardbutt Liar threatened through one of his toadies...



... to close to border with Canada if they legalized pot. They legalized it anyway.

 

And yet you bragged you taught history for many years. And you do not know the history of the Democrats nor the history of Nixon.

Pity the person who believes you taught history.

Nixon did not have either house of Congress. Nixon carried out Democrats own laws.


93rd United States Congress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 93rd_United_States_Congress
It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1973, to January 3, 1975, during the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, and the beginning of Gerald Ford's. This Congress was the first (and, to date, only) Congress with more than two Senate Presidents (the Vice President of the United States), in this case, three.
House Majority: Democratic
Senate Majority: Democratic
House Speaker: Carl Albert (D)‎
Senate President pro tem: James Eastland (D)‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_United_States_Congress

 

Democrats have yet to change Drug policy and yet they have had major opportunities.

You think only recent history counts and yet you bring up Nixon? And you bring up Reagan when he was Governor?

 

Reach all the way to our first drug laws to learn the heavy hand Democrats laid on the drug issue. And past the beginning they really laid on the leather to whip things even more.

We have Langleyman who taught history he says but is entirely ignorant about Nixon and the congress with him and the basis of drug laws.

 

I'd also add that the Senate and the president aren't allowed to go into recess or get paid until they fulfill their duty of appointing a justice. I'd also add that the president has the full right and responsibility to appoint a justice until the moment he leaves office. I'd also add that the senate is required to vote on the president's nominee.

 

"Bragged?" So, if I say what I did, that's bragging?

I damn well know American history. You keep dragging in irrelevant history.

 

Who cares if Democrats have or haven't changed "drug policy"--either their political position, or laws or regulations when they have the power to do so?

 

You need to read the Senate rules on when or how they vote and what happens when they do not vote.

Tip, no law and no rule forces the Senate to vote on any issue. In the Case of Garland, they simply refused to vote. In the case of Barrett they did actually vote.

But if one does not know Senate Rules, they simply keep making errors.

 

Thats why I'm suggesting it all be in an amendment so it will supersede senate rules. I wouldn't allow the senate to refuse to vote, and they would have to make a vote, since its their job to appoint justices. They wouldn't be paid until the job is done.

 

You need to rally the Senate about you in order to make that happen.

Posters may swarm you with gleeful agreement yet it means nothing.

 

Can't you say that about the OP?

 

You don't appear to have taken the teacher's advice to heart.

Who cares about exonerated anyone from years ago?

Mischaracterizing my views and feelings--again?

 

Look where the OP has taken us!!

 

And their reasoning was dishonest, was it not? Hypocrisy is not illegal but says a lot about GOP integrity.
There in nothing in the Constitution that says it needs to be a lifetime appointment. If they had, say, a15 year term limit and the sitting president could nominate or not a replacement subject to Congress's approval, that would be a good compromise.

 

People werent living so long, but, you would need an amendment to change Article III.