Is the argument that Kennedy is a "swing vote" the only prayer Dems have at Obamacare not being struck down?



All these Obamabots keep chirping off how Kennedy is a "swing" vote and that he will side with the liberal minority on OUR conservative controlled court. They cite GITMO cases as evidence for this fact.

Do Numnuts even understand that criminal procedure is not the same as deciding federal v. state...
Kennedy will defend states rights. Always has Always will. Obama care Smells like   

Dog crap.
there is already enough evidence to either require another election in some states (which there may not be time for) or require the state party convention (which are often controlled by republicans) to make a decision due to the issues laid out in the legal arguments. trump's team has very valid points and evidence to back up those points. legal process is necessary for legitimacy, but any judge who strictly interprets the law will side with trump’s team. due to the media’s propaganda campaign, i’m sure many judges would be concerned about the ramifications of the legal outcome, but ultimately they have to do their job as arbiters of the law. so trump should win his lawsuits even if the supreme court has to make the final decision. republicans are likely, but not guaranteed to be loyal to their party. trump will likely win in the end... either way, as of now no votes have been certified. if we examine those states that have generally finished their vote counts and have no legal contest at the moment then the current electoral vote count would be 227 biden vs 229 trump. so technically trump is currently winning even if the mainstream media wants to brainwash you into believing something else. absolutely not. the proposal to abolish the electoral college is the horrid, but depressingly predictable, symptom of a populist age.populism is not a schematic philosophy but is rather an attitude toward culture and politics characterized by the veritable worship of "the common man," a distrust of elites, a wariness toward complexity and - significantly - a deep dislike of established institutions. (called these days, "the establishment" or "the swamp.") in this, then, the movement to abolish the electoral college is part of a larger current running through the society.indeed, at the same time that there have been calls to abolish the electoral college, there have also been calls to abolish the u. s. senate, or abolish the filibuster, to pack the supreme court (or limit the terms of justices or make other changes), to raise the voting age to 16 and in some cases to allow illegal immigrants to vote. what all of these have in common is that they take a torch to established institutions, particularly those institutions that put a break on the pure expression of the popular will.indeed, this is not just a phenomenon on the democratic side of the aisle at the moment. the republicans have been vocal in their attacks on the "media" - as if that were a single entity - and on silicon valley - which in the popular mode of the hour has discriminated and oppressed conservatives, it is alleged.most of all, republican who are feigning outrage over senator warren's call to abolish the electoral college are forgetting that one donald j. trump has advocated its abolition as well - at least until it helped him win. mr. trump - like all good populists - is no slave to consistency, after all.at any rate, abolition of the electoral college would be a horrid idea. it would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the country as both parties would camp out in california, new york, texas, florida and maybe ohio, leaving the rest of the country to itself. this would also very likely set the stage for the rise of regional parties, with all that would entail for the balkanization of the nation's politics.moreover, if the nation enjoyed the spectacle of the 2000 election, it should be prepared. in that year, the fight was over florida's electoral votes which confined the battle - as a legal and political matter - to the vote in one or two counties in that state. turn the battle into a nationwide popular vote and instantly the fight would move to the count in every close vote in every closely fought district across the country.there is irony in this. 2000 was effectively resolved by a ruling in the supreme court - that bastion of elitist judges and lawyers. abolish the electoral college and close votes across the country will invariably end up in the courts as a routine matter.the electoral college has served the nation well for over 200 years and such long established institutions deserve deference. their endurance certainly suggesting that they have worked as well as anything works in an imperfect world.wise societies realize that. which certainly suggests something about the state of american society. people do vote, regardless if they cast a ballot. silence can be thought of as a vote. the reason i say this is that i chose not to vote out of no confidence for the ballot. i would either have voted for something in which i did not believe, or i couldn't "thrown away" with a 3rd party vote, in which i still didn't believe.there is no write in option for "no confidence," and interestingly, if enough people voted this way, the way american voting works, would require either the candidates to all be thrown out, and a new set of candidates, or the government would make their own choice, at which point democracy would be dead. if we look at voting in this manner, it most certainly is compulsory. however, america has an odd obsession of thinking that the common man's vote for president actually matters. local votes will influence politics for a person far more than a presidential vote ever will. this is why many localities have gerrymandering, in order to control the constituency and votes.i personally do not believe my vote will ever make a difference, as it never has in any political election. besides, perpetuating the idea that the common man isn't controlled by our plutocratic corporatist "democracy" is silly, but people will keep on voting and believing that they matter, or are heard. perhaps my view is cynical and pessimistic. i see no reason to change it.c'est la vie. electoral college. trump lost the popular vote. out votes don’t matter because of the electoral college. he should have never won in the first place and the only way we can get him out is if the blue voter turnout is high enough to swing the electoral vote in favor of biden depends on what evidence of voting fraud is presented and how that is addressed by the courts. depends on what you consider to be a productive conversation. but i see no such thing unless there are clear results.another case like this is yet more bait for the media to relish and exacerbate, and yet more opportunities for the cynics to come out saying it's about race or that nothing will ever change.it doesn't seem productive with the attitudes we display in our national conversation. all the while, another family suffers to the backdrop of societal indifference or name-blaming.it strikes me that no one brings up the most prevailing theme amongst all of these cases: fear, and the permeating insecurity that's deeply rooted in the american psyche.all i see is the continued pattern of fear rearing its ugly face in case after case, be it inadequate training, racial & cultural differences, vendettas, or the proliferation of gun ownership.and here, a foreigner gets caught in the middle of this american phenomenon. and while the details are incredibly vague, i feel it could very well have been simply this woman innocently knocking in the vehicle to get the officers attention; something likely innocuous back in australia, but certainly something most americans wouldn't dare attempt. and she suffered the ultimate price for it.culture and mentality takes a long time to change. and the more we continue to be equal-but-separate, i can't even imagine a productive conversation, let alone a result.i'm sorry, but no matter how much the cry for justice, or even the delivery of such, that alone will not be enough to alter the course of history and our future. i am far more concerned with people soft on crime yet want to make criminals out of legal gun owners. i am more concerned about people who think any loser should be allowed in america. if anyone has hid out for so many years they should be allowed to stayand if they breed a litter of kids on our tax dollars they should stay. if i may be permitted. i have worked in politics for over 30 years, including time as a legislative director and/or press secretary for four members of the house and - via the u. s. commission on security and cooperation in europe - two senators. my credentials and my sins thereby confessed i offer the following - 1) senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. though not an ideas guy, he is a shrewd and effective parliamentary operator who knows the senate rules perhaps as well or better than any senate majority leader in recent memory. temperate and highly effective, he is a superb coalition builder with an exquisite sense of timing. 2) senator john neely kennedy. also not necessarily an ideas guy, though solidly grounded in his principles, kennedy has a rapier wit that he is not afraid to deploy against both sides. an acid tongue, he calls 'em as he sees 'em, and yet somehow manages to maintain - maybe it is the southern accent - an air of civility and reasonableness. 3) senator ben sasse. a former college president, sasse is one of the most intellectual and thoughtful senators. a man who takes ideas seriously and who understands the consequences of ideas. he is the soft-spoken - and frankly much underestimated - intellectual giant of the senate. 4) senator joe manchin. from west virginia, manchin is a temperate thinker and coalition builder. not given to inflammatory language, he seeks balance and compromise. 5) senator dianne feinstein - although lately i must admit her conduct has disappointed, generally feinstein sticks to her principles - which i, more often than not, do not share - but does so in modulated tones and thoughftully. no fire breather, she makes her case soberly and intellectually. (though to add, of late, some of her actions - particularly in recent kavanaugh supreme court confirmation - have not been at her historically high standard.) 6) former representative trey gowdy - actually, not an active politician any longer and is now a fox commentator, gowdy is a former criminal prosecutor and house member. he knows the law better then most know there own name and brings to his thinking a piercing intellect and consistency of principle like few others. he is sorely missed by me in the house. suffice to say, i could go on, but those figures stand out as my, "if you wake me in the middle of the night and ask me out of the blue, these pop to mind" answers. however, my experience in politics is that, contrary to also the populist contempt, most of those who go into politics are intelligent and civic minded, hard working and eager to make the country better and the people they serve happier. like any large group of human beings, they have their foibles, none are perfect and some are downright awful. however, overall, the american public gets better than it appreciates. you know the left has no compelling argument on their side, nor evidence or reason to support their positions. lacking anything credible the only thing left is insulting and spewing hate. so so sad to watch the “rule of law” states that everyone, regardless of any discrimination, is equal before the law. in an independent and democratic india, all citizens from a rickshaw puller to the prime minister are to be judged equally before the law if they violate it by committing a crime. every violation of a law or commitment of a criminal offense has a specific process to establish guilt and cite its punishment. the “rule of law” ensures that equality is maintained by passing the same judgment on a criminal regardless of his/her status or background.
violations of the “rule of law” are, sadly enough, aplenty in india. in our country, if one has power or “contacts” with influential people, then it is easy to get away with even gross violations of laws and rules. for example, most politicians today own property and wealth worth crores but they do not even file tax returns on the same. the assets they declare are probably not even half of what they originally own. however, an ordinary income tax official cannot dare to question them for fear of losing his job, because the former have “power” that this official does not possess.