New Posts

Aldebaran · 2025-11-18T22:47:07-0600

Job 33:6 said:
For many Americans, the ACA has saved money, especially among people who qualify for premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions. Research shows that low-income adults receiving these subsidies experienced significantly lower out-of-pocket costs, including a 17% overall reduction and a 30% drop in the likelihood of catastrophic medical bills. Cost-sharing reductions can also shrink deductibles dramatically, in some cases from over $3,000 to just a few hundred dollars. Studies from the Commonwealth Fund and UCLA confirm that the ACA improved financial protection for millions by lowering what people pay both at the doctor and at tax time.

All at at cost of $1,500,000,000,000 (and increasing each year) to the taxpayers (and their great-great grandchildren).
"Save money!" Ha!

bob121 · 2025-11-18T22:45:43-0600

Robban said:
Do you know who brought the realization to my attention, it was the late .Rabbi Sir Johnathan Sachs.

I was reading an article written by him where he wote that many say, Bibel, Law, Torah, commandments but it is not,

it is instructions. And I was like, yeah thought something was off somewhere.

Though it is common to say Commandments, Bibel, Torah, Law for it is just so,

But it gives a friendly and personal touch to say, instructions. For me at any rate.

Robban, I hear you and I value that friendly, personal touch—calling them “instructions” keeps the tone warm and welcoming. I appreciate your voice on this. Have a wonderful day/night.

Dan Perez · 2025-11-18T22:34:43-0600

pasifika said:
Hi, there are going to be many priests. In fact the bible talks about a kingdom of priests in the new kingdom 1Peter 2:9,
In the new covenant we are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices which means we are to do good, proclaiming the Gospel and do the Will of God etc, Romans 12:1, Heb 13:15,16

And in. Matt 19:28 the 12 apostles will sit on. 12 Thrones judging. the 12 tribes of Israel

And in EZE 40:39-----45:17. THERE are 6 offering. !!

dan p

FaithT · 2025-11-18T22:34:39-0600

RileyG said:
Yup. That’s usually the norm wherever I go.

Same here.

RileyG · 2025-11-18T22:33:30-0600

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.
Amen

A2SG · 2025-11-18T22:28:48-0600

Always in His Presence said:
The top five beneficiaries of money from the health care insurance industry are/have been Democrats - Did you know Chuck Schumer received 600,000 from them?

I don't know how much any individual politician specifically received (I'd love to know your source for that info, by the way, it'd be nice to know), but I do know that, industry wide, the money goes all around. A little more than half allocated to GOP candidates, but the for-profit health insurance industry is profitable enough to spread the wealth in a wide net.

Which is why I've always thought that using for-profit health insurance companies to fund health care (instrumental to the Heritage Foundation plan the ACA was based on) was a fundamentally bad idea. On that, we agree.

-- A2SG, just imagine if that money went to pay for the actual health needs of people who need it, huh?

keras · 2025-11-18T22:26:51-0600

Guojing said:
Thus, my simple conclusion was that Galatians 6:16, Paul cannot be calling us the Israel of God.

Then who are the Israelites of God?

Don't tout the current citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, because those Jesus rejecting people, who break the Commandments and rely on their own strength, - belong to Satan. Rev 2:9b
WE Christian peoples are the Overcomers for God, literally His true Israelite people. Any other idea is just believed in order to support the false 'rapture to heaven' theory
We all know how Jesus offered Salvation to all who would accept it. The idea that anyone who rejects Jesus, is still in Gods favour, is an anathema and a contradiction to Bible truths.

The fate of Judah, is well Prophesied in many scriptures. Only a remnant will survive; to join with their Christian brethren.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-18T22:23:45-0600

Fervent said:
I'm not sure how tax burdens are determined, quarterly?

You file taxes quarterly? (and we're not talking about any tax burden. Just an annual form of accounts.

Fervent said:
It has an inhibitory effect that could easily qualify as a restriction on free exercise.

It isn't.

rocknanchor · 2025-11-18T22:21:16-0600

boughtwithaprice said:
Forgive me, I do not wish to make your thinking an amusement. I want to understand what you are saying.
Acts 20:29 does say that savage wolves will come in, and we can see it going on even today, but the verse does not say that the Apostles would become wolves themselves.
Would it not make sense for us, almost 2000 yrs later, to attempt to discern Apostolic teaching?

Your right on track, it would indeed make such sense. I should have worded more accurately, Apostle's prophetic soon-coming attack of wolves.

boughtwithaprice said:
I like that you rely on the word of God and not necessarily the words of men. Scripture says we are to study to show ourselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

As you say later on, the word itself commenting on words and traditions of men and ''every wind of doctrine''. How much the commonwealth of the Church has taken on so much baggage soundly has ''turned aside''.

boughtwithaprice said:
I came across a second century work by Iraneus, who was taught by Polycarp, who directly knew John the Apostle. It is called Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Are you familiar with it?
I believe that it is worth the read in light of today’s many hermeneutics.

What I got from it is that it is not outward appearances that count, but the complete denial of ourselves in following in Christs footsteps

Facinating!! No, un-familiar with that work. Only vaguely familiar with Iraneus, but not Polycarp. Did he have freedom to visit John on Patmos? Well yes, as the Gospel narrative of self-denial is repeated several times short of the Spirit's compelling remark for self-preservation, , (1Cor 11:22)

boughtwithaprice said:
I like the Assemblies of God in that they believe signs and wonders should follow those that believe. The Gospel is not proclaimed by logic alone. The problem I have is that signs and wonders alone can be deceiving. Scripture tells us that Antichrist will come with signs and wonders and be so convincing as to deceive the very elect. How are we to tell the difference and have proper discernment?

Right! SO-glad to hear. Now you do recall the Apostle John did instruct to ''test the spirits to see whether they be of God''. Now that test it goes on is in the spirit's confession. I like how Jesus put it, we know them ''by their fruits'', not just by their spoken words. Almost all our teachers of renown will remark that false teachers will consistently stray from glorifying the risen Christ. I might add what Paul said of Satan's preacher's 'righteous' over-shot from the pulpit. (2Cor 11:15).

boughtwithaprice said:
Blessings and peace to you form Our Lord Jesus Christ, and great topic for a thread. I would hope to continue a pleasant discussion with you

My-yes! Peace be multiplied to you and your's in that matchless name of Jesus Christ, to whom all glory rest. Eager to do the same. I may be a space receiving any additional as I know others as well as you do too. But thank you very much and God bless!

CoreyD · 2025-11-18T22:16:21-0600

Fervent said:
Pressing the question is not the same as making a claim.

Fervent said:
The full scope of the philosophical question is not restricted by your OP.

You were not claiming the question is a philosophical question?

Fervent said:
A dash of humility goes a long way.

Suppose I came to your house and said, I am a jeweler, and you ask, what kind of jewelry I make, or sell.
If I said I don't know what jewelry is, nor how to identify jewelry, would you consider me humble?
Would you really consider me a jeweler?

Fervent said:
The question isn't do, but how?

No. It's do, because if they do, then they know what the truth is.
If they do, and
Fervent said:
It's not a missing "the", it's the wheel that is created. If you don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, how do you go about answering either question?

Then, humility would lead one to one conclusion.
If Jesus' followers know the truth, and I don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, then I ....................
I know what I would say. What would you say.

Fervent said:
You tell me

I did more than tell you all. I showed you all.
However, I can do it again, more thoroughly.

Jesus said at John 8:31, 32

“"If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples.. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set free you."

At Luke 24:27-31, after Jesus, beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, explained to two of his followers the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures, they said...

“Were our hearts not burning within us when He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

John 7:14, 15

Jesus went up into the temple and was teaching. Then the Jews were marveling, saying, "How does this one know such writings, not having studied?"

At Acts 17:2, we read...

And according to the custom with Paul, he went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures

On a occasion, when Paul and Silas were in Berea, teaching in a Synagogue of the Jews, and according to Acts 17:11, those listening

received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

Acts 18:24-28
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the Scriptures.
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
27 When Apollos resolved to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On his arrival, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.
28 For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

What Jesus taught was from the scriptures.
What Jesus' followers taught was from the scriptures.
Those who listened to, and accepted what they were taught, found the truth. How?
What is "the appropriate method for making the identification?"

The answer:
When one studies the scriptures with the help of those sent by God, the truth of the scriptures become clearly recognizable.
Being able to identify those sent by God, and doing so by means of the scriptures, which reveal the truth, is crucial.

Why it sounds circular, is, because both the message and the messenger work together... What the messenger says, agrees with the scriptures, and what he explains, he does, by using the scriptures. The scriptures provide the truth. The messenger "opens it up" for the listener.

All the scriptural examples above, harmonize with Acts 8:26-40; 2 Timothy 3:14-16
It's summed up by the apostle John in 1 John 4:6

We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. That is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.

One cannot know the truth if they refuse to listen to the messengers of God, who guides them by means of the scriptures from where the truth is found. The messenger is the one Jesus leads by spirit. So, both the scriptures and the message by the one sent, are a product of holy spirit.
If you do not understand this, that's okay. I will understand.

Fervent said:
It takes engaging with it to make a determination

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Fervent said:
the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OP

That's usually a problem.
Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it - this is folly and disgrace to him.

Fervent said:
This is exactly the circularity I was referring to

I'm not sure what "This" refers to.

prodromos · 2025-11-18T22:15:59-0600

Michie said:
The ‘ultimate multitaskers’ are pretty ambidextrous.

A MATING PAIR OF WILD OCTOPUS AMERICANUS, ONE DISPLAYING THE ARM

With three hearts, blue blood, and eight arms that seem to have a mind of their own, octopuses are among the ocean’s most fascinating creatures. Their signature limbs and complex nervous system help them explore, communicate, capture prey, and mate in many marine habitats. Now, scientists are unlocking some of the secrets embedded in these arms, namely whether they have some degree of “handedness.”

A new study of octopuses in the wild found that all eight arms can do multiple actions, but their front arms are primarily used for movement and exploration, while the back arms are used to support movement. The findings are published today in the journal Scientific Reports.

“Octopuses are ultimate multitaskers–all arms are capable of all arm behaviors and all arm deformations,” Chelsea Bennice, study co-author and a marine biologist at Florida Atlantic University, tells Popular Science. “They can even use multiple arm actions on a single arm and on several arms at the same time.”

Continued below.

Octopus arms are the animal kingdom's most flexible

The ‘ultimate multitaskers’ are pretty ambidextrous.

www.popsci.com

They are also delicious.

DamianWarS · 2025-11-18T22:05:25-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
You are using your own reasoning, this is what I reject. No where in the Bible says this is what the Sabbath is for and we can just disregard God's clearly spoken and written Word. What He warns against doing Isa8:20

I accept what God commanded and trust when He said the Sabbath is made for man, it doesn't mean against man as some sadly teach.

Darkness is sin, untruth and unrighteousness, disobeying God's commandments is sin 1John3:4 James2:11, what Jesus is calling us out from if we hear His voice Joh3:19-21 Heb3:9-17 Obeying God's commandments they way He said because He is God is Truth Psa119:151, righteousness Psa119:172 Isa56:1-2 which His is everlasting Psa119:142 and reconciles through our love and faith in our Creator hearing His voice, doing what He asks because He is God and we trust Him. Rev22:14

The redemptive message is baked into the account. you yourself causally reference darkness as sin, so what then is the darkness of creation if not sin? what is the light spoken into darkness if not Christ? These are not made-up metaphors but biblically revealed. To start light into darkness is an extremely well-used metaphor used in the bible and indeed is rooted in creation (the references are numerous). Christ calls himself the light of the world (John 8:12, John 9:5). John 1 is also a parallel to the creation account itself, showing us that Christ is the light of the beginning. v4-5 "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.". You're being careful and rejecting this (which would be silly) but refusing to comment on it seems like you're refusing to look at this using critical biblical revelation or taking the bible as a whole not isolated verses. But it's even more explicit still 2 Cor 4:6 "for God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." This is direct biblical confirmation that the creation account is a parallel to the new creation. The "new creation" itself should be enough as an explicit reference to the [old] creation.

Heb 4 shows the rest is through faith not work, opening with (1) "...since the promise of entering his rest still stands..." (3) " Now we who have believed enter that rest..." So it is through belief we enter rest, not through observance. v3 continues "And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world" so if the work is already finished, what is our role? merely to receive the rest but if decoupled from the work then the rest is only superficial; we must receive the completed work to also receive the rest. Hebrew 4 shows us this is through faith (belief) not through works (observance).

v6 "Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience" the context is addressing the disobedience of Israel (from Joshua referenced in v8) which resulting in them not entering the promised land (promise land is another 7th day/salvation/sabbath reference) but v10 pulls it all together "for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." How does God enter rest? through completed work (this is explicit in Gen 2:2). If by entering God's rest is implicit God's work then the conditions of 7th day in Gen 2 are the parameters and completed work us shown to be a part of the rest and it cannot be decoupled as it can be when looking at an isolated form of the 4th commandment. Merely performing ritual rest every 7th day will not enter God's rest. It is not the ritual God is looking for but it must be from belief (v3) coupled with the completed work (v10). This is the gospel message. Gal 6:15 "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation." (this verse can be mirrored with 1 Cor 7:19 and Gal 5:6). This is decoupling the new creation with ritual circumcision which can broadly be seen as representative of ritual observance of the law, (certainly if you read of Galations, this is the message)

The creation account of Gen 1 and 2 has a redemptive meaning that would be fruitless to reject and it would be irresponsible if we do not include this in our sabbath day understanding. Sabbath is not just the 4th commandment/7th day isolated. We must view the bible as a whole; if we do not, we are only looking a sabbath in a vacuum without full revelation.

chevyontheriver · 2025-11-18T22:03:47-0600

Always in His Presence said:
No, it’s the truth. Anyone who thinks they can speak for an entire people group, let alone three is either delusional or a megalomaniac

Thank you, I think, for calling me either delusional or megalomaniacal. Or did I misread you?

Always in His Presence said:
I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church. Still have my scapula and Bible. My dad was a seminarian before he met my mother. I can still sing Christmas carols in Latin.

None of which impresses me at all. Sorry. Plenty of people can sing Adestes Fidelis in Latin even if they are not Catholic.

Always in His Presence said:
We prayed for the dead because that is what tradition told us to do. I can only speak for myself

Thank you for that answer. Kind of what I expected.

Always in His Presence said:
Can I ask a favor. Please stop treating me as an enemy or someone attacking you or your religion. Asking questions is how we learn.

Asking questions to learn is fine. Did you really learn anything in all of these posts or was your conclusion predetermined? My hunch is that you asked the question as you did to get a predetermined answer. The word 'purgatory' isn't in the Bible, so you could be comfortable in concluding the whole thing is 'extra-Biblical'. Leaving no need to even address the issue of why Jews and the Orthodox and the Catholics bothered to pray for their dead. Except that's what tradition told them to do, as you now say.

I guess you could convince me that your thread was not intended as an attack on the Catholic Church. It would be a little bit of an uphill slog though to convince me.

prodromos · 2025-11-18T22:03:46-0600

BNR32FAN said:
You’re going to pretend that you can’t understand a simple distance and time calculation?

I don't think she is pretending. Mention any distance over 3000 miles and her eyes glaze over.

timothyu · 2025-11-18T22:03:38-0600

jacks said:
No need to worry, it doesn't say a thing about which denomination you belong to.

If you recall, the first followers and Apostles of Jesus were not of any denomination. They weren't even Christians as we know it. Were they saved? Of course. Salvation is not tied to the religion.

Servus · 2025-11-18T22:02:52-0600

bob121 said:
We’ve all seen it: you ask for testimonies of grace and within five posts someone’s waving Psalm 137:9 or Hitler to prove a point.
The food-fight starts, the original question sinks, and the encouragers log off.

Do we engage the detour in hopes of gospel witness, or gracefully bow out and let the algorithm bury the mess?

Any practical filters you use before hitting “reply”?

Share one sentence rule you follow when the trolls arrive.
Grace,
bob121 – Tokyo

You should probably post the kinds of threads you start in the Christians Only section. When you post here in the open to all area, you're probably going to get people who are antagonistic towards Christianity. When I post in the open to all section it's because I want the input of non-christians, anti-christians and so on. People usually post here to pit Christian ethics and morality against secular ethics and morality.

St_Worm2 · 2025-11-18T21:55:36-0600

Wind Farm

AV1611VET · 2025-11-18T21:43:42-0600

Bradskii said:
Definitions are always good before you start a discussion, so can you tell us what definition you are using for life?

This video explains it, starting at 02:00 :

Login to view embedded media
To summarize it, life must have the following qualities:

Similar to others of its kind, but not an exact duplicate.
Able to repair and duplicate itself.
Able to adjust to changing environmental conditions.
An urge or drive toward self-fulfillment.

Fantine · 2025-11-18T21:31:03-0600

Always in His Presence said:
California voters established an independent redistricting commission in 2010 to prevent gerrymandering. Newsom’s plan would override this process temporarily, using a constitutional amendment and a special election scheduled for November 4.

Unlike Texas, where the Legislature determines congressional lines, California voters in 2010 gave that power to a bipartisan citizen commission. The commission draws a new map once each decade, after the U.S. Census, to ensure each congressional district has roughly an equal number of people. It last did so in 2021.

The Governor want to remove that power from the voters and place it under his authority - a direct move against the Democratic Process.

Newsom is proposing to temporarily override the commission and create districts more favorable to Democrats until after the 2030 Census. That requires going to the voters for their approval.

Sure looks like a direct attack on the Democratic process to make political appointment without voters consent.

A Politico poll found that nearly two-thirds of California voters prefer retaining the state’s independent redistricting commission over returning authority to the Legislature to draw congressional lines.

It is sad that action by Texas, North Carolina, Utah and other states to deny representation to their progressive citizens through chicanery and gerrymandering has forced governors like Newsome to take a step back form redistricting commissions---in order to make sure that the majority of their citizens, and progressives in other states, would have a voice.

Republican attacks on democracy have reached such a fever pitch that if principled leaders like Newsome failed to take a stand we wouldn't have a democracy by 2028.

com7fy8 · 2025-11-18T21:22:27-0600

stevevw said:
God works in mysterious ways.

God's ways are "past finding out," we have in Romans 11:33.

I knew I did not know what passing people were thinking. But I could assume and then talk to what someone thought or might think. And sometimes a person would talk back while I was yet speaking, and I would answer

stevevw said:
I think if we start getting into the hot topics of the day thats when it starts to evoke politics. Or attract dissenters who are looking for a fight. I think its the big questions in life that people relate to. They are looking for answers.

My opinion >

In the United States, Christian activists have given us a "list" of things that are wrong, and we are being urged to speak out against and make laws against these things.

But adultery is not on the list.

Smoking isn't really getting attention, even with all the ruin coming from this.

And then we can get into what has caused the public "list" of things to be possible, the way we are seeing now in the United States. The people doing these things were brought up as children in American households. If what they are doing is really wrong . . . what made them able to get into the stuff?

Well . . . if something is wrong, it is against how God desires for us to love. God desires for us to become all-loving in sensitive submissive sharing with our Heavenly Father and our Groom Jesus and each other. But things said to be wrong can have people broken and weak so they can not relate well intimately and love any and all people like our example Jesus.

What are they weak about? Pleasure. And their weakness for pleasure makes them also weak so they can suffer emotionally and be nasty and angry reacting, versus how our Creator's love all-loving can make us creative for how to love any person, at all, and enjoy discovering this.

What helps children to grow up weak and not knowing how to love?

arguing and complaining

unforgiveness

beauty discrimination

picking and choosing who is worth loving, who deserves to be loved

self-righteous criticizing

And so they are deeply weak, desperate to feel something nicer than their own conceited and selfish nature. And so their desperation for pleasure takes them with others to do what is not loving. They did not have examples at home, and now they are with others like themselves who get them nowhere good.

And a point could be how such kids were brought up in even Bible-claiming families . . . where also there could be >

worry

hurry

workaholism

Not learning how to rest in Jesus in His love with His almighty immunity against any and all lusts and fear and personality torment.

So, instead of trying to politically stop the *end*-products of how even church culture families have been bringing up children . . . deal with the stuff at home which has helped to produce kids who do not know how to love. With Jesus alone . . . this is possible >

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

So, as I "preach" now . . . I give attention to how we ourselves can get real correction with God and then we can help anyone to do better > by our >

example > 1 Peter 5:3

all-loving prayer > 1 Timothy 2:1-4

obeying God, doing what He personally has us doing with Him > Genesis 22:18

all which His word says for us to do . . . how He in us has us doing what He knows He means by His word > Isaiah 55:11, Philippians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13

JSRG · 2025-11-18T21:21:43-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
I've considered the congressional aspect you mentioned, but I don't think it solves the problem (at least in terms of a replacement), and I'll tell you why...

1) It's still going to be employed in a partisan fashion. No Democratic partisan congress is going to make a motion to pardon a well known Republican figure, and no Republican controlled congress is ever going to make a motion to pardon a well known Democratic figure.

Given that Democratic partisan presidents aren't much in the habit of pardoning well known Republican figures*, and vice versa, I don't see how this is particularly different. And before anyone says "well, what about Biden's preemptive pardons of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?" Well, (1) those pardons were not specific to them, but applied to the the entire January 6 Select Committee, and (2) both had effectively exited the Republican Party by that point (they endorsed Kamala Harris!), so I would say they no longer count as "well known Republican figures".

ThatRobGuy said:
2) If it's a collaborative solution (where a president has to do it with the approval of congress), it's going to be viewed as obstructionist when the congress is not on the same team as the Pres, and viewed as a farcical formality ("rubber stamp") when congress is on the same side as the Pres.

I don't think it would be as much of a rubber stamp as people think it is. There's a reason why Presidents normally wait until the end of their terms to issue controversial pardons: Doing so is unpopular and one should try to do it at a time when it is unlikely to rebound either upon you or your party. But people in congress have much less luxury in regards to this. They have to worry about their next elections, particularly if they live in a swing state or swing district. Trump doesn't care if he takes heat for the current pardons he's doing or for the inevitable end-of-term-preemptive-pardons-of-every-member-of-his-family-and-staff that he's almost certainly going to issue just like Biden did. But if a congressman votes for those pardons, then they're going to have to explain to the voters next election "yeah, so here's why I did that." That demands greater accountability. Yes, I'm sure partisan politics will make congress much more subservient to what the President wants if the President is of their party, but there's still limits to that. As we've seen, even Trump has limits in getting the entire Republican congress to go along with something.

ThatRobGuy said:
So all of the same challenges and perceptions of partisan bias will still be in full swing (just with extra steps)

it would, at least, appear to stop the particularly egregious pardons.

ThatRobGuy said:
Now, I have heard an option that I've heard described that I've liked (though I don't know how practical it is) that still has a multi-branch collaboration element.

There's a pardon board (similar to a parole board) comprised of 7 members.
3 appointed by the Senate Majority leader
3 appointed by the Senate Minority leader
1 appointed by the Senate Parliamentarian

(and each of those positions has to be confirmed through the same process as cabinet appointments)

The president has the power to send pardon referrals to that panel, but it needs a 4-3 vote in favor to "pass".

This seems like it has multiple problems. The Senate Parliamentarian seems a position so far removed from anything like this that suddenly making them a kingmaker on something like this is problematic given it has nothing to do with their actual job;one might as well give the power to a bailiff of the Supreme Court. Further, the Senate Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Senate Majority leader, who can just remove them at any time, meaning this functionally is a 4/3 in favor of the Senate majority.

ThatRobGuy said:
Ultimately, this is a sticky wicket because of the fact that the founders (despite having many awesome ideas about checks and balances), didn't have a great solution or remediation element to the fact that the judicial branch has an outsized amount of power compared to the other 2.

And the judicial branch is the only one for which there's no rigid tangible standard by which to "un-do" what they do. (outside the branch itself)

But it isn't the "judicial branch" that actually convicts people. It's the jury, taken from the general public. I suppose someone could say a jury becomes part of the judicial branch, but it's on such a temporary basis I find that questionable. In any event, this might be an argument against removing any ability to ever pardon a guilty person, but again that's not the argument. The suggestion is to remove the pardoning power from the President and leave it to Congress, subject to the President's veto power. Congress, as far as I understand, already has that power (and if it doesn't, the same amendment process removing it from the President can give it to them).

And there are indeed ways to undo what the judicial branch does from outside. Some of them are roundabout (bringing in new judges to undo a decision, or in the case of convictions amending the law), but they're there.

In contrast, there is nothing that can presently undo a pardon. Nothing. Once the President issues it, it's done. There is some question as to whether preemptive pardons are constitutional (they haven't been tested in court, in large part because I think prior to Biden only one preemptive pardon had ever been issued, namely Ford's pardon of Nixon, who subsequent Presidents didn't have interest in going after), but even if we restrict ourselves to pardons of crimes convicted, once it's done it's done. No one can undo that pardon--not another branch, not even a different President. Even if a President gets impeached over corrupt pardons and kicked out of office, the pardons stick. Heck, if the impeachment process starts and it's certain the President will be kicked out, they can go on a pardoning spree before Congress can actually do their vote to kick them out. It strikes me as very odd in a system of checks and balance to give a power that cannot be stopped or undone and is completely under the control of just one person who can do it at any time. So having pardons be passed like regular laws would actually be fixing the checks and balances system by having such an undoable power require two branches (Congress could do it by themselves if they have a veto proof majority).

ThatRobGuy said:
Plus, the branch is unique in that the "Supremacy Clause" doesn't fully apply.

A state level judge technically has the power to say "I deem this federal law to be unconstitutional, so this state won't be enforcing it for the time being"

No such dynamic exists in the other two branches.

And then that judge can be overruled by a higher court. However, even if we grant this as a problem, how does the President have unilateral power to pardon solve it? The pardon power isn't about constitutional violations, but convictions. It's like saying "the justice system is too harsh on drug crimes so we should limit their power by increasing speed limits to make it harder to arrest people for speeding."

Fantine · 2025-11-18T21:20:44-0600

Vambram said:
IMO, what you believe is evidence is actually stuff from a progressive liberal left wing point of view which also has extreme anti-Trump biases.

Forgive me for believing world class historians like Heather Cox Richardson, world-class economists like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, award-winning media which always requires one primary or two or more secondary sources.

Trump's falsehoods are easy to spot. As soon as he opens his mouth, warning lights start flashing around me. They are frequently outrageously ridiculous and absurd--the only things more ridiculous are generally the pained faces of the people behind him. Rubio usually looks like he wishes he could either sink into the floor or wear a cloak of invisibility.

The media who promote these blatantly obvious lies as truth are without conscience or integrity.

New Posts

New Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page