You don't now understand how stuff works. It doesn't matter whether there's a paper that tells you what to do. Once the majority of people is backing you, you can wipe your ass with the said paper. The case is a little similar to what happened in 1861-1865 in USA. Majority wanted to get rid of the slavery.

I like how, in only a couple of years, the right wing has changed from painting the left as bleeding heart cowards who care for the rights of foreigners and are afraid to go to war, to socialist dictators who want to take away all our rights.

lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.

its funny how power changes people. 10 yrs ago the dems were against subsidies for corporations and were against adding healthcare plans to medicare. Now they pushed the bank bailouts and healthcare plans for all. They didn't like bush working with corporations, and now they own banks and car companies. They were against taxing the "middle class" , now they are pushing a VAT and adding 15 cents to every gallon of gas. They were against the  hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits, and now they push deficits spending in the Trillions as the way to make the economy work. Go figure

Well, if the health care case goes to supreme court and bounces back because it's against the constitution, the constitution needs to be changed in order for it to match the peoples will. Anything else is just madness.

USA didn't break apart, technically speaking. If i'm not mistaken, the southern states are still a part of USA, they just lost the civil war.

Breaking apart doesn't mean that there would be states supporting this and states supporting that. It would likely be a mixed bag of people inside the states supporting X or not supporting. However, who's in control of military forces? The elected government or the opposition?

When someone is talking about the need to change the constitution as times pass, the someone is essentially talking about preventing a situation where people go to arms to run their will.

No, it was all about slavery.  The Constitution and American ideals of democracy and freedom greatly contradicted the institution of slavery.  The South wanted to override the Constition and majority opinion from the founding of the United States of America, even having the gall to want slaves to be represented in Congress, of course their masters would do the voting.

This all came crashing down in 1865 when the North showed the backwards South who was boss.  Don't make us come back down there.  If you thought Sherman's March to the Sea was bad, next time we are going to do zig zags.

Democrats have always been for healthcare, in fact we are one of the few (if not only) developed country without universal healthcare.

Taxes have to go back up for our country to get out of debt.  All these debt problems started with Reagan who thought it would be a good idea to not tax rich people, but instead have wealth trickle down and tax the middle class instead.  Concerning gas tax, roads do not pay for themselves, the construction and maintenance of highways is a huge loss for the government, and the gas tax used to pay for it is nothing compared to the actual cost.  Railroads are the only economically viable form of land transportation.

Democrats have always been better on deficet control than Republicans.  Bill Clinton actually got Ronald Reagan's and George H. W. Bush's spending under control, but George W. Bush has got America in a huge hole with uncontrolled spending, tax cuts for the rich (which gave us no economic benefit), and two ongoing wars that cost trillions.

no Lincoln wanted to override the states rights to chose if they wanted slavery. Thats the root cause, no body in the north was trying to abolish slavery by an amendment to the constitution at the time. Im not sure what they teach you in schools these days. and slaves were already represented in the census count of those yrs. Ever hear of the 3/5ths compromise? Seriously nobody studies history these days. Don't make you come back down there? lol im in New york so you better be watching your six.

Thats why they opposed medicare reform to give seniors health plans?

no spending has to go down to get out of debt; we need true entitlement reform.

Reagon gave us growth. Carter gave us stagflation

Roads are in the states territories they can pay for them.

Dems better than Repubs? What happend after the dems took control in 06? $3.1 trillion in deficits until the end of Bush's term; more than bush and the republicans racked up in 5 yrs.

Clinton got us what? The repubs took over in 94 and almost had a balanced budget(debt went up every year under clinton)

Bush tax cuts got no economic benifit? lol the economy grew so fast that the governement took in more money after the cuts.

Wars costing trillions? sure there expensive but the clinton yrs left us  huge military problems. Restructuring; R&D for new weapon systems and buying them costs alot. Up armoring HMMWVs and M1s costs tons of money too.

The cause of the civil war is not something that can adequately be handled on a web forum because there were several social, economic and political differences between the northern and southern states that were influences/causes of the war; and slavery was more of a cross-cutting concern in all of these areas, but it can not really be called the primary or only cause of the civil war.

Back on topic though, the biggest issue I see with this nominee is that he is an academic with no real experience. Academics are (generally speaking) given the opportunity to only deal with theoretical-ideals in their field, and there is a general disconnect between how they think things work and reality. A non-political example of what I mean by this is that I worked with an individual who received their PHD in Computer Science and taught while doing research for 5 years and, while he was brilliant at solving complicated problems, his code was the least reliable, maintainable and user-friendly code we had ever seen. The reason for this is simple, these are not considerations when developing an application in a research setting; and the 9 years he had after getting his Bachelors degree the typical developer who was working would become fairly decent at dealing with these concerns.

Why this is a problem with a Supreme Court justice is that he is supposed to make the ruling which sets precedence and can not be over-turned by a higher court (because there is no higher court), and without the experience of being a judge at a lower court it is likely that an academic will make judgements based on ideals rather than reality; and the resulting judgement will be wrong.