Should SCOTUS be increased to 13?

[Papageorgio]

I think the last poll I saw was a slim majority in favor of expansion, but very slim.

Ok

 

[Hutch Starskey]

McConnell had no power to not fill that seat.

He did.

His constitutional duty is to hold a vote on the president’s nominations.

Prove it.

One of the few presidential duties enumerated in the constitution is to fill judicial vacancies.
It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm those nominees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the few presidential duties enumerated in the constitution is to fill judicial vacancies.
It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm those nominees.

Post it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Okay Republicans get to nominate 2 of the 4, deal?

 

[Nostra]

Damn son, you sure are thin skinned. Toughen up a bit.

Do you understand that saying the Republicans might stack the court is not compelling, because that already happened and will happen again, when Trump is elected?

Do you get that? Yes or no?

Link us up the Republicans adding seats to the court, liar.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The popular vote is a window into where the nation is

And it ain’t Republican

Well, judging by the last election, it’s not like the dems have a huge advantage. I admit they do have a slight advantage but, I mean Biden got 82 million votes? Trump got 74 million?

But the popular vote is nothing until the cotus is changed to make it something. If you can accomplish that, then you’ll have your popular vote, and your permanent presidency, and many states will no longer have a voice.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because I'm showing you how it works in other countries.

I'm literally talking about CHANGING THE US SYSTEM and you're complaining I'm talking about other systems?

What?

You keep acting like there can't be any change. And then if there is change, there wouldn't be change.

You're uninterested in learning about other systems... so you have no idea what change would do.

If you're not willing to try and understand, I'm not going to bother.

Because those kinds of changes are never going to happen here. We are a two party nation, and the system is never going to go away from that, we are never going to have the proportional representation you are suggesting because the people who make up the two party system like having a two party system. Neither side is about to let any of that power go.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, it's not Proportional Representation then?

When a person in one state has a vote that is many times stronger than a vote in another state, it's not even democracy, let alone Proportional Representation.

No, it is. California has 39 million people, they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 584,000 people, they have 3 electoral votes.

Now, if you want to argue that California should have more representatives because of their population, that’s an argument to be had because as far as I’m aware, cotus simply says that there will be no less than 30,000 people for every 1 representative, if I read that correctly.

So, why California has only 55 electoral votes, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. Probably has something to do with caps being put on the number of representatives.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hmm, I think the national popular vote still has some meaning. Doing something that most people don't want can be fraught.

Sure, it has inconsequential meaning, and if you want to use it to say there are more dems than repubs, that’s fine, but when it comes to deciding presidents, it doesn’t have any value.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure, it has inconsequential meaning,

Inconsequential?

Have you not seen how congress people who you KNOW despise trump... Kiss his ring to get those votes? This has big consequences.

Let Trump lose by 20 million, see who kisses his ring, then.

But we are talking about two different things.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 912906

This now leaves the votes to the insurrectionists in the government. It is bizarre.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Inconsequential?

Have you not seen how congress people who you KNOW despise trump... Kiss his ring to get those votes? This has big consequences.

Let Trump lose by 20 million, see who kisses his ring, then.

But we are talking about two different things.

I’ve seen the left wing stories that CLAIM they are kissing his ring, but I’ve not seen any actual evidence that that is the case.

Does trump have some influence? I’m sure he does but I’ve not seen anything to suggest repubs “kiss his ring” as it’s suggested.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because those kinds of changes are never going to happen here. We are a two party nation, and the system is never going to go away from that, we are never going to have the proportional representation you are suggesting because the people who make up the two party system like having a two party system. Neither side is about to let any of that power go.

Sigh...

They won't happen because people don't push for it, don't educate themselves.

You're not the first person to use the sort of excuses of "This isn't Europe" and "This isn't going to happen here"

You can either have the conversation about Proportional Representation, learn about it, see why it's far, far superior, then you can maybe, just maybe, have some control over your country.

The fact that so many people are resigned to their dictatorship and seem to like being in a dictatorship is kind of worrying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it is. California has 39 million people, they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 584,000 people, they have 3 electoral votes.

Now, if you want to argue that California should have more representatives because of their population, that’s an argument to be had because as far as I’m aware, cotus simply says that there will be no less than 30,000 people for every 1 representative, if I read that correctly.

So, why California has only 55 electoral votes, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. Probably has something to do with caps being put on the number of representatives.

And 39 million divided by 55 is 709,000
584,000 divided by 3 is 194,000

Welcome to a country that tells other countries to have democracy. It's a joke.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’ve seen the left wing stories that CLAIM they are kissing his ring, but I’ve not seen any actual evidence that that is the case.

Really? Because I have seen their own words out of their own mouths. Have you?

You're trying too hard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it is. California has 39 million people, they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 584,000 people, they have 3 electoral votes.

Now, if you want to argue that California should have more representatives because of their population, that’s an argument to be had because as far as I’m aware, cotus simply says that there will be no less than 30,000 people for every 1 representative, if I read that correctly.

So, why California has only 55 electoral votes, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. Probably has something to do with caps being put on the number of representatives.

So, why California has only 55 electoral votes,

Because they have 53 Representatives and 2 Senators.

 

[Cougarbear]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

No! Should Democrats be burned at the stake?

 

[Nostra]

View attachment 912906

The Constitution “turned it over to Congress” in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, you raving lunatic.

Holy shit you are stupid.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sigh...

They won't happen because people don't push for it, don't educate themselves.

You're not the first person to use the sort of excuses of "This isn't Europe" and "This isn't going to happen here"

You can either have the conversation about Proportional Representation, learn about it, see why it's far, far superior, then you can maybe, just maybe, have some control over your country.

The fact that so many people are resigned to their dictatorship and seem to like being in a dictatorship is kind of worrying.

…I’m just being realistic…this isn’t something that is going to happen. Even if the people pushed for it, those in power will never allow it. What, you think WE actually have any power in this country? That ship sailed long ago when we started allowing the government to get too big, too powerful. Why do you think we have the arguments we do? Because one side believes the government should be constrained, and the other believes the government should have all of the power and be able to dictate what everyone does.

There’s going to be no “push” for proportional representation, because we as the citizens of this country have given up all of our power to the government. They now essentially…no, not essentially..they DO rule over us.


By the way, if this idea of yours were to result in a massive benefit for republicans, would we even be having this conversation?