Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[westwall]

Read the rules, no ad homs. Back up your claims, or offer a solid path of reasoning. You haven't.

No, one judicial philosophy on the court is a kind of judicial tyranny.

You have no clue as to how to debate. vacuous claims are not an argument. Read the rules set forth in the OP.

He didn't use an ad hom. He pointed out that the progressive left is very happy to support judicial political advocacy, so long as it is THEIR judicial political advocacy.

Not so much if it is the conservatives merely upholding the COTUS.

 

[hadit]

I know there are issues with the smaller states, but we legislate a solution. For one thing, there will never be more than three candidates with enough votes to win any electors and the third party rarely wins electors at all (Ross Perot was an anomaly), all other candidates will be someone who no one has ever heard of, they never make the debate stage and they aren't going to win any electors. But, the rule could be that if there are only 2 electors, they go to the top two winners, if there is one elector, the winner gets it. Simple.

1. The federal government cannot constitutionally dictate how the states select electors. It can't dictate how those electors are supposed to vote, so any legislation would have to come from the states themselves.
2. Eventually, we're going to have a situation where there are more candidates within striking distance of winning than there are electors. Anomalies do happen. Ross Perot did exist.
3. We're going to have cases where the top candidate receives 80% of the votes, and the second maybe 10%. Is it really fair to the winner to have his electors split?

There are more problems than solutions to splitting electors like that. It would be nice, though, to see California stop being such a slam dunk for democrats. I can guarantee that they would do everything they could think of to stop that from happening.

 

[Rumpole]

1. The federal government cannot constitutionally dictate how the states select electors. It can't dictate how those electors are supposed to vote, so any legislation would have to come from the states themselves.

Winner-take-all isn't in the constitution, so it could be challenged on constitutional grounds, and the day will come, when the court becomes more reflective of the will of the people, i.e., a more liberal court, that it will:
Winner-take-all electoral college system is unconstitutional, say suits led by Boies,

2. Eventually, we're going to have a situation where there are more candidates within striking distance of winning than there are electors. Anomalies do happen. Ross Perot did exist.

Happened what, once in 233 years? BD

3. We're going to have cases where the top candidate receives 80% of the votes, and the second maybe 10%. Is it really fair to the winner to have his electors split?

I say take only electors earned, and no more.

There are more problems than solutions to splitting electors like that. It would be nice, though, to see California stop being such a slam dunk for democrats. I can guarantee that they would do everything they could think of to stop that from happening.

Yes, my idea would be fairer, and no dem or repub would ever again grab all of CA's , nor Texas's, or FlA's, electors.

 

[Rumpole]

Not only are you stupid Moon Bats butt hurt over not having a majority on the Supreme Court but you little turds can't stand the fact that our Founding Fathers established an Electoral College.

Yeah, even the founding fathers were unable to foresee a situation where a state would have 39 million people.

Given their myopia, which is reasonable myopia, no one could have foreseen it back then, we can correct it by legislation, or create an amendment to rid the nation of the EC.

 

[Rumpole]

Court packing, like that scumbag fdr threatened, is a desperate ploy by those hungry for power and threatened by our time-tested form of government.

What we have now is court stacking, stacked 6/3 in repubs favor. so now there is a good reason to expand the court, to rebalance it more in tune with the will of the people.

FDR is universally considered, alongside Lincoln and Washington, to be among the best presidents to have ever occupied the office.

 

[Unkotare]

What we have now is court stacking, .....

WRONG. What we have now is our form of government functioning as intended. This nonsense is the same as if we tried to change the Presidency because a democrat is currently president.

 

[Unkotare]

...

FDR is universally considered, alongside Lincoln and Washington, to be among the best presidents to have ever occupied the office.

The scumbag fdr was the worst POS to ever soil the oval Office.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL claiming that winner take all isnt in the Constitution is a red herring. there is nothing in the Constitution on how a state decides what and who gets electors. Originally most states didnt even have elections and a state legislature chose electors which means historically winner take all was the way it was done.

 

[The Duke]

One senator per 5 million people. 2 per state minimum.


People are people. One person, one vote. It doesn't get more fairer than that.

Look, dipshit, you are nowhere near smart enough to start second-guessing the Founding Fathers of The United States

of America. You probably live in a flat somewhere in some foreign countryand have never seen a bear or coyote in real life except at a zoo.

If even that.

 

[Flash]

Yeah, even the founding fathers were unable to foresee a situation where a state would have 39 million people.

Given their myopia, which is reasonable myopia, no one could have foreseen it back then, we can correct it by legislation, or create an amendment to rid the nation of the EC.

They also didn't foresee a country where 30 million damn Illegals would move to the big city shitholes and change the voting demographics so they can get welfare.

Also, in their time the Negroes weren't even allowed to vote. They are the main voting block of the Democrat filth in the large cities.

The Electoral College was a big compromise by both sides by our Founding Fathers in order to get everybody to agree on the Constitution.

It doesn't give us real Americans much of an advantage over the welfare Moon Bats but it is a little help and have served us well on occasion, like in 2016.

Democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government. The EC is a small buffer against the majority fucking this country and that is a good thing. I wish it was larger.

 

[Unkotare]

They also didn't foresee a country where 30 million damn Illegals would move to the big city shitholes and change the voting demographicmso [sic] they can get welfare.
....

1) You pulled that number from your ass

2) Illegal aliens don't vote.

3) Illegal immigrants do not qualify for almost any federal welfare benefits.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1) You pulled that number from your ass

2) Illegal aliens don't vote.

3) Illegal immigrants do not qualify for almost any federal welfare benefits.

illegals count in the census. Giving certain state more representation then others. Effecting all federal elections.

 

[Rawley]

Yeah, even the founding fathers were unable to foresee a situation where a state would have 39 million people.

How is that relevant? VA had 20 times the population of GA. Electors were/are divided up proportionally

Given their myopia, which is reasonable myopia, no one could have foreseen it back then, we can correct it by legislation, or create an amendment to rid the nation of the EC.

No myopia - you just don't like the system.

 

[Flash]

1) You pulled that number from your ass

2) Illegal aliens don't vote.

3) Illegal immigrants do not qualify for almost any federal welfare benefits.

You idiot.

The areas that are flooded with the damn Illegals don't require any voting ID.

Also, thinks to the Democrat filth, whenever somebody signed up for welfare they don't have to reveal their immigration status. In fact the Federal Government is not even allowed to ask.

Illegal immigration now costs US taxpayers $151 billion a year, new study finds

A new study on the costs of illegal immigrants puts the net cost at approximately $150 billion a year, according to a new study by a hawkish immigration group.

www.foxnews.com

Illegal immigration now costs US taxpayers $151 billion a year, new study finds​

The FAIR study estimates a 30% increase since 2017​

 

[hadit]

Winner-take-all isn't in the constitution, so it could be challenged on constitutional grounds, and the day will come, when the court becomes more reflective of the will of the people, i.e., a more liberal court, that it will:
Winner-take-all electoral college system is unconstitutional, say suits led by Boies,

If you go by the constitution, the federal government has little control over how the states select electors. The bottom line remains, the president was NOT supposed to be elected by the popular vote, no matter how hard you try to get around it.

Happened what, once in 233 years? BD

How often does it have to happen? Once.

I say take only electors earned, and no more.

And by stating that a state goes for only one candidate, that candidate earns all the state's electors.

Yes, my idea would be fairer, and no dem or repub would ever again grab all of CA's , nor Texas's, or FlA's, electors.

Once again, the presidency was NOT supposed to be a popularity contest. It's the only office like that.

 

[hadit]

What we have now is court stacking, stacked 6/3 in repubs favor. so now there is a good reason to expand the court, to rebalance it more in tune with the will of the people.

FDR is universally considered, alongside Lincoln and Washington, to be among the best presidents to have ever occupied the office.

No, what we have now is Justices legally appointed by a president in accordance with the Constitution. You're just upset that the timing allowed TRUMP! to appoint so many in such a short period of time. There was nothing illicit about it. And it's not supposed to be swayed by the "will of the people", it's supposed to consider each law brought before it to see if it's legal under the Constitution, NOT according to popularity polls. FDR got slapped down when he really did try to stack the court.

 

[Rumpole]

No, what we have now is Justices legally appointed by a president in accordance with the Constitution.

The constitution does not set the number of justicies.

You're just upset that the timing allowed TRUMP! to appoint so many in such a short period of time. There was nothing illicit about it.

I didn't make that claim. My only claim is that it is stacked 6/3 in favor of conservatives, which is out of sync with the will of the people.

And it's not supposed to be swayed by the "will of the people", it's supposed to consider each law brought before it to see if it's legal under the Constitution, NOT according to popularity polls. FDR got slapped down when he really did try to stack the court.

Horseshit. There is a political reality and if you don't think it exists demonstrate your are blind.

The justices on the court selected by Trump were handpicked by the Federalist society all of whom have a 'judicial philosophy' in accord with a hard right agenda which is a minority agenda.

This idea that conservatives have a monopoly on the proper interpretation of the constitution is the zenith of arrogance.

 

[progressive hunter]

I didn't make that claim. My only claim is that it is stacked 6/3 in favor of conservatives, which is out of sync with the will of the people.

scotus has nothing to do with the will of the people,, their job is to uphold the constitution,,,

and because of that there shouldnt be any liberal justices on the court, only conservatives,,

 

[Rumpole]

If you go by the constitution, the federal government has little control over how the states select electors. The bottom line remains, the president was NOT supposed to be elected by the popular vote, no matter how hard you try to get around it.

THe framers NEVER intended for a minority to elect the president. They tried as best as they could to have the popular vote and the EC to agree. Evidence of that fact is that only 3 times in the 19th century did it not agree.
"... the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

How often does it have to happen? Once.

The distribution of electors will largely be the province of the Democrat and Republican candidates.
Once doesn't change the dynamic such the winner take all shouldn't be abandoned.

And by stating that a state goes for only one candidate, that candidate earns all the state's electors.

states don't elect presidents, electors do,
electors are people,
therefore, people, not states, elect the president.

Once again, the presidency was NOT supposed to be a popularity contest. It's the only office like that.

Wrong, see above.
"

 

[progressive hunter]

THe framers NEVER intended for a minority to elect the president. They tried as best as they could to have the popular vote and the EC to agree. Evidence of that fact is that only 3 times in the 19th century did it not agree.

what they intended is for the states to elect the president and knew democracys are evil and never wanted the people to elect a president,,