Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Rumpole]

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

By virtue of the extreme, it does change things.

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

You like it because it allows the tyranny of the minority.

Well, the will of the people is not in accordance with the tyranny of the minority.

Yes, the founders were concerned about the tyranny of the majority but they tempered that with
the establishment of the 3 co-equal branches of government and a bicameral legislature of representatives, but at no time did they want minority rule.

"... the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

There is no idea like one whose time as come.

That idea is democracy.

 

[Rumpole]

what they intended is for the states to elect the president and knew democracys are evil

Taht argument was all about 'representative democracy' as opposed to direct, but they wanted democracy, nevertheless.

and never wanted the people to elect a president,,

They intended for electors to elect the president.
Electors are people.
Therefore, people elect the president.

When people vote, you have a democracy.

"... the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.
There is no vote principle more fairer than one person one vote

America is all about elections where the vote is DIRECT DEMOCRACY:

We vote in run offs, primaries, and caucuses.
We vote for representatives.
We vote for senators.
We vote for governors
We vote for mayors, government officials from municipal to state levels in every state and municipality in the United States.
We vote for ballot initiatives in many states and municipalities.

In ALL of the above elections, hundreds, if not thousands of them, they are 'majority wins', i.e., 'direct democracy'.

America is a democracy, a representative democracy, AKA constitutional republic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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


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.

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

Wrong, see above.
"

No they did not in the beginning most states didnt even vote for President you are full of shit.

 

[Unkotare]

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

Presidents don't "appoint" SC justices, they nominate them.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

There are about 14 million illegals, and none of them can vote, and most cannot access entitlement programs:

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

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.

You use language which demonstrates extreme bias and, as such, I cannot take you seriously.

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 no longers serves America very well. It's time to end it.

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.

Democracy is flawed, but the other system are far worse.

 

[Rumpole]

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

I cannot take you seriously.
Dismissed.

 

[progressive hunter]

Taht argument was all about 'representative democracy' as opposed to direct, but they wanted democracy, nevertheless.


They intended for electors to elect the president.
Electors are people.
Therefore, people elect the president.

When people vote, you have a democracy.

"... the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.
There is no vote principle more fairer than one person one vote

America is all about elections where the vote is DIRECT DEMOCRACY:

We vote in run offs, primaries, and caucuses.
We vote for representatives.
We vote for senators.
We vote for governors
We vote for mayors, government officials from municipal to state levels in every state and municipality in the United States.
We vote for ballot initiatives in many states and municipalities.

In ALL of the above elections, hundreds, if not thousands of them, they are 'majority wins', i.e., 'direct democracy'.

America is a democracy, a representative democracy, AKA constitutional republic.

wrong,, it was all about a constitutional republic,,

and they were very clear on why we have the electoral college,,, you would feel different if cons controlled the big cities instead of the dems,,,

to prevent the people from electing the president as happens in a democracy,,,

 

[hadit]

The constitution does not set the number of justicies.

It only states that the president has the right to nominate, and the Senate to provide advise and consent. That's pretty much it, so there's no problem with any one president getting to replace any Justices that retire or die during his administration.

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.

It's not "stacked" at all. "Stacking" implies something underhanded is going on, and there's just not. Again, the will of the people is not supposed to sway the court, only the Constitution.

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

You bet there's a political reality, and it's that the court should remain the way it is. Messing with it solely to ensure more liberal rulings would just reduce its credibility and increase ignoring them. Then, of course, the Republicans would just turn around and add more of their own or taking away any they wish. Democrats don't ever think things through.

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.

Conspiracy theorists of the world, unite!

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

Liberals don't bother to interpret the Constitution, they just ignore it.

 

[hadit]

Presidents don't "appoint" SC justices, they nominate them.

Correct.

 

[Unkotare]

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​

Federal Benefit Eligibility for Unauthorized Immigrants

Unauthorized immigrants in the United States are not eligible for federal public benefits, with exceptions for certain emergency assistance, nutrition, and K-12 education.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Unkotare]

I cannot take you seriously.
Dismissed.

If you cannot look honestly at history, that's your problem. Find another president who threw as many innocent Americans into concentration camps and turned away a shipload of refugees fleeing Nazi extermination. just to start with.

 

[BackAgain]

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

He was practically a Commie himself.

On the other hand, FDR gets and deserves some props for his assistance in leading the USA to victory in WWII, against those filthy German Nazis and the cowardly leaders of the Empire of Japan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you cannot look honestly at history, that's your problem. Find another president who threw as many innocent Americans into concentration camps and turned away a shipload of refugees fleeing Nazi extermination. just to start with.

No one got thrown in a concentration camp the Japanese that went to camps CHOSE to go it was voluntary, The Government gave them the choice to move on their own or go to a camp.

 

[Rumpole]

If you cannot look honestly at history, that's your problem. Find another president who threw as many innocent Americans into concentration camps and turned away a shipload of refugees fleeing Nazi extermination. just to start with.

You are committing a logical fallacy called 'presentism'. Google it. Now pester someone else.

 

[Rumpole]

wrong,, it was all about a constitutional republic,,

The terms 'representative democracy' and 'constitutional republic' are not mutually exclusive terms.

and they were very clear on why we have the electoral college,,, you would feel different if cons controlled the big cities instead of the dems,,,

What was true in the early 19th century isn't necessaril;y true to today. THere is no inherent oblgiation to cling to the original design, which is why they allowed the constitution to be amended.

to prevent the people from electing the president as happens in a democracy,,,

America is a representative democracy.

America is all about elections, and the vast majority of elections held in America are DIRECT

Direct voting is held on:

congresspersons
Senators.
Governors
Mayors
Municipal and state office holders of various types.
State Ballot initiatives.

The ONLY elections that are not direct are for legislation and the president.

However, in many states, they have direct democracy on laws called 'ballot initiatives'.

Wherever you have a nation with that many elections you have....(drum roll)............................


A democracy!!!!

 

[Unkotare]

You are committing a logical fallacy called 'presentism'. Google it. ...

.....
I don't need to, I have studied logic formally and extensively. You are incorrect.

 

[progressive hunter]

The terms 'representative democracy' and 'constitutional republic' are not mutually exclusive terms.

What was true in the early 19th century isn't necessaril;y true to today. THere is no inherent oblgiation to cling to the original design, which is why they allowed the constitution to be amended.


America is a representative democracy.

America is all about elections, and the vast majority of elections held in America are DIRECT

Direct voting is held on:

congresspersons
Senators.
Governors
Mayors
Municipal and state office holders of various types.
State Ballot initiatives.

The ONLY elections that are not direct are for legislation and the president.

However, in many states, they have direct democracy on laws called 'ballot initiatives'.

Wherever you have a nation with that many elections you have....(drum roll)............................


A democracy!!!!

everything you just said is the opposite of correct,,

 

[Borillar]

ya when you all got Bork that was ok right?

He got a hearing and a vote, which is more than Garland received.

 

[Borillar]

No where will you find the WORD Democracy in the constitution.

You won’t find the word “God” in the constitution either. Doesn’t stop the right from cramming religious dogma into laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You won’t find the word “God” in the constitution either. Doesn’t stop the right from cramming religious dogma into laws.

Irrelevant off topic derailment. Now show me the word democracy in the constitution