Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Garland has shown what kind of black gown tyrant he would be

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is very simple.

Liberals today - SCOTUS currently is conservative leaning - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in the future - the larger SCOTUS is conservative leaning again - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in a different future - SCOTUS is now currently liberal leaning - NO MORE JUDGES!!


End of Discussion.
Suggest closing the thread as all arguments contrary to above is a waste of time and ridiculious.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Firstly, it seems there's some confusion about the intent behind expanding the Supreme Court. The argument isn't about "gerrymandering" the Court, but about rebalancing it. The aim is to counteract the appointments made during the Republican presidencies that some believe have tilted the Court in a direction not representative of the broader population.

As a representative democracy, that is the way the system is set up. It's always been that way.

Why the need to change it NOW ?

Courts are to measure law against the constitution. That is what the SCOTUS has done. The fact that you don't like the results does not matter.

Some believe......who cares ? It does not matter. If it did, it would have been addressed by the founders.

Now, you've pointed out that gerrymandering has also been carried out by Democrats, which is true. Gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue. However, it's crucial to recognize that the original discussion is about the Supreme Court's stance on gerrymandering and the impacts it might have on our democracy, irrespective of the party carrying out the act.
About voter suppression, it's a serious and complex issue. It's not about cheating but about ensuring that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote. Different states have enacted laws that some argue disproportionately affect specific demographics. The concern is that the Court has given these laws the green light.

Nobody has proved voter suppression. It's a constant whine from some. Just like rigged elections from the other side. Nothing has been proven. And the court is following the rule of law, not some falsely generated moral code. Some don't like it because it causes them to "lose".

They can deal with it.

On the topic of the electoral system, first thing you must understand is that the framers NEVER intended for 'minority rule', it so states this in Federalist #22 "...the sense of the majority must prevail." Sure, they had concerns about majority rule, which they tempered with the three co-equal branches of government and a bicameral legislature embodying a representative democracy. But they never intended on minority rule. Now then, the popular vote point is not about the validity of the presidents elected but the representativeness of the Supreme Court justices they appoint. The current system gives equal weight to states, regardless of population size, and this can sometimes lead to a president who didn't win the popular vote. This isn't a question of legality; it's a question of whether the Supreme Court, appointed by these presidents, is reflective of the majority of Americans' views.

And if you go back to the way it was, you'll never see another democratic president.

But let's ask....what majority ? A president wins when a majority of people in enough states to produce 271 EV's vote for him. In theory, he could win with as little as 1/3 of the overall popular vote. At the same time, the number of STATES that vote democratic is much less than what vote republican. And that was important to the founders (that's why it was set up that way). If you take CA out of the picture, it's 2% of the states....but the democrats would be very hard pressed to win anything.

A majority of people ?

A majority of states ?

You say majority of American's views....I say poppycock. States and their role in the internal affairs of the U.S.A. are as important as a majority of people.

And if we take this further....the SCOTUS and federal government should not be ruling on a lot of what they currently rule on. They have way overstepped their scope as defined in A1S8. The founders never counted on their either.

 

[HikerGuy83]

All you need to do is look at FDRs' efforts to pack the court.

Even his own party called him on it. It was a blatent violation of the separation of powers.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Wrong again. Direct Democracy would have all of us voting on all bills.

 

[HikerGuy83]

If Biden packs the court, what happens if Trump wins in 2024 ?

Also, I'd like to break CA into six states so that the republicans in the state actually have a chance of having their votes count once in a while. We can do that to CA without their permission...right ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

or create an amendment to rid the nation of the EC.

Not in your lifetime.

 

[Rumpole]

Not in your lifetime.

Since I'm 72, maybe not, but by 2050, I say we have a good chance as the nation shifts leftward, demographically and caucasians are supposed to be a minority by then.

 

[Rumpole]

If Biden packs the court, what happens if Trump wins in 2024 ?

Also, I'd like to break CA into six states so that the republicans in the state actually have a chance of having their votes count once in a while. We can do that to CA without their permission...right ?

We could also unify South and North Dakota (whose population combined is less than a major city in CA, giving several hundred thousand people 4 senators to CA's 2 senators for 39 million), not ot mention unifying North and South Carolina, and why not make PR, Guam and the Virgin Islands states? Might as well, if we're going for it. Oh yeah, Virginia and West Virginia, I so no reason they should be two different states.

As for CA, there are about three unique regions worthy of their own statehood, northern, central, and southern california. That would give the region 6 senators for 39 million, which would be a better representation than exists currently.

 

[Rumpole]

Wrong again. Direct Democracy would have all of us voting on all bills.

I was just pointing out all of the direct elections we have in America, most of the elections are direct, save for legislation and the EC. NOONE is suggesting getting rid of the house and senate, it would be impossible and impractical. Every western developed democracies are also representative democracies. The term 'Democracy', "liberal democracy' and/or 'western democracy', given the commonality, all mean representative democracies.

 

[Rumpole]

As a representative democracy, that is the way the system is set up. It's always been that way.

Why the need to change it NOW ?

Courts are to measure law against the constitution. That is what the SCOTUS has done. The fact that you don't like the results does not matter.

Some believe......who cares ? It does not matter. If it did, it would have been addressed by the founders.



Nobody has proved voter suppression. It's a constant whine from some. Just like rigged elections from the other side. Nothing has been proven. And the court is following the rule of law, not some falsely generated moral code. Some don't like it because it causes them to "lose".

They can deal with it.



And if you go back to the way it was, you'll never see another democratic president.

But let's ask....what majority ? A president wins when a majority of people in enough states to produce 271 EV's vote for him. In theory, he could win with as little as 1/3 of the overall popular vote. At the same time, the number of STATES that vote democratic is much less than what vote republican. And that was important to the founders (that's why it was set up that way). If you take CA out of the picture, it's 2% of the states....but the democrats would be very hard pressed to win anything.

A majority of people ?

A majority of states ?

You say majority of American's views....I say poppycock. States and their role in the internal affairs of the U.S.A. are as important as a majority of people.

And if we take this further....the SCOTUS and federal government should not be ruling on a lot of what they currently rule on. They have way overstepped their scope as defined in A1S8. The founders never counted on their either.

People vote for electors.
Electors vote for the president,
Therefore, it is PEOPLE, and not states, who elect the president.

There can be no fairer democratic system than one person one vote.

There can be no more practical system of creating legislation than a representative democracy.

 

[Rumpole]

It is very simple.

Liberals today - SCOTUS currently is conservative leaning - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in the future - the larger SCOTUS is conservative leaning again - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in a different future - SCOTUS is now currently liberal leaning - NO MORE JUDGES!!


End of Discussion.
Suggest closing the thread as all arguments contrary to above is a waste of time and ridiculious.

No, we just want to reverse the lopsideness, 6/3 does not reflect the will of the people.

When it was 5/4 and Roberts the swing vote, that I could live with, but a 6/3 court gets rid of the swing vote and that's not right.

Moreover, caseload is causing SCOTUS to greatly increase the shadow docket, and this is not a good thing.

We had 9 justices when the country was one third the size it is now. On the point of case load, alone, we need more justice on the court. a three tiered system (three blocks of 9, each 5/4) to handle the case load, and shrink the shadow docket. On the big issues, determined by section leaders agreeing, all 27 would vote on those.

 

[HikerGuy83]

We could also unify South and North Dakota (whose population combined is less than a major city in CA, giving several hundred thousand people 4 senators to CA's 2 senators for 39 million), not ot mention unifying North and South Carolina, and why not make PR, Guam and the Virgin Islands states? Might as well, if we're going for it. Oh yeah, Virginia and West Virginia, I so no reason they should be two different states.

As for CA, there are about three unique regions worthy of their own statehood, northern, central, and southern california. That would give the region 6 senators for 39 million, which would be a better representation than exists currently.

Except you are ignoring the point.

You are screaming about representation and majorities.

Consolidation only further dilutes peoples votes.

Breaking CA up would give move voice to those who don't currently have one.

Can you please stay consistent.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I was just pointing out all of the direct elections we have in America, most of the elections are direct, save for legislation and the EC. NOONE is suggesting getting rid of the house and senate, it would be impossible and impractical. Every western developed democracies are also representative democracies. The term 'Democracy', "liberal democracy' and/or 'western democracy', given the commonality, all mean representative democracies.

Your choice of words, not mine.

 

[BackAgain]

The House used to be closer to the people because the citizens directly elected the representatives.

The Senate used to be more removed from the people because the citizens elected the various State Legislatures and the State Legislatures selected their respective U.S. Senators. But now, Senators get elected by the voters of the states.

Such a poor move we made.

We should repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[HikerGuy83]

People vote for electors.
Electors vote for the president,
Therefore, it is PEOPLE, and not states, who elect the president.

There can be no fairer democratic system than one person one vote.

There can be no more practical system of creating legislation than a representative democracy.

A state only needs 51% of the popular vote to send 100% of it's electors to vote for one president.

Please don't tell me you don't know the difference.

One man one vote (that idiot Warren really was clueless) was totally screwed up. And yes there can be a fairer system. Small states are not going to have their lives run by larger states. That was built in from the start.

Agree with you last statement.

 

[HikerGuy83]

We should repeal the 17th Amendment.

Abso frigging luteley

 

[HikerGuy83]

Since I'm 72, maybe not, but by 2050, I say we have a good chance as the nation shifts leftward, demographically and caucasians are supposed to be a minority by then.

Yes, and after Bush there was never going to be another republican president.

How is the nation shiftingleftward ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/18/shift-right-2021/

 

[Rumpole]

Yes, and after Bush there was never going to be another republican president.

How is the nation shiftingleftward ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/18/shift-right-2021/

The article indicates a temporal tick in 2021, and that was done at the time of the Pandemic which
made Biden look a lot worse than he is or even deserved to be (the pandemic forced stim packages by both Trump and Biden, resulting in inflation on Biden's watch, for which he is wrongfully being blamed, and that's coming down now as the pandemic fades).

But...

Hillary beat trump by 3 million votes.
BIden beat trump by 7 million votes.

Let's look at the RCP averages:

But, since Rasmussen is an outlier (they survey mostly landlines, which are elderly who tend to vote repub) if we remove them from the averages, Biden is ahead by +3.5 , With Rassmussen, Trump has an insignificant lead of *.06.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Each year millions more voters are added from the younger ranks, who tend to vote democratic, as the elderly die off, who tend to vote republican, so it's not a stretch to declare that we will be a strong liberal country by 2050 as white become the minority.

 

[Rumpole]

A state only needs 51% of the popular vote to send 100% of it's electors to vote for one president.

Which is why I support doing away with unearned electors. We should eliminate winner take al.

Please don't tell me you don't know the difference.

One man one vote (that idiot Warren really was clueless) was totally screwed up. And yes there can be a fairer system. Small states are not going to have their lives run by larger states. That was built in from the start.

The start? at the start they were slave overs, so I'm not buying this idea we are obligated to cling to 'original intent'.

ANd the original design was only to give smaller states a larger voice, NOT to allow 'minority rule'. See Federalist #22 by Alexander Hamilton

Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.

What was Hamilton arguing about in that sentence?

What is the 'sense of the majority'? it is the WILL of the majority, "the will of the people".

More accurately, the context of that quote, Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections.

yes, they had issues with 'factions' and they feared democracy, so they moderated it with a bicameral legislature and 3 co-equal branches of government one being a check on the other, but they never, at any time, never ever favored 'tyranny of the minority' which is about what we have now with the 6/3 court in favor of conservatives, totally out of sync with the will of the people.

Fear 'mobs'? I got bad news for you, if 81,000,000 people voting for Biden is a mob, then 74,000,000 who voted for Trump is ALSO a mob. This idea one is and the other isn't is absurdity on it's face. Yeah, all we have now are mobs, and in a nation of mobs, the only way to go IS democracy, because the alternative is tyranny, and try selling that idea.

And large states are not going to have their lives run by smaller states. One logic is as good as the other.

No, electors elect the president
electors are elected by people.
Therefore, people, not states, elect the president.

Therefore, there is no fairer system than one person one vote.

There is no idea more significant than an idea whose time has come, and that idea is.......

Democracy.

In 1827, the got rid of appointed electors in favor of electing them by the people.

In 1920, the women's suffrage became the law of the land.

Slowly, but surely, we are headed for MORE democracy, not less, and one person one vote is MORE democracy, not less. The status quo can't go on forever, the nation is evolving, embracing democracy, more and more each year.

I know Republicans hate democracy, which, of course, they do given that they are incessantly trying to make the utterly bogus claim that America is not a democracy, as if a 'Constitutional Republic' is not a democracy, which is a lie, no wonder they don't like democracy, they haven't won the popular vote in decades.

Well, I can't help that, so what y'all need to do is find a better message that sells