Is the US Supreme Court still Legitimate? (Poll)

[pknopp]

No you weren’t clear. You always seem to imagine that you are. But you’re wrong.

Why would you ask me? Don’t you know what side you’re on?

You truly aren’t very bright.

OK, fine but you claimed you knew. Please tell me. Quit avoiding. I want to know.

 

[kyzr]

I do have a serious problem with the way the Republicans refused to even debate Obama's last nominee to the court, making some bullshit non-existent claim that an appointment should not be done in an election year.

And yet when Orange Jesus nominated a judge in an election year, the very same Republicans confirmed the appointment in record time.

The organization formerly known as the Republican Party has become a parody of itself. It's not even hypocritical any more. It is just plain evil.

With that said, the Supreme Court is not "constitutionally illegitimate" as claimed in the links you provided.

The GOP is totally illegitimate, but the Court isn't.

I find this bit in one of your links to be utterly ridiculous:

The immediate and long-term impact of this decision in Dobbs v. Jackson will be disproportionately felt by poor women, women of color, transgender, and gender non-confirming people, all of whom already face increased healthcare disparities and economic insecurity.

I sure would like some leftie to explain to me how the Dobbs decision will affect transgender and gender non-confirming people (whatever that is).

And then there's this:
In over 20 states today, women have lost or are likely to lose the right to control their bodies and reproductive health.
I have an idea for the people whose thinking is this fucked up:

USE BIRTH CONTROL

You have a lot to unpack there, so let me start via numbers:
1. I agree McConnell's sandbagging Garland's nomination was overstepping, but I remember how Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi used all of their authority every day to push Republicans out of the picture. McCarthy's appointees to the J6 committee weren't seated, but Nancy's Never-Trumpers were seated, as an example of riding roughshod over the opposition party. When McCarthy is speaker in January the democrats will be treated the same, paybacks are a bitch. The Biden Rule is officially a thing now, but it only applies to the opposition party's nominees.

2. Why is the Republican party a parody or evil or illegitimate? IMHO democrats are evil. Just look at traditional values, pushing racism, pushing woke bullshit, pushing gender bullshit, pushing green bullshit, pushing open borders, having runaway inflation, defund the police, flash mobs, record urban violence, etc.

3. We agree that the Dobbs decision corrected a bad decision and that abortions should be regulated at the state level. Democrats are just grasping at straws trying to win votes for November. Dobbs has nothing to do with color, or trannies,

4. We also agree that BIRTH CONTROL is preferred over abortions. Women are very free to visit a neighboring state to get an abortion if their state restricts access.

 

[Lesh]

I do have a serious problem with the way the Republicans refused to even debate Obama's last nominee to the court, making some bullshit non-existent claim that an appointment should not be done in an election year.

And yet when Orange Jesus nominated a judge in an election year, the very same Republicans confirmed the appointment in record time.

The organization formerly known as the Republican Party has become a parody of itself. It's not even hypocritical any more. It is just plain evil.

With that said, the Supreme Court is not "constitutionally illegitimate" as claimed in the links you provided.

The GOP is totally illegitimate, but the Court isn't.

I find this bit in one of your links to be utterly ridiculous:

The immediate and long-term impact of this decision in Dobbs v. Jackson will be disproportionately felt by poor women, women of color, transgender, and gender non-confirming people, all of whom already face increased healthcare disparities and economic insecurity.

I sure would like some leftie to explain to me how the Dobbs decision will affect transgender and gender non-confirming people (whatever that is).


And then there's this:
In over 20 states today, women have lost or are likely to lose the right to control their bodies and reproductive health.

I have an idea for the people whose thinking is this fucked up:

USE BIRTH CONTROL

This said by a "conservative" (I'm not even sure what that means anymore) who excuses the Court's actions because he is a staunch pro life person. That is his right and people tend to excuse what they know is wrong if they think the ends are justified.

He correctly points out the rot in the GOP.

He correctly points out the shenanigans that allowed the over turning of Roe.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The democrats, the Left, and now their propaganda arm, the MSM, are mounting a campaign to hurt the USSC's "legitimacy".

The Current US Supreme Court Is Not Constitutionally Legitimate | Common Dreams

Dobbs is a watershed attack that will come to be known as an infamous consolidation of an unrelenting extremist assault on this country's gains for equality and justice.

www.commondreams.org

On Friday, June 24, an extremist majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overruled more than 50 years of legal precedent, taking away a previously recognized fundamental right for the first time in the court's history. In doing so, it unleashed the full force of a regressive, coordinated state-by-state attack on the already perilously eroded right to access an abortion, on women's rights, the human right to bodily autonomy, privacy, and control over our own lives and dignity, and to life-saving healthcare and freedoms.

Itâs time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution | Jill Filipovic

With its decision on Roe v Wade, the court has signaled its illegitimacy – and thrown the American project into question

www.theguardian.com

It’s time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution​

You can read all of the Leftist tripe about "precedent" or "women's rights", but you won't read anything about how the Dobbs decision was technically wrong as to the USSC's "mis"interpretation of the US Constitution. Even RBG said that Roe was poorly decided.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of 'Roe v. Wade'

When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained why

time.com

Depends on how you define "legitimate".

The problem with the court is that it's part of a system that is struggling to be relevant in the 21st Century.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. ONCE. And yet they've had two presidents and a five of the Supreme Court justice picks out of ten.

This isn't democracy, this isn't in any way the will of the people.

This is just politics, and people really don't have a say at all.

And that's with the FPTP system which is really bad at being democratic in the first place.

The whole system needs to change.

 

[Lesh]

Depends on how you define "legitimate".

The problem with the court is that it's part of a system that is struggling to be relevant in the 21st Century.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. ONCE. And yet they've had two presidents and a five of the Supreme Court justice picks out of ten.

This isn't democracy, this isn't in any way the will of the people.

This is just politics, and people really don't have a say at all.

And that's with the FPTP system which is really bad at being democratic in the first place.

The whole system needs to change.

Not sure what changes need to be made other than voting Dem to fix this...and expanding the Court to make up for what McConnell and Trump did.

The EC is problematic but if people VOTE...it doesn't matter.

Dems win when people get out and vote...which os why Republicans focus much of their effort on PREVENTING that

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not sure what changes need to be made other than voting Dem to fix this...and expanding the Court to make up for what McConnell and Trump did.

The EC is problematic but if people VOTE...it doesn't matter.

Dems win when people get out and vote...which os why Republicans focus much of their effort on PREVENTING that

Here's what I would propose.

1) The House has Proportional Representation voting across the whole country. Either a 2% cut off (like Denmark) for parties across the whole nation, or for each individual state. This means regional parties that only stand in one state, could win 2% in that state and still get a seat (or 5%, like Germany).
The reason for this is that it would open up the political system to more political parties. With more political parties, the presidential race would be different.

2) I'd like to see the Senate change. The Senate's unique 2 seats for each state causes problem, for example with Puerto Rico, California etc.

Personally I'd like it to be Proportional Representation too, but there are other ways it too could be better and still represent the states to a certain degree.

3) The presidency would be better if they got rid of it. Have a system like the UK or Germany where the leader of the country is not the head of state, and the leader is the person who gains the most votes in the House.

However the Swiss have a good system with 7 people on the executive, I think the executive could be easily split between different jobs, but the Swiss system leads to sensible leaders and sensible politics.
If the presidency weren't to change, then a run off election like the French, or AV voting/ranked voting where people vote for various people, giving them numbers of preference.

4) Take the politics out of the Supreme Court. The President doesn't nominate, it's not based on the president at all. With more political parties and more consensus, Supreme Court picks would have to be less political, candidates would have to be agreeable to more people, which would stop Federal judges from going bat crazy to catch the attention of a partisan president.

 

[g5000]

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. ONCE. And yet they've had two presidents and a five of the Supreme Court justice picks out of ten.

This what makes me think of California.

California used to be a deep red state. Reagan got his start there.

Now California is a Democratic bastion.

Demographics are catching up to the GOP. The party's future is doomed if they continue to refuse to listen to the will of the People.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This what makes me think of California.

California used to be a deep red state. Reagan got his start there.

Now California is a Democratic bastion.

Demographics are catching up to the GOP. The party's future is doomed if they continue to refuse to listen to the will of the People.

Well, with the current FPTP system "the will of people" will be ignored.

In no way are only two parties "the will of the people".
The problem is the current system is trying to make itself relevant by becoming people's entertainment. The more entertaining you are, the more votes you get.

 

[kyzr]

Depends on how you define "legitimate".
The problem with the court is that it's part of a system that is struggling to be relevant in the 21st Century.
The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. ONCE. And yet they've had two presidents and a five of the Supreme Court justice picks out of ten.
This isn't democracy, this isn't in any way the will of the people.
This is just politics, and people really don't have a say at all.
And that's with the FPTP system which is really bad at being democratic in the first place.
The whole system needs to change.

1. You type words as "facts" with no proof. The US government and USSC are not "struggling for relevance", the Constitution makes them relevant.
2. The popular vote matters at the state and local levels, at the Federal level the Constitution stipulates the Electoral College, and that will not change. It is the will of the people state by state. You need to accept reality, the EC will never change. 38 state legislatures are NEVER going to vote to replace the EC. Period.
3. FPTP?? Nothing is going to change, except Constitutionally.

 

[kyzr]

This what makes me think of California.
California used to be a deep red state. Reagan got his start there.
Now California is a Democratic bastion.
Demographics are catching up to the GOP. The party's future is doomed if they continue to refuse to listen to the will of the People.

The "solid south" used to mean democrat, now it GOP.
Hispanics used to be 90% democrat, now its closer to 50%.
Demographics ebb and flow over time based on political policies.
We'll see in November and in 2024 how the voters feel.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure what changes need to be made other than voting Dem to fix this...and expanding the Court to make up for what McConnell and Trump did.

Wait.. you want to pack the court?
Just like I said you did?
Imagine that.

Dems win when people get out and vote...which os why Republicans focus much of their effort on PREVENTING that

Oh look. Another lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's what I would propose.
1) The House has Proportional Representation voting across the whole country. Either a 2% cut off (like Denmark) for parties across the whole nation, or for each individual state. This means regional parties that only stand in one state, could win 2% in that state and still get a seat (or 5%, like Germany).
The reason for this is that it would open up the political system to more political parties. With more political parties, the presidential race would be different.

IOW, you want to get rid of the Republic.
Good luck getting -that- amendment passed.

2) I'd like to see the Senate change. The Senate's unique 2 seats for each state causes problem, for example with Puerto Rico, California etc.

Good luck getting -that- amendment passed.

3) The presidency would be better if they got rid of it. Have a system like the UK or Germany where the leader of the country is not the head of state, and the leader is the person who gains the most votes in the House.

Why is this better?

If the presidency weren't to change, then a run off election like the French, or AV voting/ranked voting where people vote for various people, giving them numbers of preference.

Why is this better?

4) Take the politics out of the Supreme Court. The President doesn't nominate, it's not based on the president at all. With more political parties and more consensus, Supreme Court picks would have to be less political, candidates would have to be agreeable to more people, which would stop Federal judges from going bat crazy to catch the attention of a partisan president.

So.... Congress picks?
How does this take the politics out of the USSC?

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, you have long demonstrated your tolerance of the stench of hypocrisy you carry with you everywhere you go.

But I don’t. I’m not a libtard. The hypocrisy, as you well know, is entirely yours.

It's funny how the tard herd is okay with ACTUALLY rigging the Supreme Court.

It isn’t “rigging,” you stupid pussy. Go have yourself a good cry over the fact that at long last the SCOTUS isn’t a liberal haven for unsupportable determinations.

 

[BackAgain]

OK, fine but you claimed you knew. Please tell me. Quit avoiding. I want to know.

I’m not avoiding anything. Stop whining. Get to know yourself.

 

[FA_Q2]

1. You type words as "facts" with no proof. The US government and USSC are not "struggling for relevance", the Constitution makes them relevant.
2. The popular vote matters at the state and local levels, at the Federal level the Constitution stipulates the Electoral College, and that will not change. It is the will of the people state by state. You need to accept reality, the EC will never change. 38 state legislatures are NEVER going to vote to replace the EC. Period.
3. FPTP?? Nothing is going to change, except Constitutionally.

It will not require 38 states. Legislation has passed several states already and it only takes enough states to represent 50%+1 members of the EC to vote to give their electoral representation to the candidate that takes the popular vote. There is noting in the constitution whatsoever that requires states to assign their electors in any shape or form outside a few constitutionally protected classes that they may not restrict access to. If the agreement is signed by enough states, the EC will remain intact but it will go to the winner of the popular vote every time no matter what the votes are in the individual states. They are missing 75 ec votes at this point to make this happen. That is not all that much but will certainly be difficult to finish off considering larger red states are simply not interested.


It may not happen. it may never happen but the reality is that it is not only closer than you may think but it is easily done without a constitutional amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It will not require 38 states. Legislation has passed several states already and it only takes enough states to represent 50%+1 members of the EC to vote to give their electoral representation to the candidate that takes the popular vote.

The Popular Vite Compact - a compact between the member states to decide the Presidential election - violates Article 1 Section 10
Each state may decide for itself to allocate its electors according to the national popular vote, but none of the states party to this compact will do so w/o the others agreeing to do so.

There is noting in the constitution whatsoever that requires states to assign their electors in any shape or form outside a few constitutionally protected classes that they may not restrict access to.

There's also nothing in the constitution that requires the states to put its electors up to a vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Popular Vite Compact - a compact between the member states to decide the Presidential election - violates Article 1 Section 10
Each state may decide for itself to allocate its electors according to the national popular vote, but none of the states party to this compact will do so w/o the others agreeing to do so.

No, it does not. Article 10 sec 1 does not confer the federal government the power to regualte or otherwise tell states what they may or may not do with their voting process.

This is article 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The move to elect electors by popular vote is none of those things at all. This is not a treaty or alliance. It is an agreement to assign electors based on a national popular vote. This is CLEARLY within the powers states hold over their election process.

There's also nothing in the constitution that requires the states to put its electors up to a vote.

That is correct. A state can, if they so please, decide to not hold an election at all.

What is your point? That certainly backs up my assertions and does not back yours up at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it does not. Article 10 sec 1 does not confer the federal government the power to regualte or otherwise tell states what they may or may not do with their voting process.

Section 10 Powers Denied States​

• Clause 3 Acts Requiring Consent of Congress
• No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The states many not enter a "compact" with other as a means to diminish the power of the federal government or the other states - the NPVC is such a compact; as a specific denial of power, this clause applies to the states' ability to specify the means by which they may choose electors.

As I said - each of those states can choose their electors by the national popular vote if they want, but that cannot do it as paret of an agreement with other states -- but, absent that agreement, none of them will.

 

[pknopp]

I’m not avoiding anything. Stop whining. Get to know yourself.

From now on, if you want to reply to me, have something to say.

 

[kyzr]

It will not require 38 states. Legislation has passed several states already and it only takes enough states to represent 50%+1 members of the EC to vote to give their electoral representation to the candidate that takes the popular vote. There is nothing in the constitution whatsoever that requires states to assign their electors in any shape or form outside a few constitutionally protected classes that they may not restrict access to. If the agreement is signed by enough states, the EC will remain intact but it will go to the winner of the popular vote every time no matter what the votes are in the individual states. They are missing 75 ec votes at this point to make this happen. That is not all that much but will certainly be difficult to finish off considering larger red states are simply not interested.

It may not happen. it may never happen but the reality is that it is not only closer than you may think but it is easily done without a constitutional amendment.

To eliminate the EC by an Amendment will take 38 states.
If a few states cast their EC votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, that is a disservice to the voters of their state. They are basically giving their votes to CA & NY, very dumb.

Maybe a few blue states will appoint their EC votes based on a national popular vote, but red states never will. So I'm not worried that the EC is going to be replaced any time soon.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

www.law.cornell.edu

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A discussion of the Constitutional Topic of the Electoral College

usconstitution.net