Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[progressive hunter]

The real problem is just that “representative republic” is simply redundant.

But a “Constitutional” republic shares how the republic is governed and bounded.

this democracy argument is the left using alinsky tactics and latching on to a single word to control and manipulate the narrative,,

never give an inch,,

the OP of this thread got so mad when presented with absolute fact he ran and started another thread complaining about the way he was presented the facts,,
in other words his feeling were hurt when he ended up wrong,,

 

[candycorn]

I don't think we have a good SCOTUS at all.
For example, the war on drugs, mandatory sentencing, asset forfeiture, etc. are all inherently illegal.
I think we need many more ideas and more courage in the SCOTUS.

Not to split hairs but I feel that "good" or "bad" is immaterial in a Supreme Court. We clearly now have a court with an agenda--taking cases that were historically ignored by the court. That is something we should caution against. Term limits or age-outs is a way to moderate that. Unlike politicians though--there is no way to get rid of a judge currently. Elections don't take place for SCOTUS judges

 

[Grumblenuts]

Progressives absolutely hate everything about the US Constitution and have had an uninterrupted 100+ year Jihad against it: Federal Reserve, elections of Senators, the income tax and the MASSIVE federal bureaucracy are the worst of it. They invented and loved and adored Gerrymandering (named after a democrat) when they win and find it absolutely abhorrent when Republicans use it.

Packing the Court is just another Sore Loser Fascist Progressive move

And then there are the facts:

Gerrymandering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Democratic-Republican Party, known at the time as the Republican Party

 

[cnm]

When you only allow the people to vote for elected representatives who then vote on the actual issues, that is technically not a democracy but a representative republic.

All those dictionaries, so wrong.

Oh, the literacy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And then there are the facts:

Gerrymandering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They later formally became the democrat Party

 

[Cellblock2429]

the term 'democracy' is a broad term, which includes BOTH direct democracy, AND 'representative democracy'.

The MISTAKE most republicans make these says is to limit their understanding of the term 'democracy' by how it was used by "Plubius" in the Federalist papers. understand that his usage of the term is the PAROCHIAL use, NOT the broad use of the term. Both 'republic' and 'democracy' have parochial (narrow) and broad usages. Know them, understand them, and quit making up shit that isn't true about them.

The term Republic is even broader, it can been government of appointed, OR elected leaders (by any democratic means).

this was extensively covered here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post] This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump has joined the *RNAD regurgitators...

www.usmessageboard.com

/---/ You libtards are hell bent on changing our form of government because you want the president elected by popular vote, which would render agricultural states moot. We'd be ruled by a few blue states. We are a Republic and always have been.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. – Article. IV. Section. 4. guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government.​

 

[Kruska]

Why does a country like the USA need a supreme court at all?

Since Clinton 1994 - US presidents have enacted more then 1200 Presidential Executive Orders.
Federal Register :: Request Access

E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 (Expanding Apprenticeships in America), is hereby revoked. - by Biden Executive Order 14016 of February 17, 2021

 

[Kruska]

Cellblock2429 - you dislike what? - the fact that US presidents have enacted more then 1200 Presidential Executive Orders since 1994?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Cellblock2429 - you dislike what? - the fact that US presidents have enacted more than 1200 Presidential Executive Orders since 1994?

/——-/ No. it’s that you question the need of a USSC to hold the rest of us to the Constitution.

 

[Kruska]

/——-/ No. it’s that you question the need of a USSC to hold the rest of us to the Constitution.

Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?

Supreme court sleeping or doing whatever they are being told to do? - just asking.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?

Supreme court sleeping or doing whatever they are being told to do? - just asking.

Actually, the SC is supposed to check the legislative branch, not the executive one.

Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?

Supreme court sleeping or doing whatever they are being told to do? - just asking.

/---/ I'm not a lawyer, but I believe someone has to petition the USSC to review and judge any law or executive order. I guess no one asked the SC to review those EOs.

The Power of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.

Under a clause in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court received original jurisdiction over "writs of mandamus." These may be issued to order a government official to comply with the law. When the plaintiff in Marbury asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, though, the Court refused for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court & the Legal Scope of Its Authority

The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by a federal, state, or local legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution.

www.justia.com

 

[Rumpole]

Actually, the SC is supposed to check the legislative branch, not the executive one.

Actually, the SC can rule on the constitutionality of ANY legislation, municipal, state, (including ballot initiatives) and federal legislation.

 

[Rumpole]

/---/ You libtards are hell bent on changing our form of government because you want the president elected by popular vote, which would render agricultural states moot. We'd be ruled by a few blue states. We are a Republic and always have been.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. – Article. IV. Section. 4. guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government.​

No where in the Federalist papers does it say minority should rule. That was NEVER the intent of the founding fathers. In Federalist #22, it says '

..that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

They did understand the possibility that it could happen, and it happened only three times in the 19th century, and twice in the 21st century. But, that it happened twice in a span of two decades, and it 's looking like now for a Democrat president to win he has to have several million more votes than his Repubican counterpart, the demographics shift, which did not exist when the framers wrote the constitution, are revealing that there is a inherent unfairness in the process because of this shift.

Given the fact that it hs happening with much greater frequency, that means a remedy is in order.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No where in the Federalist papers does it say minority should rule. That was NEVER the intent of the founding fathers. In Federalist #22, it says '

..that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

They did understand the possibility that it could happen, and it happened only three times in the 19th century, and twice in the 21st century. But, that it happened twice in a span of two decades, and it 's looking like now for a Democrat president to win he has to have several million more votes than his Repubican counterpart, the demographics shift, which did not exist when the framers wrote the constitution, are revealing that there is a inherent unfairness in the process because of this shift.

That means a remedy is in order.

the minority doesn't rule again for the slow and painfully STUPID states elect the President and a majority of states always do. Just because MILLIONS of lefties live in 2 states doesn't mean those 2 states rule the Country.

 

[Rumpole]

Show us where the word 'democracy' appears in the Constitution.

The claim that "America is not a democracy" because the term "democracy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is a misunderstanding of the nature of the American system of government. Here are a few key points to debunk this misunderstanding:

Constitutional Framework: While the word "democracy" itself is not explicitly used in the Constitution, the principles of democracy and democratic governance are embedded throughout the document. The Constitution establishes a republican form of government, where power is derived from the people and exercised by elected representatives. The Constitution outlines the structure of government, establishes the separation of powers, protects individual rights, and provides mechanisms for popular participation, such as elections and the amendment process.

Representative Democracy: The United States operates as a representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This system is commonly referred to as a democratic republic. The Constitution ensures that power is vested in the people through regular elections for various offices, such as the President, members of Congress, and state and local officials. The representatives are accountable to the people and are expected to act in the best interests of their constituents.

Protection of Individual Rights: One of the core elements of a democratic society is the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), safeguards fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and due process of law. These protections ensure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of individuals, thus upholding democratic principles.

Evolution of Democracy: It's important to recognize that the framers of the Constitution intentionally designed a system that could adapt and evolve with the changing needs of society. Over time, the concept of democracy has broadened, encompassing a wider range of principles and practices. The interpretation and application of democratic principles have evolved through constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and the democratic processes of legislation and public participation.

In summary, while the term "democracy" may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the foundational principles and mechanisms of democratic governance are inherent in the structure, provisions, and values enshrined within the document. The United States is commonly understood and referred to as a democratic republic, a characterization inherent in 'constitutional republic' , 'western democracy' 'liberal democracy' all terms meaning the same thing.

 

[Cellblock2429]

No where in the Federalist papers does it say minority should rule. That was NEVER the intent of the founding fathers. In Federalist #22, it says '

..that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

They did understand the possibility that it could happen, and it happened only three times in the 19th century, and twice in the 21st century. But, that it happened twice in a span of two decades, and it 's looking like now for a Democrat president to win he has to have several million more votes than his Repubican counterpart, the demographics shift, which did not exist when the framers wrote the constitution, are revealing that there is a inherent unfairness in the process because of this shift.

Given the fact that it hs happening with much greater frequency, that means a remedy is in order.

/——-/ Back to your original point that we are a democracy:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. – Article. IV. Section. 4. guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government.​

 

[Rumpole]

the minority doesn't rule again for the slow and painfully STUPID states elect the President and a majority of states always do. Just because MILLIONS of lefties live in 2 states doesn't mean those 2 states rule the Country.

You haven't actually refuted my comment. Your point is addressed, try reading it again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You haven't actually refuted my comment. Your point is addressed, try reading it again.

you have no point just because liberals abound in several states does not make those states more important than the other 47 or 48 states again the STATES elect the president not popular vote there is no imbalance and no minority rule,

 

[Cellblock2429]

you have no point just because liberals abound in several states does not make those states more important than the other 47 or 48 states again the STATES elect the president not popular vote there is no imbalance and no minority rule,

/——-/ Rumpole is most likely British which is perfectly fine. It’s comical to see him try to debate on topics he barely understands.