Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Rumpole]

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

That doesn't refute my point.

fail.

 

[Rumpole]

I cut your argument off before you tried i

Please pester someone else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That doesn't refute my point.

fail.

Find the word until you do you have been refuted and door slammed in face

 

[Cellblock2429]

Preppies' Pet Pit Bulls

The only minority a republic protects is the 1%, which turned loose the feral minorities on the majority.

/——/ Link please

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please pester someone else.

No that was your attempt to make that argument I shut you down before you could.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, vacuous claim, you're into tyranny, I get it. Well, I"m not, neither is the electorate. Even among conservatives, I do not know any that believe you are right.

On the issue of American democracy, You are wrong, but not just wrong, your wrongness is like, epic. I mean, I've got buckets of sources, the Britannica, you name it, which proves you are wrong. You've been listening to the right wing echo chamber for way too long.

In my entire life, throughout college, at ever level prior to it, (we were taught civics in the 60s) no one, not one professor, teacher, aide, whatever, no one EVER claimed 'American was not a democracy', over and over and over again, it was told, we were told, it was written, and spoken by Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, that AMerica is a democracy. And no one nitpicked on the parochial use ot the term in the Federalist papers.

I've been witnessing this since it started happening. And do you want to know when they started with this delusion? They started hollering 'America is not a democracy' round about the time Republicans starting losing the popular vote.

Bingo!

They can't stand democracy because democracy, it seems, of late, can't stand them.

Both Sides of the Spectrum Are Illogical and Elitist. They Are Spectral.

In a democracy, the people would have the right to vote in a national referendum on who else can vote and who can be allowed in as a future citizen and voter. So the present Popular Vote is undemocratic. College trains people to beg the question and influence the non-college to also parrot that logical fallacy.

Diploma Dumbos don't even know what begging the question means. They think it means, "Which leads to the question." A truly education person would know that it instead means assuming something (that the popular vote represents the will of the majority) that is taken for granted and not proven, using that sophism to slant the conclusion (because the present popular vote, full of ferals and foreigners, was not enfranchised democratically).

Marbury v Madison is another example of begging the question. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Mac-7]

I presented the case. A vacuous denial is not a counter argument.
You have not presented your case to counter mine.

I suspect you are going to repeat 'but you haven't presented your case'.

No I have, and that rationale is a cop out.

I reject your reasons

Boiled down to basics and without the hot air, you want a different result than you are getting now

And packing the court is the way you propose to do it

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

/——/ Link please

Links Are Part of a Chain. The Netrix Is a Chain Gang.

 

[Rumpole]

no, it's the will of the sitting president,

Liberal president=liberal justice

conservative president=conservative justice

Trump does not represent the will of the majority,

and by that measure, not the will of the people.

Therefore, the current court does not represent the will of the people.

 

[Rumpole]

No that was your attempt to make that argument I shut you down before you could.

What part of 'pester someone else' do you not understand?

 

[Rumpole]

no state is more important than another.

Voting should be a about people, not states. In the opinion of Democrats and in the opinion of Alexander Hamilton.

Nothing is more just than one man/woman one vote. In that light, no one person is more important than another.

Nothing, there is no substantive counter argument, I've looked at them all.

See Federalist #22. The essay criticizes the principle of equal suffrage among the states, arguing that it contradicts the fundamental principle of majority rule in a republican government.

" Its operation [equal suffrage] 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." ---Hamilton

Here he argues against suffrage parity among states given size differences, and that those who disagree are engaging in 'sophistry' and lack 'common sense'.

While the EC was designed to give smaller states a larger voice, it was NOT mean as 'equal suffrage'.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part of 'pester someone else' do you not understand?

You don't want to have a discussion when you can't push your leftists views got it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump does not represent the will of the majority,

and by that measure, not the will of the people.

Therefore, the current court does not represent the will of the people.

Yes he does

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When you have a small SCOTUS, it is much easier to pack, pay off, corrupt, extort, etc.
A larger SCOTUS has always been harder to cheat.

Star Chamber

Begging the question, assuming that SCROTUS is omniscient and desirable. Why do we need even 100 Justices to rule over 300 million citizens?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

/---/ 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

Marshall's Judicial Review Was Obiter Dictum. Therefore, It Was Non-binding.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump does not represent the will of the majority,

and by that measure, not the will of the people.

Therefore, the current court does not represent the will of the people.

Trump does not represent the will of the majority,

Doesn't need to.

Justices are not elected.

They are chosen by the sitting president and approved by the majority party in the senate.

The 'will of the people' has no bearing on their appointment.

 

[Auld Phart]

Voting should be a about people, not states. In the opinion of Democrats and in the opinion of Alexander Hamilton.

Nothing is more just than one man/woman one vote. In that light, no one person is more important than another.

Nothing, there is no substantive counter argument, I've looked at them all.

See Federalist #22. The essay criticizes the principle of equal suffrage among the states, arguing that it contradicts the fundamental principle of majority rule in a republican government.

" Its operation [equal suffrage] 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." ---Hamilton

Here he argues against suffrage parity among states given size differences, and that those who disagree are engaging in 'sophistry' and lack 'common sense'.

While the EC was designed to give smaller states a larger voice, it was NOT mean as 'equal suffrage'.

Voting should be a about people, not states.

Yup, thats the House.


NOT the Senate

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

a SC that is 6/3 in favor of conservatives does not reflect the will of the people, only the will of the Senate which is determined by a conservative population that is overrepresented in the Senate and a Repub President who benefitted in a distorted EC, who won the EC without winning the popular vote. Matching 50 Repub Senators to 50 Democrat senators, and Democrats have 40,000,000 more constituents.

A 6/3 conservative court disallows swing votes from moderating the court, that is minority rule because the population who vote for Republicans who appoint conservative justices are a minority in America.

The framers NEVER intended on minority rule.

Brains Gored by Gurus

Hillary didn't win 50% of the Popular Vote. Therefore, under your ignorant scheme, the election still would have been thrown into the House anyway. Trump would've won in a landslide there, since the GOP has carried the majority of states for a long time.

So the PV majority is no more indicative than winning the majority of states. We are, after all, the United States, so you could derive that the states should decide the election from that. Nobody brings this up, because the tyranny of representation carries over into letting know-it-all influencers do our thinking for us.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, Reagan introduced neoliberalism to America, and it's continued for years and only of late are we trying to reverse it, but Republicans won't let us, and we are still struggling to recover from it.
Wages in the middle class flattened out when he took office, yet the rich gained superbly.

America is better served by liberal justices, it's the will of the majority.


Meaningless statement.

Liberal Comes From a Latin Term That Implies Inheriting the Ownership of White Slaves. Plebeians Weren't Liberales.

Liberals are Preppy snobs from a class that has no right to exist in a free country. Despite their speechifying, they despise the middle class as, at most, useful idiots and the middle class knows it.

 

[hadit]

You brought up some interesting points, so let's dive into them.

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.

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.

The argument about the Senate wasn't that gerrymandering directly influences it but rather that it contributes to a political climate that might affect Senate control indirectly. You're absolutely right that states themselves can't be gerrymandered.

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.

All of these arguments are really about how to best uphold and preserve democracy. It's not about Democrats or Republicans winning or losing, but about ensuring that our institutions best represent and serve the American people.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I think that is the incorrect perspective on what the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do. Their task is NOT to be "reflective of the people", it is to decide if a particular law is Constitutional, ie does it violate the Constitution? Take an extreme example. Let's say that Joe Biden is so popular (I know, ludicrous, but stay with me) that Congress passes a law making any online criticism of him a misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Polls are taken that show 74% of idiots nationwide approve of the law because they're snowflakes and can't handle anyone criticizing Dear Leader. The law is challenged to the Supreme Court. What are the Justices to do?

If they "represent the broader population", they find the law acceptable and let it stand, the Constitution is shredded.
If they support the Constitution, they find that the law clearly violates the 1st Amendment and tell the people to pound sand.

I want a Court that represents the Constitution FIRST and popular sentiment second, and that means the only criteria by which to judge its makeup is by its fealty to the Constitution, not by who appointed the justices, what color their skin is, whether they've ever had an abortion, nothing.