Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Cellblock2429]

That doesn't refute my point.

fail.

/——/ Yes it does. And you fail miserably.

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ Yes it does. And you fail miserably.

I'll file that in the 'Wishful Thinking and assorted Unicorn Dreams' file.

Congratulations! You've earned it.

 

[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",

That is true for any justice's vote and ruling. But here is the point you are not grasping, a 6/3 conservative court is a court whose collective judicial philosophy is not according to the will of the people. Proof of that fact is that if the majority had elected the president in 2016, representing the will of the people, the court would not be 6/3 conservative, it would be 5/4 liberal, with probably a moderate, Merrick Garland, as the swing vote (or it would be 6/3 liberal then you'd be making the same argument I'm making). But a 5/4 court with a swing vote, That would best reflect the will of the people.

Do not pettifog on how they rule individually.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

Regarding the president, Democrats believe the President should be elected by the majority.

When that is achieved, the SC will eventually reflect the will of the people, given they are appointed
by a President chosen by the will of the people.

Republicans want a tyranny of the minority. That is not in accordance with spirit of the Federalist papers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Regarding the president, Democrats believe the President should be elected by the majority.

When that is achieved, the SC will eventually reflect the will of the people, given they are appointed
by a President chosen by the will of the people.

Republicans want a tyranny of the minority. That is not in accordance with spirit of the Federalist papers.

the law of the land is that States elect Presidents and has been true since we were founded and the Constitution ratified. It doesn't matter what the democrats believe and never has.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes he does

Incompetent rebuttal, your reply is not an argument.

Lazy retorts are not arguments.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Incompetent rebuttal, your reply is not an argument.

Lazy retorts are not arguments.

Projection is not a good argument tactic.

 

[Rumpole]

the law of the land is that States elect Presidents and has been true since we were founded and the Constitution ratified. It doesn't matter what the democrats believe and never has.

The law is what matters and we seek to change the law so that the President's election is reflected in the will of the people, which is according to Federalist #22. When the EC was created, it was NEVER the framer's intent that the minority elect the President. In the 19th century, it happened only 3 times, but in the first two decades of the 21st century, it happened twice. Clearly an evolution of demographics, unable to have been foreseen 233 years ago by the framers, reveals that the original design has resulted in an outcome not in accordance with the spirit of the framers, as illuminated in Federalist #22. Therefore, remedial action is required.

In 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'.

The ONLY reason Republicans are resisting this idea is because they know they can't win an election if it requires majority win. They want tyranny of the minority.

Sorry, the public will not stand for it. The will of the people, democracy, will prevail

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Projection is not a good argument tactic.

Please abstain from your gaslighting.

 

[Dadoalex]

Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).
2. If you make a claim of fact, offer a thoughtful path of reasoning/logic, AND, if possible, links to authoritative sources that supplement (they don't have to actually prove, but proof is always preferred) your position. If you can't do this, then preface it with 'imo' (in my opinion).
3. Absolutely NO thought-terminating clichés (example; 'fake news', is the main one, but there are others).

So, the source article for this discussion is:

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court​

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court

Read the latest by Christopher Kang.

www.democracydocket.com

...

I agree the court needs to be expanded but because there are 13 judicial districts and "only" 8 justices.
In addition I'd like legislation calling for the movement of the 2 longest serving justices to an emeritus status where they could advise the court and assist with work not requiring the entire court thus allowing every president to nominate at least 2 justices to the court. The president, if desired, could renominate an emeritus justice back to the court.

Under this no justice would serve more than 24 consecutive years without being renominated.

Also, a code of conduct for the SCOTUS along with annual audits of their personal finances.

Also, laws forbidding the spouses of justices from being involved in politics in any way.

The integrity of the SCOTUS should never be questioned. Unfortunately, the actions of the spouses of Justice Thomas and and Chief Justice Roberts have given the impression, rightly or not, of possible ethics issues. If we are to honor the decisions of the SCOTUS then the integrity of the justices must be above reproach.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a silly shill twat, you know that?

"expanding" "rebalance" .Pwhahaha!

All that shit means is that you want total control. Fuck off with that.

He's thinking like a leftists. The supreme court rules by the constitution not agenda for balance

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please abstain from your gaslighting.

No gaslighting on my part I've countered everything you've said to the point you've shown your leftist intent. It's not about balance but Constitutionality of how they rule

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The law is what matters and we seek to change the law so that the President's election is reflected in the will of the people, which is according to Federalist #22. When the EC was created, it was NEVER the framer's intent that the minority elect the President. In the 19th century, it happened only 3 times, but in the first two decades of the 21st century, it happened twice. Clearly an evolution of demographics, unable to have been foreseen 233 years ago by the framers, reveals that the original design has resulted in an outcome not in accordance with the spirit of the framers, as illuminated in Federalist #22. Therefore, remedial action is required.

In 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'.

The ONLY reason Republicans are resisting this idea is because they know they can't win an election if it requires majority win. They want tyranny of the minority.

Sorry, the public will not stand for it. The will of the people, democracy, will prevail

Cheers,
Rumpole

No thank you that's not the will of the people but the will of leftists

 

[Rumpole]

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

Well, if you actually believed that, we would not be having this tawdry exchange.

So, discuss.

Let's see if you are true to your words. I'll be waiting.

But no one is trying to 'push leftists views'. The whole point is to debate. Do you not understand this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I agree the court needs to be expanded but because there are 13 judicial districts and "only" 8 justices.
In addition I'd like legislation calling for the movement of the 2 longest serving justices to an emeritus status where they could advise the court and assist with work not requiring the entire court thus allowing every president to nominate at least 2 justices to the court. The president, if desired, could renominate an emeritus justice back to the court.

Under this no justice would serve more than 24 consecutive years without being renominated.

Also, a code of conduct for the SCOTUS along with annual audits of their personal finances.

Also, laws forbidding the spouses of justices from being involved in politics in any way.

The integrity of the SCOTUS should never be questioned. Unfortunately, the actions of the spouses of Justice Thomas and and Chief Justice Roberts have given the impression, rightly or not, of possible ethics issues. If we are to honor the decisions of the SCOTUS then the integrity of the justices must be above reproach.

Numbnuts there are 9 justices

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if you actually believed that, we would not be having this tawdry exchange.

So, discuss.

Let's see if you are true to your words. I'll be waiting.

But no one is trying to 'push leftists views'. The whole point is to debate. Do you not understand this?

I've countered everything you've presented

 

[Rumpole]

No gaslighting on my part I've countered everything you've said to the point you've shown your leftist intent. It's not about balance but Constitutionality of how they rule

But you fail to grasp this fundamental point: the Collective judicial philosophy of a 6/3 conservative leaning court does not reflect the will of the people, given the simple fact that the court is was appointed by someone who wasn't elected by the will of the people.

As for your 'constitutionality', that's subject to judicial philosophy. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on what 'constitutionality' means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But you fail to grasp this fundamental point: the Collective judicial philosophy of a 6/3 conservative leaning court does not reflect the will of the people, given the simple fact that the court is was appointed by someone who wasn't elected by the will of the people.

As for your 'constitutionality', that's subject to judicial philosophy. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on what 'constitutionality' means.

Anyone who believes the supreme court is supposed to be left right balance has no grasp of the constitution and the supreme court.

 

[Auld Phart]

But you fail to grasp this fundamental point: the Collective judicial philosophy of a 6/3 conservative leaning court does not reflect the will of the people, given the simple fact that the court is was appointed by someone who wasn't elected by the will of the people.

As for your 'constitutionality', that's subject to judicial philosophy. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on what 'constitutionality' means.

Why Was the Electoral College Created? | HISTORY

The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.

www.history.com

"Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency."

 

[Dadoalex]

Numbnuts there are 9 justices

Sorry, typo.
But your willingness to go apeshit over a type shows both your lack of intellect and lack of self control.