Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[jotathought]

specifics matter and you arent being specific enough and if it gives libs even one word to latch onto they can control it as a false narrative,,

You're going into an unnecessary position in which a majority of Republicans support.

 

[excalibur]

It's the same outcome .. each congressional district is based on the majority vote. Sir .. you're arguing against a viewpoint that aligns with your narrative.

States are free to divvy their electors.

What they are not free to do is the latest leftoid scheme of giving their electors to whoever receives the most popular votes, in spite of how their state votes.

IOW, candidate 'A' wins in, say, RI, but candidate 'B' wins more of the popular vote nationwide, so RI gives its electors to 'B' despite the majority of its people having voted for 'A'.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's an improvement, though I think 15-29 would be better, and a tiered system to handle the greater caseload, to remove the burden of the shadow docket which is now taking too many cases.

ARTHUR: Not another shrubbery!
HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two-level effect with a little path running down the middle.
RANDOM: A path! A path! Ni!
HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!
[dramatic chord]

Sorry

 

[progressive hunter]

You're going into an unnecessary position in which a majority of Republicans support.

explain how being specific is wrong??

dont even give one word for the libs to grab onto,,

 

[meaner gene]

So Biden gets to add 4 justices to the Supreme Court. He loses in 2024 to Trump or DeSantis. The Republicans add 6 justices to the Supreme Court. Now we have 19 Justices.

In a couple of decades we have a Supreme Court with 100 justices. We have to build a new building to hold all the justices.

Perhaps Democrats shouldn’t have picked Hillary to run against Trump. Elections have consequences.

Actually I see a proposal to return the justices to overseeing only one circuit at a time, like in the old days.
Now you have justices overseeing three circuits, while others only have one. Which is unfair to the three circuits who get only one third of a justices attention.

There are 13 circuits, so there should be 13 justices to oversee them.

 

[jotathought]

States are free to divvy their electors.

What they are not free to do is the latest leftoid scheme of giving their electors to whoever receives the most popular votes, in spite of how their state votes.

IOW, candidate 'A' wins in, say, RI, but candidate 'B' wins more of the popular vote nationwide, so RI gives its electors to 'B' despite the majority of its people having voted for 'A'.

Unfortunately, this is a process that liberal states have employed to give all the electoral votes to the president with the popular vote. This includes states like Maryland, who would give all their electoral votes to Republicans if a Republican candidate were to win and / or strip the people if they voted overwhelmingly for a candidate who didn't receive the popular vote. If Maryland voted 100% for Joe Biden, yet Donald Trump won the popular vote, all those Democrat votes would go for Donald Trump.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the rules, no ad homs. Back up your claims, or offer a solid path of reasoning. You haven't.

No, one judicial philosophy on the court is a kind of judicial tyranny.

You have no clue as to how to debate. vacuous claims are not an argument. Read the rules set forth in the OP.

you haven't backed up your initial claims' no state has enacted any law that restricts voting to ant minority at all and you can not cite one that does. No one gerrymandered the Senate and no one gerrymandered the Presidental races. There is not minority rule at all the majority of states elect a President it does not matter if several states have extra millions of liberals in them, they don't count outside their individual state. The popular vote is IRRELEVANT in Presidental elections always has been always will be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Like whom? and for what political nominees?

2 states split based on congressional districts. For president.

 

[Rumpole]

you provided it several times,, I have had them removed because of that,, guess the rules for libs are different than everyone else,,

why would I go to a cult meeting and try and convert them??

fact remains we are a constitutiona republic and not any of the things you keep claiming and because of that only constitutional cons should be on any court more so with SCOTUS..

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.

 

[Rumpole]

The word 'democracy' is not in the Constitution. We are NOT a democracy, we are a representative Republic.

A representative democracy is a democracy of a certain type. The terms 'constitutional republic' and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. You are letting semantics obfuscate reality.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

a democracy is a broad term that covers several types of governments,,

and since a constitutional republic is almost on the opposite side of the scale as a true democracy,, its nothing more than gaslighting to outright dishonest to argue such a simple yet clear difference,,,


we are a constitutional republic and the left doesnt want to mention that so its easier to deceive the simple minded and push true democracy using progressive tactics,, biggest one being racism and the gay agenda,,

 

[progressive hunter]

A representative democracy is a democracy of a certain type. The terms 'constitutional republic' and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. You are letting semantics obfuscate reality.

of course they are different,, one has a constitution that dictates and restrict what the government can do and the other doesnt,,

 

[BackAgain]

a democracy is a broad term that covers several types of governments,,

and since a constitutional republic is almost on the opposite side of the scale as a true democracy,, its nothing more than gaslighting to outright dishonest to argue such a simple yet clear difference,,,


we are a constitutional republic and the left doesnt want to mention that so its easier to deceive the simple minded and push true democracy using progressive tactics,, biggest one being racism and the gay agenda,,

DumpHole knows that. But he is very hostile to the truth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[progressive hunter]

is this one of the sources for the thought of the day and daily leftist talking points??

 

[excalibur]

A representative democracy is a democracy of a certain type. The terms 'constitutional republic' and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. You are letting semantics obfuscate reality.

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

is this one of the sources for the thought of the day and daily leftist talking points??

Nah, nothing to worry your tiny head. Thom's just an old scholar.

 

[Rigby5]

IMO... We have enough talent on the court now. Keep it at 9 but set a maximum age. I say 75.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

beings we are not a democracy your idea flops in concept and application,,

I disagree.
While it is true we are not a democracy, a larger SCOTUS is not a direct democracy either, but would better represent the views of the nation and population.
Right now the SCOTUS represents an extreme religious minority.

 

[BackAgain]

I disagree.
While it is true we are not a democracy, a larger SCOTUS is not a direct democracy either, but would better represent the views of the nation and population.
Right now the SCOTUS represents an extreme religious minority.

No. It doesn’t.