SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[The Evil Genius]

We should go back to the 6 person SCOTUS that originally existed, right (per the Judiciary Act of 1789)?

 

I mean, if we want strict originalists...

Edited October 27, 2020 by The Evil Genius

[Simmsy]

 

[Fergasun]

It sucks for us, but over the next 20 years the balance of power will run its course.  Whether court stacking comes into play, or other conservative policies like striking down ACA, Roe v. Wade, and Voter Suppression will push people to vote against. 

 

Also, Texas is purple now... 2024 or 2028 it will be a battleground state.  Heck, maybe it is this year and we don't know.  

 

Everyone will laugh at me because of Dictator Trump and folk voting for him, ultimately I trust our Democracy and citizens.

[Dan T.]

I've heard some good arguments for why the Supreme Court should be expanded, but the only argument I've heard for not expanding it is "It's been nine for a long time."

[youngestson]

50 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

It sucks for us, but over the next 20 years the balance of power will run its course.  Whether court stacking comes into play, or other conservative policies like striking down ACA, Roe v. Wade, and Voter Suppression will push people to vote against. 

 

Also, Texas is purple now... 2024 or 2028 it will be a battleground state.  Heck, maybe it is this year and we don't know.  

 

Everyone will laugh at me because of Dictator Trump and folk voting for him, ultimately I trust our Democracy and citizens.

Preach!

It's hard to take a long view of things generally, but the country has weathered some pretty horrible times before. 

 

We need to do so again. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Helping to make Texas Blue again. Also, saw this on FB, so posting for all The Handmaid's Tale fans. So appropriate.

 

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Dan T. said:

I've heard some good arguments for why the Supreme Court should be expanded, but the only argument I've heard for not expanding it is "It's been nine for a long time."

well, I think this is a good argument but I’m not so sure anyone else will. 
 

I don’t mind expanding the court for the purposes or making it better operate as a system. I don’t know how you determine what # that is. 
 

what I am against is one party being upset the other party got to replace certain judges with certain people, so they expand the court to sway the balance back the way they want. 
 

that’s petulant bull****. and if the Dems do it, I expect the republicans to do it better. Cause that’s how this crap usually goes. 
 

so I’d prefer we save expanding the court for reasons other than petulant bull****. 
 

if you want to name the nominations then win the elections. 
 

Edited October 27, 2020 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

How about adding spots AND fixing the reasons that the GOP was able to pack the Supreme Court (and lower courts) 

 

Eliminate the EC and make it impossible for the Senate to hold up nominations (e.g. make them go to Senate vote within a certain period of time) for the SC. Additionally, add stipulations when they can be nominated. 

 

Cocaine Mitch is the reason we have the morons at the Federalist Society running the SCOTUS. 

 

Edit..I purposely left out term limits because tbh, I've never been a fan. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

Yeah not for eliminating the EC either. 
 

just not on board with whole sale changes just because you struggle to get what you want. 
 

that’s such a terrible way to problem solved. So short sighted and naive. 

[Fergasun]

@tshile

What is the logic for upholding the Electoral College system?  We are all represented by the President, it is the one national candidate on all ballots.  It seems that the whole country should get equal voting power for the one position that is so important in a representative Democracy. 

 

I can live with the dilution of Senate vote as that is and was a legitimate compromise for the country.  But I have a harder time understanding the rational against popular voting for the President.  

 

Please enlighten me... 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah not for eliminating the EC either. 
 

just not on board with whole sale changes just because you struggle to get what you want. 
 

that’s such a terrible way to problem solved. So short sighted and naive. 

 

You support the will of the people being overlooked for a system that was designed to appease slave states? 

[tshile]

Just now, Fergasun said:

What is the logic for upholding the Electoral College system? 

Raw majority vote has downfalls that are worse than the EC. 
 

the solution is to fix the shortcomings of the EC. Not drastically change the system to create (in my view) worse problems. 

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

You support the will of the people being overlooked for a system that was designed to appease slave states? 

No oppose changing it so that dem strongholds can forever guide the election. 
 

Pretend pure majority doesn’t have issues all you want. I will not support the idea. there are better solutions. 
 

 

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

What is the logic for upholding the Electoral College system?

 

Got a better one.  

 

What's the logic of debating something which can not happen until you convince red states with below-medial populations to ratify a constitutional amendment which will make them less powerful in Presidential elections?  

 

In a thread about the Supreme Court?  

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

It seems that the whole country should get equal voting power for the one position that is so important in a representative Democracy

The EC provides its own version of equal voting power. And it absolutely has merits. Ours has gotten out of whack. So fix that. 
 

pretending popular vote is the only way is nonsense. Ignoring its pitfalls is ignorance. If you’re not well versed in what the two systems provide for balancing representations then go read into it. 
 

Fixing gerrymandering, ranked voting, rebalancing the allocation/senators all are much easier solutions to start with, that would likely resolve majority if not all the issues, and wouldn’t introduce the problems a pure popular vote system would. 

[Captain Wiggles]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

No oppose changing it so that dem strongholds can forever guide the election. 
 

 

 

As opposed to the three states that decide it now.

 

For the last 20 years ****ing Florida has been deciding presidential elections. Not a state well known for the decision making. 😆

Edited October 27, 2020 by clietas

[tshile]

1 minute ago, clietas said:

 

As opposed to the three states that decide it now.

 

For the last 20 year ****ing years Florida has been deciding presidential elections. Not a state well known for the decision making. 😆

That’s not what happened last time  and it’s not what’s happening this year. 
 

this idea that only 3 states decide every election is nonsense. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by tshile

[Captain Wiggles]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

That’s not what happened last time  and it’s not what’s happening this year. 
 

this idea that only 3 states decide every election is nonsense. 

 

So why so many campaign stops n so much advertising in the same few states every election? 

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Fixing gerrymandering, ranked voting, rebalancing the allocation/senators all are much easier solutions to start with, that would likely resolve majority if not all the issues, and wouldn’t introduce the problems a pure popular vote system would. 

 

Scraping the EC would make more sense than doing all that. I definitely agree with some of the proposals tho. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by clietas

[The Evil Genius]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

That’s not what happened last time  and it’s not what’s happening this year. 
 

this idea that only 3 states decide every election is nonsense. 

 

Roughly 80k votes over 3 states did decide the election in 2016 though. 

 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Got a better one.  

 

What's the logic of debating something which can not happen until you convince red states with below-medial populations to ratify a constitutional amendment which will make them less powerful in Presidential elections?  

 

In a thread about the Supreme Court?  

 

Segue into the Federalist Society controlled SCOTUS striking down the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if and when it gets done and causes problems for the GOP. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Roughly 80k votes over 3 states did decide the election in 2016 though. 

 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

I notice Florida isn’t in your list 😂

[The Evil Genius]

Just now, tshile said:

I notice Florida isn’t in your list 😂

 

I never mentioned them. I just corrected your post. 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

So why so many campaign stops n so much advertising in the same few states every election? 
 

i don’t think what you say is true. Read the post after hours. Florida wasn’t even mentioned. 

 

18 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Scraping the EC would make more sense than doing all that. I definitely agree with some of the proposals tho. 

No it doesn’t. Not if you want a fair system. 

[Captain Wiggles]

A fifty state strategy ain't easy which is why its only been attempted 4 or 5 times. EC needed to be done away with long ago. One state having four times the voting power as another is just a terrible way to decide any election.

 

Conservatives favor the EC because it favors them. If a vote in California were worth 4 times as much as one cast in Wyoming they'd be pretty pissed off too. One vote should have one value no matter the state the voter resides in.

[tshile]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

I never mentioned them. I just corrected your post. 

I know, others do. The guy I was responding to. 

[dfitzo53]

I too have strong opinions on the EC, but I'm pretty sure we have an EC thread already, before we get too far down that rabbit hole.

[tshile]

Just now, clietas said:

One vote should have one value no matter the state the voter resides in.

So your argument is that you with reject or do not understand the pitfalls of popular vote. 
 

very good.