Garland has shown what kind of black gown tyrant he would beHe got a hearing and a vote, which is more than Garland received.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Garland has shown what kind of black gown tyrant he would beHe got a hearing and a vote, which is more than Garland received.
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.
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.
America is all about elections where the vote is DIRECT DEMOCRACY:
We vote in run offs, primaries, and caucuses.
We vote for representatives.
We vote for senators.
We vote for governors
We vote for mayors, government officials from municipal to state levels in every state and municipality in the United States.
We vote for ballot initiatives in many states and municipalities.
or create an amendment to rid the nation of the EC.
If Biden packs the court, what happens if Trump wins in 2024 ?
Also, I'd like to break CA into six states so that the republicans in the state actually have a chance of having their votes count once in a while. We can do that to CA without their permission...right ?
I was just pointing out all of the direct elections we have in America, most of the elections are direct, save for legislation and the EC. NOONE is suggesting getting rid of the house and senate, it would be impossible and impractical. Every western developed democracies are also representative democracies. The term 'Democracy', "liberal democracy' and/or 'western democracy', given the commonality, all mean representative democracies.Wrong again. Direct Democracy would have all of us voting on all bills.
As a representative democracy, that is the way the system is set up. It's always been that way.
Why the need to change it NOW ?
Courts are to measure law against the constitution. That is what the SCOTUS has done. The fact that you don't like the results does not matter.
Some believe......who cares ? It does not matter. If it did, it would have been addressed by the founders.
Nobody has proved voter suppression. It's a constant whine from some. Just like rigged elections from the other side. Nothing has been proven. And the court is following the rule of law, not some falsely generated moral code. Some don't like it because it causes them to "lose".
They can deal with it.
And if you go back to the way it was, you'll never see another democratic president.
But let's ask....what majority ? A president wins when a majority of people in enough states to produce 271 EV's vote for him. In theory, he could win with as little as 1/3 of the overall popular vote. At the same time, the number of STATES that vote democratic is much less than what vote republican. And that was important to the founders (that's why it was set up that way). If you take CA out of the picture, it's 2% of the states....but the democrats would be very hard pressed to win anything.
A majority of people ?
A majority of states ?
You say majority of American's views....I say poppycock. States and their role in the internal affairs of the U.S.A. are as important as a majority of people.
And if we take this further....the SCOTUS and federal government should not be ruling on a lot of what they currently rule on. They have way overstepped their scope as defined in A1S8. The founders never counted on their either.
It is very simple.
Liberals today - SCOTUS currently is conservative leaning - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in the future - the larger SCOTUS is conservative leaning again - WE NEED TO MAKE MORE JUDGES!!
Liberals in a different future - SCOTUS is now currently liberal leaning - NO MORE JUDGES!!
End of Discussion.
Suggest closing the thread as all arguments contrary to above is a waste of time and ridiculious.
We could also unify South and North Dakota (whose population combined is less than a major city in CA, giving several hundred thousand people 4 senators to CA's 2 senators for 39 million), not ot mention unifying North and South Carolina, and why not make PR, Guam and the Virgin Islands states? Might as well, if we're going for it. Oh yeah, Virginia and West Virginia, I so no reason they should be two different states.
As for CA, there are about three unique regions worthy of their own statehood, northern, central, and southern california. That would give the region 6 senators for 39 million, which would be a better representation than exists currently.
I was just pointing out all of the direct elections we have in America, most of the elections are direct, save for legislation and the EC. NOONE is suggesting getting rid of the house and senate, it would be impossible and impractical. Every western developed democracies are also representative democracies. The term 'Democracy', "liberal democracy' and/or 'western democracy', given the commonality, all mean representative democracies.
People vote for electors.
Electors vote for the president,
Therefore, it is PEOPLE, and not states, who elect the president.
There can be no fairer democratic system than one person one vote.
There can be no more practical system of creating legislation than a representative democracy.
We should repeal the 17th Amendment.
Yes, and after Bush there was never going to be another republican president.Since I'm 72, maybe not, but by 2050, I say we have a good chance as the nation shifts leftward, demographically and caucasians are supposed to be a minority by then.
The article indicates a temporal tick in 2021, and that was done at the time of the Pandemic whichYes, and after Bush there was never going to be another republican president.
How is the nation shiftingleftward ?
Which is why I support doing away with unearned electors. We should eliminate winner take al.A state only needs 51% of the popular vote to send 100% of it's electors to vote for one president.
The start? at the start they were slave overs, so I'm not buying this idea we are obligated to cling to 'original intent'.Please don't tell me you don't know the difference.
One man one vote (that idiot Warren really was clueless) was totally screwed up. And yes there can be a fairer system. Small states are not going to have their lives run by larger states. That was built in from the start.