Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[progressive hunter]

It's a democratic republic (representative democracy)- individual states and their corresponding population that determine the success or failure of a presidential candidate .

NOPE!!

we are a constitutional republic and it states how each state can determine how they send their electoral votes to a presidential election,,

 

[jotathought]

NOPE!!

we are a constitutional republic and it states how each state can determine how they send their electoral votes to a presidential election,,

We are saying the same thing .. just different verbiage.

 

[excalibur]

That you haven't come across a dictionary before doesn't mean you get to have your own meaning for words.

Democracy is a system of government in which people choose their rulers by voting for them in elections.​

[...]​

Synonyms: self-government, republic, commonwealth, autonomy​

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

 

[progressive hunter]

We are saying the same thing .. just different verbiage.

except youre leaving out the constitution that changes everything,, including an accurate description of what we are,,

 

[excalibur]

IMO it is a dream to gerrymander the Court because the democrats can't win elections. But speaking of gerrymandering the worst examples of that are all from democratic districts created by and for democrats. The concept that the court allowed voter suppression is a straight up lie designed and foisted by democrats to continue to cheat in elections. The concept that gerrymandering somehow caused the Senate to be controlled or influenced by republicans is laughable since you cant gerrymander an entire State. The idea that gerrymandering supports republicans more then democrats is also laughable and is only because they can't win state elections.

The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote so that argument is also laughable and just because New York and California have lots of democrats in it doesn't alleviate that each president won legally and democratically using the over 200 yuear old system that the democrats are now crying about because they can't seem to win.

And the worst gerrymandering being black districts, as if only a black person can represent a black person. And when you look at the dreck that makes up the Congressional black caucus, it makes it look even worse.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.

The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.

It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.

The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.

There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).

Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.

In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.

Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:

We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.

Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).

Let's discuss.

cheers.
Rumpole

 

[excalibur]

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Show us where the word 'democracy' is in the Constitution of the united states.

 

[excalibur]

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

LOL. “Rebalancing”.

IOW, more leftoids. That isn't balance, that is un-American.

 

[jotathought]

except youre leaving out the constitution that changes everything,, including an accurate description of what we are,,

sigh .. I'm not going to argue over semantics .. In simple terms, each state has number of electoral votes based on its population, and the majority vote of the state determines how its electoral votes will be cast (it could vary, but rare). Senators and Representatives are based on a democratic vote from the state. This also applies to state level individuals such as the governor, state representatives and state senators (.. and the typical administration: e.g. secretary of state).

 

[Batcat]

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

Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.

The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.

It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.

The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.

There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).

Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.

In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.

Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:

We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.

Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).

Let's discuss.

cheers.
Rumpole

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

sigh .. I'm not going to argue over semantics .. In simple terms, each state has number of electoral votes based on its population, and the majority vote of the state determines how its electoral votes will be cast (it could vary, but rare). Senators and Representatives are based on a democratic vote from the state. This also applies to state level individuals such as the governor, state representatives and state senators (.. and the typical administration: e.g. secretary of state).

its not semantics,, specifics matter,,

 

[progressive hunter]

sigh .. I'm not going to argue over semantics .. In simple terms, each state has number of electoral votes based on its population, and the majority vote of the state determines how its electoral votes will be cast (it could vary, but rare). Senators and Representatives are based on a democratic vote from the state. This also applies to state level individuals such as the governor, state representatives and state senators (.. and the typical administration: e.g. secretary of state).

not all states use majority vote,,

 

[BackAgain]

There is no valid case to be made for expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court of United States of America.

It’s just lib bitching bullshit. The libs are forever flummoxed by the law of unintended consequences, the whining twats that so many of them are.

 

[jotathought]

not all states use majority vote,,

Like whom? and for what political nominees?

 

[excalibur]

so, screw flyover country?

Only allow reps from democrat controlled areas?

That is their goal.

 

[jotathought]

There is no valid case to be made for expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court of United States of America.

It’s just lib bitching bullshit. The libs are forever flummoxed by the law of unintended consequences, the whining twats that so many of them are.

Agree 100% .. expanding the Supreme Court only sets a precedent that will change and morph based on who holds the presidential office.

 

[progressive hunter]

Like whom? and for what political nominees?

Why Do Maine and Nebraska Split Their Electoral Votes?

Instead of a winner-take-all system, the states use the "congressional district method"

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[excalibur]

the constitution states that for the senate it is to REPRESENT the States not the Population you idiot.

Unfortunately, Progressives wrecked that when they successfully pushed for the 17th Amendment. We haven't been the same nation since, all Senators are now are nothing but glorified House members.

 

[jotathought]

Why Do Maine and Nebraska Split Their Electoral Votes?

Instead of a winner-take-all system, the states use the "congressional district method"

www.smithsonianmag.com

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

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,,