With Kavanaugh vote, the Senate reaches a historic low in democratic metric

[PoliticalChic]

"To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After such an arduous confirmation hearing in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, gang rape, being an alcoholic, and having a really lame high school yearbook, it has been decided that Kavanaugh will get two votes on the Supreme Court, giving him twice as much sway as any other Justice.

"Yeah, it only seemed fair," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. "I mean, we really razzed him good—especially with the gang rape stuff—but he stuck with it, so I guess he deserves a reward. Two votes seems like the least we can do."

"Plus we now know we can really trust his judgment," add Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. "After all those FBI investigations, technically he's the now the one person in the country we can be most assured never sexually assaulted anyone."

It's unknown if Kavanaugh has any hard feelings, but he says he'll use his increased sway on the Supreme Court to "uphold an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" and to "take vengeance on my mortal foes."
To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court

The BabylonBee is the best source you've ever given us

Why do you Leftists default to the use of "us" and "we"???

Why the fear of standing up for yourself, without hiding behind some imaginary mob???

Grow a spine, you wimp.

1. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.
   1. In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at by “The Daily Show” and the other temples of the status-anxious. Conservatives are not susceptible to groupthink. Jon Stewart transmits the party line to idiots so they know who to hate. The act of applauding a joke rather than laughing at it is a public gesture that serves no purpose other than assuring everyone that you are part of the group. Coulter
   2. People desperate for a badge of identity are highly susceptible to groupthink, in fierce need of a ‘guide,’ and, so, the “foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness.” Le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind,” p.22.

When Sarah Sanders splits, I plan on nominating you as her replacement!

Pay attention.


The office I'm running for is Queen.

 

[DrLove]

"To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After such an arduous confirmation hearing in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, gang rape, being an alcoholic, and having a really lame high school yearbook, it has been decided that Kavanaugh will get two votes on the Supreme Court, giving him twice as much sway as any other Justice.

"Yeah, it only seemed fair," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. "I mean, we really razzed him good—especially with the gang rape stuff—but he stuck with it, so I guess he deserves a reward. Two votes seems like the least we can do."

"Plus we now know we can really trust his judgment," add Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. "After all those FBI investigations, technically he's the now the one person in the country we can be most assured never sexually assaulted anyone."

It's unknown if Kavanaugh has any hard feelings, but he says he'll use his increased sway on the Supreme Court to "uphold an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" and to "take vengeance on my mortal foes."
To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court

The BabylonBee is the best source you've ever given us

Why do you Leftists default to the use of "us" and "we"???

Why the fear of standing up for yourself, without hiding behind some imaginary mob???

Grow a spine, you wimp.

1. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.
   1. In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at by “The Daily Show” and the other temples of the status-anxious. Conservatives are not susceptible to groupthink. Jon Stewart transmits the party line to idiots so they know who to hate. The act of applauding a joke rather than laughing at it is a public gesture that serves no purpose other than assuring everyone that you are part of the group. Coulter
   2. People desperate for a badge of identity are highly susceptible to groupthink, in fierce need of a ‘guide,’ and, so, the “foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness.” Le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind,” p.22.

When Sarah Sanders splits, I plan on nominating you as her replacement!

Pay attention.
The office I'm running for is Queen.

Would that be the Queen of Heartless?
It could work!

 

[DrLove]

Never EVER was it 40, 50 or 60 to one. In particular, when the constitution was written.

Really? What was the ratio between North Carolina and Vermont?

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Actually...wanting to change a system that's worked rather well for 250 years because your side lost an election is pretty dumb. I think the Founding Fathers would be pleased by how well what they conceived has worked so far.

We'll see how you feel about that next time Rs win an election by 3 million votes and Ds squeak the EC with the help of foreign trolls and bots.
Bet you'll be singing a different tune!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The disconnect between the United States Senate and the American people has never been greater.

It's like in the UK. The House of Lords just doesn't seem to understand the commoners.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're there kids - Rule by fiat rigged by an autocratic minority. Sad

The disconnect between the United States Senate and the American people has never been greater. If you thought the Senate has gone off its rails, the numbers back you up.

The Senate majority represents a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

Based on a new analysis of Senate votes from 1901 to the present, we found that beginning last year senators voting in the majority represented a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

In yesterday’s vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, the 50 senators voting yes represent states covering just 44% of the U.S. population or 143 million Americans. That’s less than a majority, less than the 181 million Americans represented by the senators voting no (you might say the “Senate popular vote”). Yet the nomination was confirmed.​

With Kavanaugh vote, the Senate reaches a historic low in democratic metric

In yesterday’s vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, the 50 senators voting yes represent states covering just 44% of the U.S. population or 143 million Americans. That’s less than a majority, less than the 181 million Americans represented by the senators voting no (you might say the “Senate popular vote”). Yet the nomination was confirmed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Really? What was the ratio between North Carolina and Vermont?

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Actually...wanting to change a system that's worked rather well for 250 years because your side lost an election is pretty dumb. I think the Founding Fathers would be pleased by how well what they conceived has worked so far.

We'll see how you feel about that next time Rs win an election by 3 million votes and Ds squeak the EC with the help of foreign trolls and bots.
Bet you'll be singing a different tune!

Unlike you, Doc...I grasp that one plays by the rules that were stated BEFORE a contest begins and one doesn't whine about those rules if you lose! If Democrats win the Electoral College...then they have won the election fair and square and you won't hear a thing from me on that.

What's amusing is how liberals like Hillary Clinton declared that anyone who disputed the results of an election was undermining our democracy...but then changed her mind on that totally once she lost. It's the same liberal hypocrisy that declared elections to have consequences back in 2008 and then not so much after the mid terms in 2010!

 

[Claudette]

Really? What was the ratio between North Carolina and Vermont?

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Actually...wanting to change a system that's worked rather well for 250 years because your side lost an election is pretty dumb. I think the Founding Fathers would be pleased by how well what they conceived has worked so far.

We'll see how you feel about that next time Rs win an election by 3 million votes and Ds squeak the EC with the help of foreign trolls and bots.
Bet you'll be singing a different tune!

If they win the EC then you won't hear a word out of me. The winner will have one fair and square.

Like it or not that's how the winners win.

The EC.

 

[DrLove]

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Actually...wanting to change a system that's worked rather well for 250 years because your side lost an election is pretty dumb. I think the Founding Fathers would be pleased by how well what they conceived has worked so far.

We'll see how you feel about that next time Rs win an election by 3 million votes and Ds squeak the EC with the help of foreign trolls and bots.
Bet you'll be singing a different tune!

Unlike you, Doc...I grasp that one plays by the rules that were stated BEFORE a contest begins and one doesn't whine about those rules if you lose! If Democrats win the Electoral College...then they have won the election fair and square and you won't hear a thing from me on that.

What's amusing is how liberals like Hillary Clinton declared that anyone who disputed the results of an election was undermining our democracy...but then changed her mind on that totally once she lost. It's the same liberal hypocrisy that declared elections to have consequences back in 2008 and then not so much after the mid terms in 2010!

You're not as bad as some of your bros around here, but I've definitely caught you moving the goalpost ;-)

 

[toomuchtime_]

We're there kids - Rule by fiat rigged by an autocratic minority. Sad

The disconnect between the United States Senate and the American people has never been greater. If you thought the Senate has gone off its rails, the numbers back you up.

The Senate majority represents a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

Based on a new analysis of Senate votes from 1901 to the present, we found that beginning last year senators voting in the majority represented a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

In yesterday’s vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, the 50 senators voting yes represent states covering just 44% of the U.S. population or 143 million Americans. That’s less than a majority, less than the 181 million Americans represented by the senators voting no (you might say the “Senate popular vote”). Yet the nomination was confirmed.​

With Kavanaugh vote, the Senate reaches a historic low in democratic metric

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

 

[DrLove]

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

"The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically"

Well it pretty much did that then, but sure as hell doesn't now -- And THAT my friend is the problemo!

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Founding Fathers had States that were more populous than others, Doc! You think Vermont in the 1700's had the same population as New York? As Virginia? As Pennsylvania? They set up a system of checks and balances to prevent mob rule and they did so deliberately! I'm constantly amused by how you on the left want to get rid of key elements of our governmental structure simply because you can't win elections.

Never EVER was it 40, 50 or 60 to one. In particular, when the constitution was written.

Really? What was the ratio between North Carolina and Vermont?

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Then what would the point being of them making the house and senate , Nostrdumbass?

They were where aware the difference of urban urban values and rural.


.

 

[DrLove]

Never EVER was it 40, 50 or 60 to one. In particular, when the constitution was written.

Really? What was the ratio between North Carolina and Vermont?

Around 4 to one. Little different than 60 to one wouldn't you say?

NY - 340,120
VT - 85,539

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Yet it's a HUGE difference and the Founding Fathers were obviously well aware of that fact...correct? So they chose to make the representation in the Senate different than in the House! Why would they do that? Do you think it was an oversight on their part? The truth is that they did what they did so that there would be a check against the States with large populations "bullying" States with smaller populations!

4 to 1 is not 60 to 1. If they'd seen the discrepancy such as we now have between CA and WY they'd never have written it that way. And had the Fathers been able to peak 250 years into the future, they'd have written at least a quarter or a third of the damn thing entirely differently.

Pretending otherwise is pretty dumb

Then what would the point being of them making the house and senate , Nostrdumbass?

They were where aware the difference of urban urban values and rural.

Pretty much everything was rural then clownguts.
But if ya wanna talk about the House - FINE

 

[Wyatt earp]

We're there kids - Rule by fiat rigged by an autocratic minority. Sad

The disconnect between the United States Senate and the American people has never been greater. If you thought the Senate has gone off its rails, the numbers back you up.

The Senate majority represents a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

Based on a new analysis of Senate votes from 1901 to the present, we found that beginning last year senators voting in the majority represented a historically low proportion of the country’s population.

In yesterday’s vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, the 50 senators voting yes represent states covering just 44% of the U.S. population or 143 million Americans. That’s less than a majority, less than the 181 million Americans represented by the senators voting no (you might say the “Senate popular vote”). Yet the nomination was confirmed.​

With Kavanaugh vote, the Senate reaches a historic low in democratic metric

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

He is to fucking stupid to figure that out, we would only have the house of representives and the senate wouldn't exist .

 

[toomuchtime_]

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

"The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically"

Well it pretty much did that then, but sure as hell doesn't now -- And THAT my friend is the problemo!

No, if you were familiar with US history, you would know the Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people. The smaller states were afraid of being overwhelmed by the larger states and would not have signed the Constitution without the protection of equal representation for the states in the Senate and so the Senate was designed to place a limit on democracy in the federal government. States Rights was an even stronger issue then than it is today, and the design of the Senate is a monument States Rights.

 

[DrLove]

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

"The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically"

Well it pretty much did that then, but sure as hell doesn't now -- And THAT my friend is the problemo!

No, if you were familiar with US history, you would know the Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people. The smaller states were afraid of being overwhelmed by the larger states and would not have signed the Constitution without the protection of equal representation for the states in the Senate and so the Senate was designed to place a limit on democracy in the federal government. States Rights was an even stronger issue then than it is today, and the design of the Senate is a monument States Rights.

Ah yes "States Rights" -
That thing that conservatives bellow about endlessly, UNTIL a state does something they hate.
*See Oregon Death with Dignity Law - (Ashcroft)/ Sanctuary Cites (Trump-Sessions)/ environmental regulation (Pruitt) and marijuana legalization (Sessions)
Democrats and Republicans have virtually switched sides on states' rights

 

[PoliticalChic]

"To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After such an arduous confirmation hearing in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, gang rape, being an alcoholic, and having a really lame high school yearbook, it has been decided that Kavanaugh will get two votes on the Supreme Court, giving him twice as much sway as any other Justice.

"Yeah, it only seemed fair," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. "I mean, we really razzed him good—especially with the gang rape stuff—but he stuck with it, so I guess he deserves a reward. Two votes seems like the least we can do."

"Plus we now know we can really trust his judgment," add Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. "After all those FBI investigations, technically he's the now the one person in the country we can be most assured never sexually assaulted anyone."

It's unknown if Kavanaugh has any hard feelings, but he says he'll use his increased sway on the Supreme Court to "uphold an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" and to "take vengeance on my mortal foes."
To Make Up For Extra Difficult Confirmation Process, Kavanaugh Awarded Two Votes On Supreme Court

The BabylonBee is the best source you've ever given us

Why do you Leftists default to the use of "us" and "we"???

Why the fear of standing up for yourself, without hiding behind some imaginary mob???

Grow a spine, you wimp.

1. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.
   1. In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at by “The Daily Show” and the other temples of the status-anxious. Conservatives are not susceptible to groupthink. Jon Stewart transmits the party line to idiots so they know who to hate. The act of applauding a joke rather than laughing at it is a public gesture that serves no purpose other than assuring everyone that you are part of the group. Coulter
   2. People desperate for a badge of identity are highly susceptible to groupthink, in fierce need of a ‘guide,’ and, so, the “foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness.” Le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind,” p.22.

When Sarah Sanders splits, I plan on nominating you as her replacement!

Pay attention.
The office I'm running for is Queen.

Would that be the Queen of Heartless?
It could work!

You have just destroyed any chance of be one of my palanquin guys.

Now it's exile for you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

"The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically"

Well it pretty much did that then, but sure as hell doesn't now -- And THAT my friend is the problemo!

No, if you were familiar with US history, you would know the Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people. The smaller states were afraid of being overwhelmed by the larger states and would not have signed the Constitution without the protection of equal representation for the states in the Senate and so the Senate was designed to place a limit on democracy in the federal government. States Rights was an even stronger issue then than it is today, and the design of the Senate is a monument States Rights.

Ah yes "States Rights" -
That thing that conservatives bellow about endlessly, UNTIL a state does something they hate.
*See Oregon Death with Dignity Law - (Ashcroft)/ Sanctuary Cites (Trump-Sessions)/ environmental regulation (Pruitt) and marijuana legalization (Sessions)
Democrats and Republicans have virtually switched sides on states' rights

The same can be said about Democrats who are arguing the states have the right to decide for themselves what to do about illegal immigrants and the federal government has no right to determine the issue for them. However, none of this has anything to do with your bizarre complaints about the Senate not representing the people democratically; it was never suppose to.

 

[DrLove]

You have just destroyed any chance of be one of my palanquin guys.

Now it's exile for you.

Well, I probably won't miss Narnia very much my queen

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have just destroyed any chance of be one of my palanquin guys.

Now it's exile for you.

Well, I probably won't miss Narnia very much my queen

Make yourself at home.....

 

[DrLove]

Silly irrelevant bs. The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically but to give the states equal representation. When you consider that the state of Texas and the state of Delaware have the same number of senators, complaining that the majority party does not represent the majority of the people is a confession of ignorance about the American government and American history.

"The Senate was not designed to represent the people democratically"

Well it pretty much did that then, but sure as hell doesn't now -- And THAT my friend is the problemo!

No, if you were familiar with US history, you would know the Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people. The smaller states were afraid of being overwhelmed by the larger states and would not have signed the Constitution without the protection of equal representation for the states in the Senate and so the Senate was designed to place a limit on democracy in the federal government. States Rights was an even stronger issue then than it is today, and the design of the Senate is a monument States Rights.

Ah yes "States Rights" -
That thing that conservatives bellow about endlessly, UNTIL a state does something they hate.
*See Oregon Death with Dignity Law - (Ashcroft)/ Sanctuary Cites (Trump-Sessions)/ environmental regulation (Pruitt) and marijuana legalization (Sessions)
Democrats and Republicans have virtually switched sides on states' rights

The same can be said about Democrats who are arguing the states have the right to decide for themselves what to do about illegal immigrants and the federal government has no right to determine the issue for them. However, none of this has anything to do with your bizarre complaints about the Senate not representing the people democratically; it was never suppose to.

And yet until the middle of the 20th century - It pretty much did. C'mon now, do you seriously believe that the founders could have envisioned the semi-automatic assault rifle when they wrote the second amendment? I have an old single-load Flintlock Musket from the late 1800s. The weaponry we have today would have been unimaginable at the time.

And this is the problem with constitutional originalists. They want to interpret the constitution in a way that affirms their conservative worldview by somehow reading minds, but fail to see that 250 years of time kinda changes everything!