Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 12, 2020

Adam J. Levitin, American Prospect: With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ugly, partisan Supreme Court nomination fight once again looms over American politics, starting with today's Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Fortunately, there's a simple--and unambiguously constitutional--way to avoid this problem in the future. We can depoliticize the Court by supersizing it. ... If the Court were substantially expanded to, say, 33 justices, it would be too large for all justices to hear every case. Instead, the Court would have to sit in smaller panels of randomly assigned justices, just as the circuit courts of appeals already do.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Taking politics out of it, I've seen arguments saying that increasing the size of the SCOTUS would allow them to take more cases each term - because there is indeed a backlog of cases requiring their attention. Imagine that an expanded court might operate along the lines of the lower appellate courts where smaller randomly chosen blocks of justices might hear more cases and render verdicts that could still be elevated to the whole body if they decide to.

Perhaps the best thing moving forward would be to write a new law that dictates any appointed judge must receive 2/3rds of the Senate votes to pass their confirmation.

#3 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-10-10 09:39 AM

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-12 01:00 PM | Reply

2/3 support for confirmation,none would ever pass, thats the outcome. Even 60 votes to pass is too hard. Government is broken.

#2 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-12 01:08 PM | Reply

2/3 support for confirmation,none would ever pass, thats the outcome.

Yes it would, because both parties are fully aware that extremist judges need not apply. We need to get back to a modicum of comity where the needs of the nation as a whole are elevated above those of the party.

And the reality of SCOTUS judges is not that Democratic nominees have been wild-eyed liberals far outside of the public mainstream. That is solely reserved for the Republicans and conservatives of recent decades. Merrick Garland is a perfect example. His name was first introduced as an acceptable jurist that the Democrats would never nominate, and when they did Mitch McConnell refused to even meet with him, much less allow him his hearing and votes.

Most of the "liberal" controversial decisions still in argument today were made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. But the recent controversial "conservative" decisions (Citizens United, Voting Rights Act, et_al) were decided by 100% Republican president appointed justices.

There is no bothsides to this dynamic, there is only one side who unilaterally looks to the Court to enact/reinterpret that which they could not achieve through legislation, the most recent example being the pending ACA case coming up on November 10.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-12 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Perhaps the best thing moving forward would be to write a new law that dictates any appointed judge must receive 2/3rds of the Senate votes to pass their confirmation.

The only thing this would do is permanently entrench GOP's intransigent minority rule.

The actual solution is to admit DC and PR as states, and maybe even carve up California so that Republicans never control the Senate again.

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 01:26 PM | Reply

A majority of American voters want a Democratic Senate. It's just that arbitrary state lines drawn before any of us were born prevent that from happening. Adding more Dem states is the only way to put the will of the people into action.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Carving up California will also result in republicans senators.

Outside the majority cities. California is very Republican.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I do agree with this. After the -------- of the Scalia and RBG replacement games, the GOP has broken the system. It is one thing to question a potential justices ideology and philosophic outlook. It is something totally different to rig the system so that only one side gets to make appointments. What we really need is to expand the Court and have a non-partisan panel making the recommendations. No more political appointments based on Party loyalty.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-12 01:30 PM | Reply

Republicans have basically stated that now unless the president's party controls the senate, the president can't make supreme court appointments.

They broke it. Dems should fight equally dirty.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-12 01:34 PM | Reply

A majority of American voters want a Democratic Senate.

You people really think that you are the only ones in the country that matter, don't you? Don't you understand your mode of thinking is what got us where we are?

Whether you think so or not, conservatives deserve representation just like everyone else. And when we are voted into office, we deserve to be able to set policy, just as you think those on your side should.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 01:38 PM | Reply

If McDonalds can super=size a Big Mac meal, America can super-size the Supreme Court!

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-12 01:40 PM | Reply


Carving up California will also result in republicans senators.

Outside the majority cities. California is very Republican.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack

And if it is "carved up", it should be done equally, so no part of California has more sway than the other.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 01:40 PM | Reply

Why are the repubs being so hypocritical about this nomination? Do they fear they will lose the Senate? This strong arm action to get their way before the election reeks of desperation.

ACB is a total nutjob. Worse by far than Kavanaugh. She is a religious zealot.

I want a secular republic, not some whackjob's version of a theocracy. Her "faith" is relevant to her qualifications as justice.

BORK THE BITCH.

#12 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-12 01:49 PM | Reply

"You people really think that you are the only ones in the country that matter, don't you?" -- Boaz

No, but your posting history shows that clearly you do. You pretend the state of NC fully agrees with you when you are more the minority than the majority even there. Every voice should be heard equally.

#13 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-12 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Carving up California will also result in republicans senators.

It's probably be 4-2 Democrats. So still a net gain. But it obviously depends how you cut it up.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 01:50 PM | Reply

Whether you think so or not, conservatives deserve representation just like everyone else.

And you can have it in the House. And if you ever manage to convince more than a minority of Americans that your regressive policies are preferable, I'll agree that you deserve the Senate and WH too. But that is not the case today.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 01:52 PM | Reply

Whether you think so or not, conservatives deserve representation just like everyone else. And when we are voted into office, we deserve to be able to set policy, just as you think those on your side should.

U.S. Senate Election Results 2018

53,085,728 votes (59.3%) Democrats 34,987,109 votes (39.1%) Republicans

U.S. House Election Results 2018

60,572,245 votes (53.4%) Democrats 50,861,970 votes (44.8%) Republicans

en.wikipedia.org

The day the Republicans are truly representative of a majority of this nation's voters is the day they can legitimately claim the right to set policy.

Republicans are in the minority and have been for years and years. The only thing empowering them are the decisions made by long dead statesmen who never envisioned this nation's future growth and how it would eventually concentrate in urban centers which diminishes the national political strength of those living in them.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-12 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

U.S. Senate Election Results 2018

53,085,728 votes (59.3%) Democrats 34,987,109 votes (39.1%) Republicans

This is biggest reason why Mitch McConnell is cramming ACB's nomination down the Senate's throat before November 3.

After November 3rd, the numbers are going to be even worse for the GOP and they know this as sure as they're breathing. When you lose by 20 points nationally in the last off-year Senatorial elections, why would they think they're going to win during the next cycle with the most unpopular president of modern times - unable to crack 42% of the electorate?

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-12 02:06 PM | Reply

And if it is "carved up", it should be done equally, so no part of California has more sway than the other.

#11 | Posted by boaz

Right. Wouldnt want the representation to be democratic would we? No we need empty desert to have the same representation as crowded cities.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-12 02:49 PM | Reply

If "conservatives" had their way it would be illegal to be a liberal. Only "conservatives" have the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

#19 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-10-12 03:10 PM | Reply

what is all this nonsense about cutting up california?

no chance.

you'd have a better chance of combining North and South Dakota into 1 state.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 03:18 PM | Reply

"If "conservatives" had their way it would be illegal to be a liberal. Only "conservatives" have the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution."

Liberals who repurpose a complaint that's been made against Dems for many years are arguably the worst kind of Liberals.

#21 | Posted by humtake at 2020-10-12 03:38 PM | Reply

#20 - Eberly, there was a lot of talk about splitting Cali up by a GOP group there wanting to take a chunk of the state as their own state. I had already moved but seem to recall a large movement to create a state called Jefferson. I would have to look it up but you are welcome to do so if you actually question it. I agree with you that there is no chance it will happen, but in all fairness to Clown this is something that is talked about a lot in California and not just pulled out of nowhere.

#22 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-12 03:49 PM | Reply

Justagirl.

To be accurate.

It was Joe who brought up splitting California and adding Puerto Rico and DC to the Union.

I was pointing out how splitting up California wouldn't necessarily result in Democratic senators because a lot of the state is solid red.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 04:01 PM | Reply

2/3 support for confirmation,none would ever pass, thats the outcome. Even 60 votes to pass is too hard. Government is broken.

#2 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

It wasn't long ago that justices regularly cleared that threshold. Even among our current court we have three justices who would have still been confirmed. Justice Sotomayor - 68 votes, Chief Justice Roberts - 78 votes and Justice Breyer - 87 votes. Justice Kagan was close with 63 votes.

#24 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-10-12 04:01 PM | Reply

"talk about splitting Cali up by a GOP group there"

There was a Libertarian who wanted to do five states, and basically put Silicon Valley into it's own state so the internet millionaires didn't have to support all the rest of California with their taxes.

It had nothing to do with forming a more perfect union, its literally just a way to lower taxes on the rich.

#25 | Posted by Snoofy at 2020-10-12 04:09 PM | Reply

22

Eastern Colorado has discussed this as well.

Even if you had no opposition at the Federal level (you will) the cost of setting up separate states would be enormous.

Last I checked, operating as 1 state is already pretty expensive in California. This would blow it up, cost-wise.

"but in all fairness to Clown"

that's funny.....

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 04:16 PM | Reply

#25 - Snoofy, I dont recall anything about 5 states. Just the one big push in the last 10 years to break off a section. I remember going to Cali to visit family and northern Cali had a LOT of signs about breaking off of California and forming Jefferson. I am sure you are right and it was not to form a more perfect union, they never are.

#27 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-12 04:18 PM | Reply

Also, Justagirl,

Here's the proposition to split up California into 6 in 2016:

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here's the proposition to split up California into 3 in 2017:

en.m.wikipedia.org

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 04:20 PM | Reply

that's funny.....
#26 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why don't you go cry about it to the Konservative Kry Klub.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 04:22 PM | Reply

The day the Republicans are truly representative of a majority of this nation's voters is the day they can legitimately claim the right to set policy.

But we arent like that, are we? You really should get away from looking at the U.S. as one whole nation when it comes to local politics. We arent designed that way.

Local politics isnt good at the national level.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 04:28 PM | Reply

#28 - Clownshack, thanks. I havent been to Cali since 2015 and I cant recall if it was that trip or one before. I just remember seeing the Jefferson signs all over the place. I only go as far south as Fresno and I dont think they went that far down, but dont recall where they stopped.

Pushing ACB to the Supreme Court so quickly, and looking like a sure thing, will probably backfire on the GOP. These nominations push the Republicans to get out and vote for a GOP President. If it is a sure thing that the court will be conservative the moderate voters have less fear of electing Biden...

#31 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-12 04:32 PM | Reply

I was pointing out how splitting up California wouldn't necessarily result in Democratic senators because a lot of the state is solid red.

And I will point out again that, since land doesn't vote, it would still be a win for Dems. California went 61-31 for Hillary in 2016. Cut the state up properly and you can easily get 4 to 6 Dem senators out of the deal.

But that isn't really the point; grab any solid blue populous area if you don't think California is a good example. Dems could literally admit every neighborhood in DC as a blue state and we'd never see a Republican Senate again.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 04:41 PM | Reply

#32,

That's exactly why we should have majority mob rules everywhere Joe. Thanks for pointing that out.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 04:45 PM | Reply

#33 The only difference between what you support and "mob rule" is that in your preferred system, the smaller mob gets its way. You've never articulated a coherent reason for why that should be the case.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You've never articulated a coherent reason for why that should be the case.

He can't because there isn't one. There is only one political election in the entire United States of America where the candidate with the most votes doesn't automatically win, and that's for POTUS due to the constitutionally enshrined Electoral College.

There is not a single state, county, or municipality that does elective office any other way. Majority "mob" rule is called participatory democracy Boaz, and it always has been. It can never be "mob" because each state sets it's own rules for who constitutes a legal voter.

You only show outright scorn for fellow citizens who might not align with your own politics. I've never stated that conservatives should not be represented just because they constitute a minority. I've only said that they haven't earned the right to lead from their minority status - particularly when they've purposely and illicitly rigged the game in order to maintain their control.

As has been told to you before and before, you really need to take a civics class. What you don't know about American politics is appalling for someone so arrogant in your erroneous beliefs and steeped in your own ignorance.

#35 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-12 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#9 - if you feel that "conservatives aren't represented" than a larger SCOTUS will obviously provide more opportunities for your ideals to be brought forward. Also, doesn't it just make sense regarding resolving the backlog? Do you have a better idea?

#36 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-10-12 05:18 PM | Reply

Trump is disgusting: Stormy Daniels, his multiple affairs and marriages, his racist speech, his crazy personality that can't apologize or take ownership, spray tans, his inability to listen to advice...

He needs to be defeated by a reasonable candidate.

Yet Dems frakkin' PUNT by trying to pack the court.

I feel sick.

And so many of you just defend it by saying people like me were always going to vote for him. Just like Biden said (practically).

You're too far gone, I fear.

This alone will lose the election for Biden.
Quote me.

#37 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2020-10-12 06:25 PM | Reply

"You only show outright scorn for fellow citizens who might not align with your own politics.

#35 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-10-12 05:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:" his warped idea of wh

Boaz does not simply show scorn for fellow citizens, he shows scorn for the ideals that the US is supposed to represent. I write this because he posted this the other day:

"Once Trump nominates this woman to the Supreme Court, you have have the Presidency back.
Trump has done what I wanted him to do. Well have the court to tell you liberals "no" for generations to come.

#45 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-09 06:58 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

He is absolutely fine with putting in place a mechanism which he hopes will render every US voter who does not share his view impotent to effect change through the ballot box "... for generations to come."

Just like the founding fathers intended.

#38 | Posted by Foreigner at 2020-10-12 07:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

impotent to effect change through the ballot box "

I said nothing about the ballot box. I was talking about activist liberal judges making policy and changing our country from the bench.

Stop making things up...

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 08:47 PM | Reply

I was talking about activist liberal judges making policy and changing our country from the bench.

But activist conservative judges doing the exact same thing is ok, correct?

#40 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-12 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#38 Wow. Boaz really is a miserable piece of ----.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-12 09:00 PM | Reply

"Stop making things up...

#39 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 08:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

They are your words Boaz.

I would not be surprised if you did not fully comprehend the meaning of them, but I do not accept your explanation. You see absolutely nothing wrong with the tyranny of the minority as long they are your minority - you confirmed this to me in one of my first exchanges on DR and your post above is simply more of the same.

#42 | Posted by Foreigner at 2020-10-12 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

But activist conservative judges doing the exact same thing is ok, correct?

There is no such thing. We only need judges to keep you liberals from changing this great country into a hellhole..

#43 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 09:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

but I do not accept your explanation.

I dont give a ---- what you dont "accept".

That doesnt make it invalid.

I would not be surprised if you did not fully comprehend the meaning of them

You are the only one who doesnt understand the meaning of words around here.

#44 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 09:41 PM | Reply

You see absolutely nothing wrong with the tyranny of the minority

And you see nothing wrong with the minority being able to defend themselves and their way of life from the majority.

Sucks for you, our country put in safety mechanisms to ensure the minority are not run over and their rights RESPECTED and not just given lip service to you..

That's why you hate me..

And I'm good with that.

#45 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 09:42 PM | Reply

How to eliminate politics from the
Supreme Court? Each side gets an
Equal Number of Justices...3, 4, or 5.
Period. Personally, I think a Court
of 8 or 10, 4-5 from ach side, should have enough intellects on it to argue any point until hell freezes over (or we see Trump's full
tax returns)... That way, in ever decision,
at least one person would have to 'cross
over' for a decision to be rendered. A tie
decision is fine too, every tie would have
to wait 5 years before reappearing on the
Court's docket. This would solve much of
the over-politicization of the body.

#46 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-12 09:45 PM | Reply

We only need judges to keep you liberals from changing this great country into a hellhole..

How? Other than by making policy and changing your country from the bench.

#47 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-12 09:45 PM | Reply

You can't have an even number of SCOTUS Justices. If there is a tie the lower court ruling prevails and the decision only affects that issue. It does not set precedent for the nation.

#48 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-12 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Laura,

Shut the ---- up. Grownups are talking...

#49 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 09:57 PM | Reply

"That's why you hate me..
And I'm good with that.

#45 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 09:42 PM |"

You seem a bit excited - it has impacted your ability to write comprehensible sentences.

I know you only through your postings on DR. I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other, so I certainly don't hate you; I might find you pathetic - I'll think on this and get back to you.

#50 | Posted by Foreigner at 2020-10-12 10:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Boaz Your psuedo Alpha Male shtick is getting rather moldy. No Alpha Male worth their salt whines like You do.

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-12 10:25 PM | Reply

Boaz Your psuedo Alpha Male shtick is getting rather moldy.

And your suedo "I wish I was a woman" stick is very moldy.

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 11:27 PM | Reply

You seem a bit excited - it has impacted your ability to write comprehensible sentences.

Wow. You are trying too hard to sound intelligent and cultured. You sound fake and stupid..

I'll think on this and get back to you.

I dont give a rats ass what you do. Go ---- yourself.

#53 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 11:31 PM | Reply

" Wow. You are trying too hard to sound intelligent and cultured. You sound fake and stupid..

I dont give a rats ass what you do. Go ---- yourself.

#53 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 11:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Was it the word " comprehensible" that triggered you? Maybe 5 syllables was too much to ask.

As for cultured, nothing says "cultured" more than the repeated use of old Germanic words; well done you.

Bed time in my time zone now - could be a good time for you to pull out another killer use of old Germanic.

#54 | Posted by Foreigner at 2020-10-12 11:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"your suedo "I wish I was a woman" stick is very moldy."

Fredo Boaz strikes again.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-13 12:32 AM | Reply

But activist conservative judges doing the exact same thing is ok, correct?

There is no such thing. We only need judges to keep you liberals from changing this great country into a hellhole..

#43 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-12 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Why can't you just pass laws that fix the laws liberals pass? Is that too hard?

#56 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-10-13 10:02 AM | Reply

"A majority of American voters want a Democratic Senate."

Do a majority of states, because that's what really matters.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 10:47 AM | Reply

Whether you think so or not, conservatives deserve representation just like everyone else. And when we are voted into office, we deserve to be able to set policy, just as you think those on your side should.
#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

How much representation?

They are OVER REPRESENTED due to the Senate and Gerrymandering.

Deal with it.

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-10-13 01:25 PM | Reply

Whether you think so or not, conservatives deserve representation just like everyone else. And when we are voted into office, we deserve to be able to set policy, just as you think those on your side should.
#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

To make the point better:

California has 2 Senators representing 39 million people.
Wyoming has 2 Senators representing 578,000 people.

Why should Conservative Wyoming have more representation than California?

Because the Constitution says so is not an answer. It was written at a time when the states were roughly equal in population.

As a matter of fairness to voters, why should small rural voters have 75 more voting power than voters in large states?

#59 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-10-13 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One thing I think people on both sides would agree upon is that if the Dems do super-size the Court it will be because the GOP left them no choice after the political farce of both the Scalia and RBG replacement proceedings.

#60 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-13 01:36 PM | Reply

"Why should Conservative Wyoming have more representation than California?"

Are you serious?

It's the Senate. It was literally designed this way.

It sounds like you're looking to abolish the Unites States and replace it with something different.

Traitor!

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:03 PM | Reply

We only need judges to keep you liberals from changing this great country into a hellhole..

#43 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Have you been in cave?

Too late!!!

This Trumplandia. The cities are burning the people still protesting racial injustice and the economy is crashing jobs are hard to find and the air is on fire and we can't breathe and I have to rush out in a pandemic where over 200,000 Americans have already perished to buy stamps so the post office doesn't fail and democracy freakin dies on my watch...

And you are worried about liberals making America into a hellhole some distant time in the future?

You need to check your priorities son.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-13 03:53 PM | Reply

"And when we are voted into office, we deserve to be able to set policy"

In your home state of NC, the "policy" they set was "Even if we don't get the majority of votes, we still get the majority of the seats."

That's about as Un-American as you can get.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-13 04:17 PM | Reply

It's the Senate. It was literally designed this way.

I dont like to speak for others, but i believe his question meant "can you provide some rational current-day justification for one state having 68 times the per capita Senate power than another. "Because it was designed that way" is not a justification for anything.

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-13 04:30 PM | Reply

This thread reminds me why I had to take a break; so much boaz bullhsit.

#65 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2020-10-13 05:01 PM | Reply

Why does it matter how many people are in California?

And why should Wyoming care? Answer, they dont!

The states are supposed to be equal and autonomous. Something you liberals dont want.

NC doesnt care that California has 50 umpbillion people. That's good for California..

We dont need your extra votes, we can vote just fine for ourselves..

#66 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-13 06:26 PM | Reply

There should be a check on powers: the Senate.
There should be proportional representation: the House of Representatives.

There should be proportional division of electoral college votes: (WIP: Work in Progress).

#67 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-13 07:08 PM | Reply

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912, and ratified April 8, 1913, the 17th amendment modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators. Prior to its passage, Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

Would the old way be a better method of selecting senate representation?

#68 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-13 07:09 PM | Reply

Eastern Colorado has discussed this as well.

#26 | POSTED BY EBERLY

As a resident of Western Colorado, I'd be happy to give Eastern Colorado to Kansas. :)

#69 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-13 07:12 PM | Reply

"The states are supposed to be equal and autonomous. Something you liberals dont want."

You're describing a Confederation.
We are a Federation. Something Conservatives don't want.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 07:25 PM | Reply

As a resident of Western Colorado, I'd be happy to give Eastern Colorado to Kansas. :)
POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2020-10-13 07:12 PM | REPLY

It wouldn't be the first time it belonged to Kansas.

#71 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-13 07:41 PM | Reply

There should be a check on powers: the Senate.
There should be proportional representation: the House of Representatives.

There should be proportional division of electoral college votes: (WIP: Work in Progress).

#67 | Posted by GOnoles92

So the the check on powers should be handled by an antidemocratic body that gives far more representation to someone in wyoming than someone in california?

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-13 07:41 PM | Reply

We are a Federation.

Dont stop short...You are close. You are close to saying the truth....

We are a federation.......of independent states.

You are getting there....

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-13 08:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#73 | Posted by boaz

Fine. Lets go back to when you were property, and women couldn't vote. But i guess you're still property, aren't you BOAZO. And a welfare ---- :)

The independent states idea went out the window a while back. You're just trying to pretend it's still a reality to further you POS black Nazi fantasy.

You and your kind are finished.

#74 | Posted by billy_boy at 2020-10-13 08:17 PM | Reply

The 14th Amendment evicerates the notion that we are a federation of independent states.

#75 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-13 08:25 PM | Reply

If it turns out that Trump is guilty of felony tax fraud before and/or during his time in office, I think the Dems have every right to expand the SC. Tax cheats shouldn't get to nominate lifetime SC justices.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-13 08:30 PM | Reply

If it turns out that Trump is guilty of felony tax fraud before and/or during his time in office, I think the Dems have every right to expand the SC. Tax cheats shouldn't get to nominate lifetime SC justices.

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-13 08:30 PM | Reply

We are a federation.......of independent states.
You are getting there....

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I think it is high time we resurrect Sherman so he can burn his way through North Carolina again.

#78 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-13 08:41 PM | Reply

#78 | Posted by truthhurts

Sherman's March part 2...we thought you understood the first time, but apparently not. We'll leave a lot fewer survivors this time :)

#79 | Posted by billy_boy at 2020-10-13 09:06 PM | Reply

We are a federation.......of independent states.

You are getting there....

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

It's called The United States.

Because we have a Federal Government.

To be "The Independent States of America" all you need do is get rid of the federal government.

So simple right?

Go for it boogaloos.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-13 09:18 PM | Reply

So the the check on powers should be handled by an antidemocratic body that gives far more representation to someone in wyoming than someone in california?
#72 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

... there is already the House of Representatives.
With regard to "antidemocratic," should state representatives select the federal senators?

#81 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-13 09:36 PM | Reply

Why does it matter how many people are in California?

Because the most rational and defensible way to run a nation is for each person within that nation to have the same amount of say in the nation's policies?

The states are supposed to be equal and autonomous. Something you liberals dont want.

That's right. I want "people" to be equal. You want "arbitrarily divvied up sections of land" to be equal. People, being the ones who cast votes for Senate, deserve that equality more than some lines on a map.

You will never actually answer the question of why certain people should have such outsized representation in any body of government, so just shut the ---- up and stop responding to me.

#82 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-13 11:51 PM | Reply

You can say all you want about oh if they do this or that California will rule the nation if they give them equal votes. Well their economy is bigger than most nations, but that isn't even the point I want to make.

Go to a grocery store in CA, my god the fresh vegetables and produce are a beautiful thing to see.

Eat all the corn and wheat you want but fresh vegetables will enhance your life.

Side note: the best tomatoes I ever ate were at a farmers market in Kaui'I and I actually never knew what a pineapple really tasted like.

I ramble, but

#83 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-14 12:13 AM | Reply

#45 that's why you hate me

Sure sad sack (army cartoon ,if you're old enough,lol)

Nobody hates you

#84 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-14 02:30 AM | Reply

"I dont like to speak for others, but i believe his question meant "can you provide some rational current-day justification for one state having 68 times the per capita Senate power than another. "Because it was designed that way" is not a justification for anything."

Yes, Joe, because we live in the United States of America, and not the state of America. To alter this construct would require altering the constitution.

That's doable, of course...I just don't see enough states being interested.

And doing so outside the context of the constitution would be treason.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:21 AM | Reply

"That's right. I want "people" to be equal. You want "arbitrarily divvied up sections of land" to be equal. People, being the ones who cast votes for Senate, deserve that equality more than some lines on a map."

Again, that's fine, but it's not up to you. It's up to the states. You'll need to sell them on this.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:26 AM | Reply

Take a penny, leave a penny.

Liberals:

This is a great solution for avoiding a pocket full of copper...nobody wants pennies, and it all evens out in the end. Here's a couple of pennies, I took one out yesterday.

Conservatives:

I'm going to grab every coin in that sucker every chance I get. I would never leave my hard earned money for some lazy poor person to take advantage of the system.

This is how they think about every situation. Litigious, gaming the system, taking advantage of every person they can, no idea what the words, "social contract," mean. Just a disturbingly large group of bigoted, narcissistic sociopaths who demand attention and consider themselves victims whenever they don't get their way. Biden is too good for them, they deserve the same scorched earth politics they've been playing for decades to come down on them like a wrecking ball. Sure, it's a broad brush, but it's accurate.

#87 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-10-14 03:58 AM | Reply

Technically speaking, conservatives donate more of their own money to charity than progressives.

Progressives would prefer to take money from Peter to give to Paul than to give Paul any of their own money.

Or so it would seem.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 04:07 AM | Reply

Without Paul being obligated to do anything in return, of course.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 04:08 AM | Reply

You will never actually answer the question of why certain people should have such outsized representation in any body of government, . #82 | POSTED BY JOE

If only large population states influenced matters of importance at the federal level, prepare for the supremacy of CA/TX/FL/NY. All other states will be relegated to hell holes of forgotten land, and will fight as tributes for our entertainment.
PayPerView.

#90 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-14 07:33 AM | Reply

#85 I already said "because it was designed this way." I'm asking for a justification - an argument in support - a logical independent reason someone in one state should have 68 times the senate power as someone in another.

"Hey, why should Ford Pintos be allowed to engulf their drivers in flames?"
"Because they are Ford Pintos."
-Madbomber, 1970s

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-14 07:37 AM | Reply

*"Because it was designed this way"...is not a reason.

#92 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-14 07:38 AM | Reply

If only large population states influenced matters of importance at the federal level, prepare for the supremacy of CA/TX/FL/NY.

They wouldn't "only" influence matters of national importance. Those states only combine to equal one third the US population so any candidate or issue would still have a long way to go, and that's even if they voted as a monoculture, which they don't.

Taking the 2016 presidential election as an example, those four states only went 57-43 Democrat, meaning that even if they represent a third of US voters they would equal just 19% of Democrat votes. As you can see, under the actual diverse makeup of those four largest states, any candidate or issue would still have a very long way to go and cant just let every other place in thr country languish.

#93 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-14 07:50 AM | Reply

"Technically speaking, conservatives donate more of their own money to charity than progressives."

Mostly to their MegaChurches. To steal words from Trump....Suckers and Losers.

#94 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-14 09:24 AM | Reply

"Progressives would prefer to take money from Peter to give to Paul than to give Paul any of their own money."

I've paid in taxes all my life and never whined once about some of that money going to support poor people in red states so your comment is just a lie. You want to believe it is true because it justifies your belief in low taxes for the 1% but it is just not true.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-14 09:26 AM | Reply

The 14th Amendment evicerates the notion that we are a federation of independent states.

#75 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

No it doesnt you dumb ass. It only states that people are American citizens no matter what state they are in.

It says nothing about us being one only nation or separate states.

You might want to refrain from talking in grownup discussions..

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-14 12:43 PM | Reply

Boaz, we tried being a confederation.
It didn't work.
That's why we wrote the Constitution.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 12:46 PM | Reply

It's called The United States.
Because we have a Federal Government.
To be "The Independent States of America" all you need do is get rid of the federal government.

The constitution was designed to RESTRAIN the federal government, to KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE. It's not supposed to have a large presence in the lives of the people at the local level.

Why you liberals cant understand this I dont know...

#98 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-14 12:48 PM | Reply

#97,

See #98

#99 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-14 12:48 PM | Reply

"some rational current-day justification for one state having 68 times the per capita Senate power than another."

"To alter this construct would require altering the constitution."

But small states didn't have 68x the power when the Constitution was written.

So obviously something else altered it: Time and politics.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 12:49 PM | Reply

*"Because it was designed this way"...is not a reason."

That's right, Joe. It can be changed at any time (I think) through a constitutional amendment. But you would have to get enough states on board who think that it is a bad design. I think many states are quite appreciative of the way things currently work.

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 12:49 PM | Reply

"The constitution was designed toRESTRAINthe federal government, to KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE"

But it also gives the government some obligations as well. Like promote the General Welfare.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 12:50 PM | Reply

#101 I'm familiar with the Amendment process, thanks for explaining though. Still irrelevant to my question. You (and Bozo) have yet to provide a rational explanation for WHY the senate and electoral college SHOULD BE the way they are. I know how to change it, and i know that will never happen. That doesn't mean the current system is defensible.

#103 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-14 05:31 PM | Reply

Taking the 2016 presidential election as an example, those four states only went 57-43 Democrat, meaning that even if they represent a third of US voters they would equal just 19% of Democrat votes. As you can see, under the actual diverse makeup of those four largest states, any candidate or issue would still have a very long way to go and cant just let every other place in thr country languish.

#93 | POSTED BY JOE

Majority vote without state borders would be how the nation heads toward the Hunger Games. With roughly 50% voter participation, a presidential candidate could make their case to only the most populous states, visit only the most populous states, and appeal to only the most populous states with the numerous benefits available to spend in their patron states.

Rather than being represented, Hawaii, Iowa, Rhode Island, and other forgotten backwater states may instead have their citizens volunteer to entertain those of us in the elite populated states.

#104 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-14 06:04 PM | Reply

"That's right. I want "people" to be equal. You want "arbitrarily divvied up sections of land" to be equal. People, being the ones who cast votes for Senate, deserve that equality more than some lines on a map."
Again, that's fine, but it's not up to you. It's up to the states. You'll need to sell them on this.

#86 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-14 03:26 AM | REPLY | FL

Some people are more equal than others

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-14 07:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Technically speaking, conservatives donate more of their own money to charity than progressives.

#88 | POSTED BY MADBOMBE

That is simply not true

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-14 08:04 PM | Reply

Majority vote without state borders would be how the nation heads toward the Hunger Games. With roughly 50% voter participation, a presidential candidate could make their case to only the most populous states, visit only the most populous states, and appeal to only the most populous states with the numerous benefits available to spend in their patron states.
Rather than being represented, Hawaii, Iowa, Rhode Island, and other forgotten backwater states may instead have their citizens volunteer to entertain those of us in the elite populated states.

#104 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

I predict that voting % would go up significantly because currently many people feel their votes don't matter. Since a state like GA or NJ is going to go red and blue regardless, respectively, why bother to vote?

Presidential candidates make their cases to a few swing states now, to the point where the most populous states are considered irrelevant for consideration by the candidates.

So rather than being represented the vast majority of Americans are held hostage to the the few states.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-14 08:16 PM | Reply

Majority vote without state borders would be how the nation heads toward the Hunger Games.

Sensationalist nonsense.

With roughly 50% voter participation, a presidential candidate could make their case to only the most populous states, visit only the most populous states, and appeal to only the most populous states with the numerous benefits available to spend in their patron states

Under our current system, two thirds of presidential campaign events are in just six states, and 94% of campaign events are in just twelve states. So even accepting the dubious premise that where a candidate "visits" somehow plays a role in the benefits that inure to states from the winning administration, the notion that our current system is any better is laughably false. If anything it's worse because the very few states visited by candidates are not the largest, meaning that under your premise less people are benefiting.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-14 08:16 PM | Reply

Conservative "charitable causes" include giving money to religious groups who spend it on anti gay marriage ballot initiatives.

And sending Sandmann to the nation's capital for a political rally to take women's rights away.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 10:02 PM | Reply

#98 | Posted by boaz

So, you're completly OK with Trump bribing farmers hurt by his trade war with China, who received $54,000,000,000 so far this year?

Trump and GOP doing Socialism

#110 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-10-14 10:10 PM | Reply

What's 54 billion dollars when you can outlaw abortion and make blacks even poorer?

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 10:13 PM | Reply

somehow plays a role in the benefits that inure to states from the winning administration, the notion that our current system is any better is laughably false.

Considering that the discussion of change on this matter is entirely hypothetical, and change unlikely without a ... civil war (cue dramatic music), I appreciated your academic response.

#112 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-14 11:01 PM | Reply

I predict that voting % would go up significantly because currently many people feel their votes don't matter. Since a state like GA or NJ is going to go red and blue regardless, respectively, why bother to vote

"Why bother to vote?"
- the missing ~2.5% of Texas Beto supporters who stayed home during 2018.

Only 53% of all of Texas participated in that election lol.

#113 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-14 11:05 PM | Reply

(The first paragraph is a quote from TruthHurts in #107.)

#114 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-10-14 11:06 PM | Reply

This is long but I thought it was well put together. I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more attention from it.
Sen. Whitehouse speaks at ACB hearing

#115 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-15 12:12 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort