Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The GOP whines when the same standard they have used on their opponents is used when the coin is flipped. The GOP set the new lower standard of behavior.
Keep in mind the Democrats in favor of delaying the nomination are also the same Democrats who were not in favor of delaying Merrick Garland's nomination.
I have no problem with someone calling out hypocrisy but it's really disingenuous when both parties are doing the exact same thing, yet you're only whining about one side.
Personally, I'm in favor of the moving forward with the nomination just as I was with Merrick Garland.
May be another topic for another day but perhaps the dialogue should be "strike when the iron is hot" - that is when Obama controlled both chambers of congress would have been the ideal time for RBG to resign and hand over the reins. But for some reason the justices believe that lifetime appointment truly must be fulfilled and leave the future of the court to chance. And here we are.
It's not politically wise in the long term. If it is pushed through there will be blowback, probably first through a convention of the states as purple states shift red in reaction. We saw this happening at the end of Obama's second term.
A minority of voters support court packing. A radical Democratic government made possible by court packing and fiddling with the senate better be ready for a sustained campaign of repressive minority rule, because that's the only way it lasts. Such a repressive rule would destroy the country for a generation and throw the world into chaos.
If Democrats aren't prepared to engage in oppressive minority rule, then blowback will occur and court packing will have been for nothing.
If the GOP is determined to put highly conservative judges on the court, than the response should be to expand the Supreme Court. That is why I reluctantly believe it will be necessary to increase the number of judges on the US Supreme Court to eleven.
So, you're saying that if Trump wins re-election, then that gives him a mandate to pack the U.S. Supreme Court?
"I'm not sure why you're raising the 17th which focuses on Senators, in a discussion about SCOTUS." Well, mainly because the Justices to the SCOTUS, appointed by the President, are constitutionally required to have been picked upon the 'advice and consent' of the Senate.
"I certainly don't know why you say the states that signed the Constitution, have lost representation, and I suspect I'd prefer not to know." Happy to explain.. I did not say "the states that signed the Constitution have lost representation,". That implies I only commented on the original 13 States. ALL States are signatories to the constitution which is a compact or agreement between those States as to the limitations of the Federal Government, which is meant to serve the States. After the 17th Amendment, Senators are now picked by popular vote, which gives the States no voice in Congress. A future Senator is in no way obligated to garner approval of a sovereign State in order to represent it. The Senate now is more like a 100-member House of Representatives with special privileges such as SCOTUS approvals, treaties, etc.
"The phrase "Elections have consequences" has been around for decades, at least." You are probably right. I was merely pointing out to someone else, who blamed use of the phrase on today's Republicans, that I read that a previous President had brought it to popularity in the press. I should have been more clear.
"I'm not sure why you're raising the 17th which focuses on Senators, in a discussion about SCOTUS." Well, mainly because the Justices to the SCOTUS, appointed by the President, are constitutionally required to have been picked upon the 'advice and consent' of the Senate.
"I certainly don't know why you say the states that signed the Constitution, have lost representation, and I suspect I'd prefer not to know." Happy to explain.. I did not say "the states that signed the Constitution have lost representation,". That implies I only commented on the original 13 States. ALL States are signatories to the constitution which is a compact or agreement between those States as to the limitations of the Federal Government, which is meant to serve the States. After the 17th Amendment, Senators are now picked by popular vote, which gives the States no voice in Congress. A future Senator is in no way obligated to garner approval of a sovereign State in order to represent it. The Senate now is more like a 100-member House of Representatives with special privileges such as SCOTUS approvals, treaties, etc.
"The phrase "Elections have consequences" has been around for decades, at least." You are probably right. I was merely pointing out to someone else, who blamed use of the phrase on today's Republicans, that I read that a previous President had brought it to popularity in the press. I should have been more clear.
Here's your relevant sentence from your post # 96.
Quote:
The States, who are the signatories to the Constitution, have lost their representation.
So I guess I have to ask, beyond timing, what is the practical distinction between "states who are signatories" and "states that signed" ?
Apart from that's the way it was originally, why do you think it better that legislatures rather than the people choose Senators?
Biden will have to pack the courts to restore democracy, especially if the current nominee is confirmed. Really he has no choice.
I'm not so sure I'd go that far.
But I will say this -- over the past couple of weeks I've changed my mind and will now have no problem if he uses the Constitution to adjust the size of the court. I'm fed up with the GOP always playing hard ball, and the Democrats usually being more cautious.
State legislatures should choose their Senators because each state is sovereign unto itself. Each state has a variety of citizens living there and should represent them all as a body instead of representation by majority. For example, you have a city with 4 million residents and the rest of the state has 3 million residents: If the city's voters dominate popular election of senators the 3 million will never have a voice and are more or less serfs to the city population. Having the state appoint senators "flattens the curve" so to speak in that the appointment is made with concurrence of the state congress whose members are more representative of the whole state; not just the city.
A state is not just made up of voters. It is made up of a legislature, courts, and an executive. A sovereign entity. The states adopted the constitution to bind down the federal government so that it wouldn't take away their sovereignty. Each state retaining it's sovereignty was a major concern of states during debate and drawing up of the constitution. In fact, the Senate was a significant remedy to several smaller state's concerns their sovereignty would be negated by larger state's votes in the House.
States are bound by treaties through the Fed.: NAFTA, U.N., NATO, et al. All treaties approved by a Senate which is directly controlled by individual citizen's votes instead of their state government's approval. The laws of state governments are subject to being overturned by a Supreme Court which is staffed with approval of Senators who have been directly elected by each state's voters instead of it's legislature. It's government schizophrenia.
State legislatures should choose their Senators because each state is sovereign unto itself. Each state has a variety of citizens living there and should represent them all as a body instead of representation by majority. For example, you have a city with 4 million residents and the rest of the state has 3 million residents: If the city's voters dominate popular election of senators the 3 million will never have a voice and are more or less serfs to the city population. Having the state appoint senators "flattens the curve" so to speak in that the appointment is made with concurrence of the state congress whose members are more representative of the whole state; not just the city.
A state is not just made up of voters. It is made up of a legislature, courts, and an executive. A sovereign entity. The states adopted the constitution to bind down the federal government so that it wouldn't take away their sovereignty. Each state retaining it's sovereignty was a major concern of states during debate and drawing up of the constitution. In fact, the Senate was a significant remedy to several smaller state's concerns their sovereignty would be negated by larger state's votes in the House.
States are bound by treaties through the Fed.: NAFTA, U.N., NATO, et al. All treaties approved by a Senate which is directly controlled by individual citizen's votes instead of their state government's approval. The laws of state governments are subject to being overturned by a Supreme Court which is staffed with approval of Senators who have been directly elected by each state's voters instead of it's legislature. It's government schizophrenia.
The argument you make about the city/state dilema could just as easily, maybe even more so, be made about state legislatures, and I'm going to make it for you now.
Currently, there are only two states MN & NE, where there is split party control of the legislature. In all others, both houses are controlled by one party, 29 R, 19 D. So, in every one of those states, you can argue that the minority party has zero input, just like your example.
I don't buy your "flatten the curve" argument, and both the legislatures and executives, plus sometimes the courts, serve at the pleasure of the people.
SCOTUS overturns federal law, as well as state law. The ACA is on the docket in SCOTUS the week after the election.
I find it interesting, that the question is being raised of ethics and political wisdom of adding seats to the court, but when Republicans blocked Obama's court appointee (who was a reasonable and qualified candidate), there was no equivalent thread.
The Senate not voting on Merrick Garland was wrong and ill-advised in my opinion....and my opinion has not changed on that. The senate should have held a vote on him in 2016, up or down...period!
However, that being said, blocking a nominee, and adding justices to the court, are definitely two very different things.
I believe Garland was very qualified to be on the court, and when I heard someone interviewed on MPR (public radio) a couple days ago say that Amy Coney Barrett was "unqualified" to be on the court....I also thought, yeah, right, and by what standard is she "unqualified"???
The Senate not voting on Merrick Garland was wrong and ill-advised in my opinion....and my opinion has not changed on that. The senate should have held a vote on him in 2016, up or down...period!
However, that being said, blocking a nominee, and adding justices to the court, are definitely two very different things.
I believe Garland was very qualified to be on the court, and when I heard someone interviewed on MPR (public radio) a couple days ago say that Amy Coney Barrett was "unqualified" to be on the court....I also thought, yeah, right, and by what standard is she "unqualified"???
I have no reason to doubt Garland's legal mind or qualifications along those lines. I also have no reason to support Barrett's qualificaitons or legal mind.
I think there is a good argument to be made that the Senate should have voted on Merrick Garland, regardless of whether he was confirmed or not, if only for the process reasons. That said, if the outcome would have been the same, perhaps it wasn't worth wasting everyone's time?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
