Events Now Dictate That The Democrats Alter The Supreme Court At Their First Opportunity
A lot of people don't realize it, but the Supreme Court could have 11, or 15, justices. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits changing the number of justices. There have in fact been numerous instances in the past of the nation when the number of justices on the SC has been changed.
The Republicans have thrown all shred of objectivity about the Supreme Court away. They openly talk about the "dream" they have had to achieve a long lasting conservative majority on the court, which is bad enough in itself, but then they used unethical means to gain that majority. That is a signal that "all bets are off".
As soon as the democrats gain control of the three branches (House, Senate, and Presidency) which should be in 2020, they should proceed to "pack" the court. This should be maintained until such time as all parties agree, in writing, to only appoint moderate justices to the Supreme Court in the future.
This is the only way we can restore balance to the court and thwart the frankly evil designs of the right.
=============================================================
related
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is in tatters. Conservative forces in the country, led by the Republican Party, have completed a judicial coup, decades in the making.
Republicans rushed through Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation to avoid the possible consequences of an election. They aborted a full investigation because they feared what it might find. They made themselves complicit in a presidential attack on Christine Blasey Ford, a brave woman who asked only that her case against Kavanaugh be taken seriously.
After all these outrages, there will be calls for a renewal of civility, as if the problem is that people said nasty things about one other. But the answer to this power grab cannot be passive acceptance in the name of being polite. The causes and consequences of what just happened must be acknowledged frankly.
The conservative struggle for the court began in the 1960s, but it hit its stride in the Bush v. Gore decision after the 2000 election. Five conservative justices violated the principles they claimed to uphold on states’ rights and the use of equal-protection doctrine to stop a recount of votes in Florida requested by Al Gore, the Democratic nominee. They thus made George W. Bush president.
The pro-Bush justices made abundantly clear that they were grasping at any arguments available to achieve a certain outcome by declaring, “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” Translation: Once Bush is in, please forget what we said here.
Bush then appointed two staunch conservatives to the court: John G. Roberts Jr. (one of Bush’s legal foot-soldiers in Florida) as chief justice as well as Samuel A. Alito Jr.
More recently, Senate Republicans kept the late Antonin Scalia’s seat open for more than a year, refusing Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee, either a hearing or a vote. Neil M. Gorsuch, a far more conservative jurist, took the seat instead.
Now comes Kavanaugh. In blocking Garland, Republicans said it was urgent to wait until after the 2016 election to let the voters speak. They rushed Kavanaugh through to get him onto the court before the voters could speak in 2018. When power is all that matters, consistency is for suckers.
In the process, the White House turned the FBI investigation of Ford’s claims and Kavanaugh’s (questionable) credibility into a whitewash. Donald McGahn, the White House counsel and Kavanaugh’s leading advocate, told President Trump, as the New York Times put it, that a “wide-ranging inquiry . . . would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation.” You wonder what McGahn thought it would find.
There is also this: A generations-long conservative majority on the court has been cemented in place by a political minority. Kavanaugh was named by a president who won 46 percent of the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing 44 percent of the population . When you lack a majority, controlling the branch of government not subject to the voters is vital to working your will.
Democracy is all that opponents of the coup have left. In next month’s elections, the party responsible for this travesty must be punished. The idea that “both parties are equally to blame” is an unadulterated falsehood.
The undemocratic nature of representation in the Senate is unlikely to be remedied anytime soon, so progressives and Democrats need to organize far more effectively in the low-population red states. Critics of the judicial right need to remind voters that conservative judges regularly serve the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, not those of the heartland.
If Democrats take control of the House, they should hold hearings on the administration’s manipulation of the FBI investigation. These could also shed light on the extent to which Kavanaugh misled the Senate.
And there should now be no squeamishness about the urgency of enlarging the Supreme Court if Democrats have the power to do so after the 2020 elections. The current majority on the court was created through illegitimate means. Changing that majority would not constitute politicizing the court because conservatives have already done this without apology.
“Court-packing” makes people uncomfortable for good reason. Were it thrust upon the country suddenly by fiat, many Americans would be uneasy, as were even many Democrats in the 1930s with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-enlargement plan. That’s why we need a considered two-year debate over changing the number of justices — it was done seven times during the 19th century — as the only plausible response to the conservative court-packing project that reached fruition on Saturday.
Its foes need to stay angry. But even more, they need to vote, organize and think boldly. Democracy itself is at stake
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
If all goes well, by April or so of 2021 we could have six liberal justices on the court to the right's five.
Time to fight fire with fire and hardball these folks.
Ah!
Leave it to the Democrats to change the rules when they don't get their way!
Oh, boo-hoo!
What rules?
The Supreme Court should be a moderate, objective body. Trump was given a list of right wingers to choose from. It's time to put an end to this crap.
The rules on how many Justices there are.
SCOTUS IS an objective body.
They decide cases on LAW.
That is why a 9-0 decision is more likely than a 5-4 decision.
McConnell and the Republicans used some imaginary "Biden rule" to take away a Supreme Court seat from Obama.
get over yourself, lol. Your team is not the good guys.
I never claimed that there can't be more Justices. What I am saying is that SCOTUS is operating fine, and that your myth of a starkly divided court is silly. 9-0 decisions are more likely than 5-4, which strengthens my point.
John - the Biden Rule came about in 1992 - Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate.
But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee , said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
I was thinking exactly the same thing as soon as I read your post. Change the rules of the game to give the progressive leftist liberal Democrats the edge in power any way they can get it, because ultimately that is what it is all about in the end!
I know what the "Biden rule" is 1st. The problem is, it's not a "rule". It's some lines from someone's speech.
If a liberal politician said in a speech somewhere that everyone should get free money, does that mean there is a "rule" that everyone must be given free money? lol
There is no "Biden rule".
John
I agree that in a perfect world the nine members of the SCOTUS would be center of the road moderates with no bias to the right or the left and no personal beliefs that bleed into their decision and ruling processes on the court. But as I think you will agree we do not live in a perfect world.
A couple of questions -
do you consider RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer to be moderate justices?
what would your reaction be if the Republicans decided to do this next week and add two or three more conservative justices to the court?
I look forward to your answers to these questions
by then trump will have added ten new justices.
and then he will still have his second term to name ten more justices by 2024
any game the left can play the right can play better
LOL... So the right is better at "coming up all these grandiose schemes and then do have the ability or the smarts to carry them out. ? lol
I kinda of agree. Obama was nullified from start to finish lets see if the dems can keep that record going.
Because that's how we all win as a nation (I guess)
Does that fence sitting give you splinters?
Obama was never given anything but obstruction from day 1. If Obama was for it - the greedy old pricks were against it.
I really don't know how you weigh the abomination that is Trump against the rest of political world that is not Trump and come to the conclusion that they are equally bad. It is a position that denies all reality.
Na I have a pad I use to sit on. But I’m starting to wonder if you have a mind reading skill. I had just posted this @: 1.2.2 321steve
LOL !!
Here is a copy of that post as well:
any game the left can play the right can play better
This is the cause of the downfall of the left...they come up all these grandiose schemes and then don't have the ability or the smarts to carry them out.
my reply post: @: 1.2.2
LOL... So the right is better at "coming up all these grandiose schemes and then do have the ability or the smarts to carry them out. ? lol
I kinda of agree. Obama was nullified from start to finish lets see if the dems can keep that record going.
Because that's how we all win as a nation (I guess)
.........................
OK ? How's that ?
Smile...
lol
I think that's what Steve is saying. Congress obstructed (nullified) Obama in just about everything he wanted to do.
Let's see....who is scheming? The Left talkignabout plusing up the court becuase they didn't get their way, based on the story above. No scheming on the right, just doing the job that they were elected to do. I think the Yankees were far better losers last night than the Dems have been since Nov. 2016.
'I really don't know how you weigh the abomination that is Trump against the rest of political world that is not Trump and come to the conclusion that they are equally bad. It is a position that denies all reality.'
I never said that the left was equally bad. Please point out where I did so. I've NEVER EVER said that. I've given people shit for it - when they say the left is equally bad - like luther28 and rtb and steve above.
I really don't know how you got that from anything I've posted. Again, please point out where I did so.
Please excuse me if I've given you shit for interpreting you incorrectly.
My apologies.
I wasn't referring to you. It's that simple. I was referring to the fence sitters.
You can thank Nancy Pelosi for that, you might not remember, (but everyone else does) "Sit Down and Shut up, WE HAVE THE VOTES"
When she did that, the Democrat majority was toast.
I remember the day Obama walked up to the dias and said "Well, we had our butts handed to us." /sic
Democrats have been loosing elections ever since. And the only way he got a second term is the republicans inability to post a strong candidate.....
And then the Mountain of Trash campaign, the gift that keeps giving.
Democrats are their own worst enemy
'I wasn't referring to you. It's that simple. I was referring to the fence sitters.'
My apologies John. I see that now.
No I can thank Turtle Mitch McConnell for that when he made it plain from day one, NOT NANCY PELOSI.
I meant a generic "you" referring to those who sit in the middle. But you are correct, I didnt make that clear enough in that comment.
your comment has nothing to do with mine
It absolutely IS how we win as a nation.
Check out economic data from periods of extended gridlock. It's very solid.
IMO: Nulifing and disgracing our leader may cause a change in them but as winning as a nation I dont see how that makes us better. The economics under Obama were slow but steady in the increase and time will tell lif that was more stable that the balls to the walls recovery trump has ushered in. Winning as a nation to me means all or most boats rise and satay rissen. Time will tell.
I wouldn't be so sure of that it seems we've already had some of presidents "Best of the Best" pledge guilty to some various charges. I think I'll hold off my judgment for just a bit.
No, sorry but you are wrong. Obama had a democratic congress in 2008 and didn't need to work with the republicans. The statement from McConnel where he was making "job 1 to keep Obama to a 1 term president" was said right around the mid-terms in 2010.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html?utm_term=.4b6f20c42d04
[deleted Anyone using a smart phone is responsible for the auto correct errors it creates, please check before] you [hit send!]
Also the turtle said it was his proudest moment when he blocked Obamas pick of Merrick Garland
That one's easy Steve. Quote from Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to a problem; government IS the problem". If you can nullify government and at least keep it from getting in the way, any problem can be solved by private individuals.
You said nothing of "disgracing". Bit melodramatic, don't you think? I'm not sure it's even possible for the opposition party to "disgrace" a president.
Easy. It stops them "helping". The US govt "helping" an economic recovery is like your 3 year old "helping" you paint the house. The end product is terrible, a huge mess is made, and he tells you for years what a wonderful job he did.
The economics under Obama/Pelosi were awful. Under Obama/Boehner, we started to see slow, steady improvement.
Slow and steady is always more stable than balls to the wall.
I think it's more "most" than "all".
No kidding ? Really ? Yep..its true !
I knew that when I was a reenager unfortunatly where I was born though they are still sitting and waiting for that to happen.
I grew up in the middle of the midwest full of corn fields and baseball fields evidently most of the people in the area never figured out that cornfields and baseball fields don't an thriving economy make. I still know people sitting there thinking the government is going to fit that for them... 40 years later.
I knew waiting on the government to fix anything was frutial long ago and relocated to where people weren't waiting for a government to fix their world, a major city . Here we know, ya want to get ahead, ya better do it yourself.
Yep government is not the solution, we the people are for ourselves by ourselves.
I was actually referring to the meeting some of the republicans had about the time Obama was being sworn in to office where they agreed (conspired) to do all they could to make this man a one term president including obstructing , trying to disgrace and do all they could to discredit the man even before his term had begun.
I'm not sure they could either but they sure wanted to try or at least they said they would try, they did try .. for 8 years.
Good point.
I remember the secret meeting the Democrats held in January 2000 where they conspired to reelect Bush in 2000. And of course, they behaved with such dignity at his inauguration and certainly weren't trying to impeach him before he was even sworn in. And then they rode unicorns off into the sunset...
C'mon with this shit. The idea that Obama was treated worse than Bush or Trump is simply preposterous. Obama and the Democrats controlled Congress his first two years to a greater extent than any President in generations. Even if the Republicans were "conspiring" to make him a one term President (the horror of an opposition party trying to win an election!), they had zero power to do anything.
Obama owns his record to an extent greater than any President since LBJ. His failures were his own, and his party's.
any game the left can play the right can play better
This is the cause of the downfall of the left...they come up all these grandiose schemes and then don't have the ability or the smarts to carry them out.
LOL... So the right is better at "coming up all these grandiose schemes and then do have the ability or the smarts to carry them out. ? lol
I kinda of agree.
I stand by my post. I do agree that the right may be better at this nasty game. Not that they both dont play it. But I see which party is in charge and playing the game IS part of it. They are winning "the game" and many are proud of it.
Personally I think this "game"of dividing the masses up for power and profit by our politicians and media ...SUCK !
But to each their own.
I think that record is being broken as we speak. Trump answers to no one including the party he ran under to get elected.
Perhaps someone should remind president trump technically he is just our employee.
LOL yeah right !! LOL LOL LOL
Good Luck controlling this and Good Luck America !
talk to those trying to "fundamentally change" our country into some progressive / socialist shit hole with open borders and crap trade deals. progressive eutopia... a land where all it takes is a simple bs accusation to start investigations against political opponents. the left/democrats have become the party of crime and destruction and no deals will be made with anarchists except for shorter jail terms on good behavior.
the rest of us will stand our ground and will not let this country be sold out anymore.
those of us on the right will not be moved by words or violence.
we took our country back as promised yrs in advance
and we play for keeps.
Good luck I guess, the masses in any country will only stand for any government doing what goes against what they want so much. trump and his followers seem to believe because they won an election the other half of Americans seemed to vanished.
Well they didn't as the numerous protest since trump's first days in office show . The real problem is when a government is too one sided and too many people feel unrepresented and walked over they tend to revolt . sure slowly at first but if and when there is no to little change the weaker less influential paty will inter into a bigger revolt known here as riots. I grew up during the riots of the 60s and 70s and I wouldn't doubt if we see it again some day if America keeps being ruled by division.
It's not me that is inheriting what we do today. My life was good what everyone leaves for the next generation to deal with is of little concern to me. I've worked to limit my footsteps left behind here.
Thanks, Have a nice evening
ya keep saying that but every day he does exactly what we elected him to do.
you did not vote for him, therefore he does not represent your interests. why act shocked?
losing has consequences.
there is no reason for trump to care what the political losers he defeated on the left want as he was elected to ignore them across the board on every single issue, so, you can only expect more of that. much more of that actually.
cheers
no one said they vanished.
their political power has vanished and now their credibility is following close behind.
there is no future for anarchists in this country except pain.
and you better hope it stays that way cause if not, Good luck stopping him !
This reminds me of the pied piper story where they hired one man to solve the town's problem, once he did and didn't get the compensation he thought he deserved he turned on the town.
Good Luck controlling this and Good Luck America !
your kidding right? we have no interest in stopping him.
he is just now getting on solid footing and there will be no stopping what's coming...
I call it the numbing
would ya like a hint? you have never seen a supreme court nominee asked this question before.
the law of armed conflict
he was asked this line of questions for a reason... it is coming. the numbing
As others rejoice ! Like I said watch for the unrepresented "power vanished" people to get even more desperate.
That is what happens when people feel they have no other option. So rejoice away I doubt it lasts though.
Our political and the media are the ones to blame they gain in power and profit as they sit and watch the masses infighting.
What a country ! And we hire them to do this to us.. WOW
we are counting on it. (just another part of the plan.. .)
cheers
and you better hope it stays that way cause if not, then what ?
I fullly understand at this time and point trump is doing what the people who elected him want him to do. Like I said you people better hope it stays that way. From what I've seen mr now president trump is an unstoppable man. IF that turns aionast what YOU want, Good luck in stopping him, many many have tried, NO ONE has succeeded.
When the power is with you , wonderful. IF that power turns against what you want, what do you do ?
And BTW: the Pied piper story had a lesson, did we learn it ?
Time will tell.
Sad, It really does make me sad to see the country infighting to take control of each other.
Geez, I was typing on my phone and that's why it auto-corrected to sniffy rather than snuffy. Skirting the COC, give me a freaking break!!!!!!!!!!
I wasn't talking to you. Shoo.
Now Tessy, we must be extremely careful so as not to insult the snowflake righties!
I didn't get back in time to see what your reply was before it was removed.. all I can say is LOL, sniffy, snuffy.. hell I've been called worse (and will probably get more as time goes on).
irrational fears do not suit you.
it is true people have to go to jail or worse but the only people who need fear trump are the ones who have been selling out this country. they are traitors and will be treated as such. after the fisa declassification is public, rosenstein and comey will be gone and that is when those traitor's pain really starts as trials under the law of armed conflict begin.
before trump is done, that small group of politicians and bankers (the oligarchy) who have been screwing us over will be bagged, tagged, and dragged to the dump.
trump was elected to kick ass / the bell has yet to be rung
first the light weight fights / rosenstein - comey - then the main event begins.
have no fear.... relax and watch the show it will be good fun
I fullly understand at this time and point trump is doing what the people who elected him want him to do. Like I said you people better hope it stays that way.
How is that irrational ? I see it as a statement of warning of a possibility.
the only people who need fear trump are the ones who have been selling out this country
Good that's understandable and right.
My point is IF trumps does start doing what YOU dont like, I doubt you will be able to stop it either. I sure dont see how that statement is irrational.
Unless you think trump doing something you dont ever like is irrational, now that may be an irrational thought in itself.
Go ta run be back later. have a good one
Playing with your imagination again?
LOL
you keep saying that but ya never say what you think trump "might do"
we know he won't be selling our asses out to china like the ones who will hang did.
so what do you suggest trump might do? worse case.
he has already done that.... LOL
I can give wiggle room for the bigger cause.
cheers
'I didn't get back in time to see what your reply was before it was removed.. all I can say is LOL, sniffy, snuffy.. hell I've been called worse (and will probably get more as time goes on).'
I didn't think you reported it. You're not a petty person I don't believe.
I thought sniffy was kind of cute and not at all derogatory. It was never my intention to be insulting.
He's just selling our asses to the highest bidder.
He's robbing, raping and looting the treasury as fast as he can before the mid-terms - him and all his complicit gop prick brethren and bitches (such as Collins - sell out - traitor)
no... your thinking about the clintons again... LOL
the people (still living) who have sold us to the highest bidder? will see jail or worse.
Yep, didn't figure you were being insulting. You're ok even if I don't agree with you politically.
Shoot, we'll probably never see eye to eye politically, but that's ok. I just accept that I'm right and you're not.
LOL and be laughed at ? Why ?
But Ok I'll play along. A president who concentrated too much power could do a number of things many Americans would not agree with, at that point the power they control may make it virtually impossible to stop them, I think its called a dictatorship in its final stages.
All presidents seem to try to consolidate power, trump is no exception. The difference is this ones pretty good at it.
As far as imagining, anticipating details, or a doomsday scenario, look elsewhere.
But as far as the big picture of how our government operators I see possible problems with trumps attitude, his ways and means of accomplishment and his desire and push to consolidate power for himself and one party.
hey I know they all do it. I just never saw anyone as good at the parts of it that concern me as I do with president trump.
So, I say "you people better hope it stays that way" and wish you well controlling him and this new one party government cause when we have NO control over the people we hire to run this country, I'd say we're all in trouble.
Have a good day
I think we all do and can,the question become how much wiggle room is healthy.
As I seem to remember president trump did switch parties shortly before becoming president. I doubt he has a lot of real financial conservativeness in him. Many financial conservatives may not have a large "wiggle room" as well.
Not that they can stop him either.
LOL... I may remember that one.
Yup, Donald Rump and company.
Instead of destroying the Supreme Court, maybe Democrats should stop being so batshit crazy and win some elections.
Donald Trump and far right nut cases have been destroying the Supreme Court.
Nope, wrong.
SCOTUS still there, deciding cases.
Surely something better can be made up!
Nothing Trump could possibly do would destroy the Supreme Court like packing the Court.
Democrats complain about Trump being dangerous, and then they openly parade their plan to murder a coequal branch of government.
If you ever wonder why (and that requires a level of honesty and I don't think many democrats possess anymore) Democrats are struggling to pick up 30 seats and make any gains in the Senate with Donald Trump of all people in the White House, ideas like this are why. The crazies are in control of the Democratic party.
Meh. I'm not sure.
I think the crazies are the one on social media and internet sites who can't even see how crazy their ideas are.
Leftist justices have been destroying the court for nearly 100 years.
He doesn't give a damn about the truth.....
Nor the intent of the founders....
Hear, hear!
trump can just add 6 new conservative justices and the left would be ok with that?
interesting
well, that would be stupid since they currently have a majority, but yes , he could, and then when the Democrats take ovr they could add 23 new liberal judges.
There has to be a stop put to appointing ideologically bent judges. The republicans have bragged about getting right wingers on the Court. And have done so unethically. Do you suggest that the other side just let that go?
Not one damn thing unethical about Kavanaugh's appointment.
if the left plans on adding 6 we need to add 10 first.
proactive, not reactive
seriously though.... I wish to see the left make this plan public.
run on this in the midterms along with open borders, firing ice, and shit trade deals.
im begging.... please do this.
What's funny is you seem to think the Democrats aren't putting ideologues on the bench. All of the moderates appointed since Kennedy have been nominated by Republican Presidents.
What's even funner is that you seem to think appointing Judges for the explicit reason that they are Democrats and will allow Democrat Judges to control the Courts somehow can coexist with your stated belief that "there has to be a stop to appointing ideologically bent Judges"
I think only moderates should be on the Supreme Court. How about this - all nine of those currently on the court resign and we appoint nine moderates.
Short of something like that, pack the court. The current alignment is not legitimate.
so ya say... LOL
your dreaming john.... ya should be sleeping when ya do that.
old school democrats that put our country and our people first might make a comeback inside a decade or so but open border shit trade deal anarchist progressives/liberals will never see the white house again in any of our lifetimes.
the paradigm has shifted my friend...
progressives are on the wrong side of things. no comebacks on the schedule.
for a bonus:
that deep state that does not exist is now being replaced with a conservative deep state that does not exist either... LOL
Actually I do want moderate justices, as long as they all are. Moderate justices would be more likely to look at cases before the Supreme Court on the merits of the legal arguments and less through political considerations. That would be fine with me.
This article is not about a deep state fantasy that you and other right wingers have. Please address the topic.
it was a "bonus" john a continuation of a thought.
but yeah back on track....
what will you do when ginsburg is replaced by amy barrett?
will false rape charges and then claiming the court is stained after confirmation work any better against a woman?
You're still off topic but you are getting warmer.
using false rape charges to "dictate" a sudden need for change is very much on topic thanks
people will be treated as innocent until proven guilty in this country john... just the way it is.
you do not get to change that
progressives will not see the whitehouse again my friend... sell your stock it is a failed program.
no whitehouse... no new court seats.
cheers
You have that right Wally, John isn't fooling anyone
Are you and Wally going to tag team me? Good luck with that.
Out of curiosity, where are you going to find legally knowledgeable and qualified moderate justices who are not loyal to a political party of which they are members, or are not either conservative or liberal in their bias? Canada? It seems to me that these days most lawmakers remain loyal to their party lines rather than make intelligent non-partisan decisions and I think the masses are pretty well the same. I did say "MOST", because as we've seen with respect to the Kavanaugh vote, there are VERY rare exceptions.
If you really want to ruin the credibility of the court, set about to packing it.
If people will accept Donald Trump as president they will accept anything.
Like Hillary and ALL "Lefties" on TV said...….
“ He became the first person, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. Now, that is a direct threat to our democracy,” she added at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire on October 24.
Are you now the "HE" Hillary was speaking of ?
Donald Trump is a crook , among all his other barrage of malfunctioning morals and behavior. There is a good chance the entire Trump family will be in prison after the state attorney's general in various states gets through with them. The Trump family evaded 500 million dollars in taxes, and a good portion of that was done illegally. This is a developing story that will change American history.
I have to admit I have seen her looking sexier.
40% is hardly a majority. Did you ever pass any math classes?
The New York Times has a 14,000 word article on it. Can you handle that much information?
I am not sure about Wally but I can .Seeing that it comes from the New York Times, I might not be able to handle the 100,000 pounds of BS they mixed it with.
Nope, like Rump, only as many characters as Twitter will allow.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is in tatters.
Why ?
because the left has made a false allegation
that should be good enough to keep anyone from working anywhere.
and since they lost that argument now the whole system must be uprooted and changed to their way of thinking.
the EC worked as designed and suddenly they want to eliminate it.
why would supreme court picks be any different?
once they lose at anything they suddenly want to change everything.
anarchists vs arsonists... no difference
The "Left" sure does want to get rid of a bunch of stuff.
Must be the "Crying Closet" Crowd.
Out of site.....out of minds. The "Dumbing Down" of Certain Americans for sure.....and the "Left" Luvs it !
They needs them sum mor dumbs folk.
There it is, the push for a dismantling of the electoral college and equal representation in the senate.
2,864,974: The margin of popular vote nationwide.
3,446,281: The margin in California.
58: Number of Counties in California.
8: Number of California Counties required to achieve 2,864,974 margin touted by liberals and used to promote the scrapping of the electoral college and 2 senate seat rule.
I'm pretty certain the more than 1.8 million people that voted Hillary from LA County don't know jack shit about what is best in Illinois, and damn sure should not be overrepresented in the Senate simply because they live in a populous coastal county in California. The exact reason the founders instituted the 2 senator rule. Otherwise, the smaller states would not have joined the union.
You may think your argument makes sense, but it doesn't. Right wing media led many of their followers to believe that California was responsible for Hillary's popular vote margin.
That is a mistaken way to look at it. For California to have been responsible for the popular vote margin, we would have to consider California voters, as individuals , to somehow be different from every other individual in every other state.
What gave Hillary her popular vote margin ? Okay let's divide 2864974/50. There you go - 57, 299 Clinton voters in each of the 50 states gave her that margin in the national popular vote. How do we know that is true? Simple, no single vote is more meaningful than any other single vote in a national vote count.
lol
I rest my case
It made sense to the founders and that was after just over a year of debate..... Debate of persons one heck of a lot more educated than you....
You know me John, want me to prove it beyond all doubt?
True, very very true. The problem?
This is a free country, they get to choose where they live.
And when they all choose to live in one small area, they do not get to choose for the rest of us.
Hell even the Democrats recognized this just after the elections and tried to launch a plan to get some of their members to move out to other districts....
Hows that plan working out?
I have no doubt whatsoever you will make an argument that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and then claim "victory" . Your past precedes you.
My comment to him was about the national popular vote. Unless you are addressing that, do not presume to be addressing what I said.
Yes a national popular vote, it was proposed at the constitutional convention and was rejected as unfair....
Washington, Madison and Adams spoke long and hard against it...
Too bad I wasn't discussing what happened at the constitutional convention.
Numerous right wing sites and pundits have claimed that California was the reason Clinton won the popular vote. That simply isnt true unless you want to ignore common sense.
Yes, the votes in California get counted later than many of the other votes, but that doesnt make them more important.
Hahahaha you're fucking ridiculous.
Not about that. I'd advise you not to embarrass yourself.
Your saying the national popular vote is needed. and if it was in place Hillary would be president.
And the people who created this government and our voting system specifically and deliberately rejected the national popular vote as a viable way to elect anyone in federal elections to a nationwide office...
And their reasons were that primarily that it is unfair to everyone not in a big city or in a massively populated state.
Their ideal was to create fair representation in everything, including elections.
And they succeeded. It was a compromise that took care of everyone's issues.
And from your arguments, clearly one that is still relevant today...
The few should not be able to rule the many. Simple in statement, Difficult in practice...
It applies to everyone and everything, from individual to State....
Did the individual votes count? yes, in their individual district.
Did that resulting district vote count? yes, in the electoral college.
Did you get enough districts? no you didn't.
I don't see any reason to change that and would say the same if Hillary had won...
I don't care if you want to make a point about the constitutional convention. Knock yourself out. Just don't pretend you are responding to what I said, or what I was talking about, because you are not.
To people perhaps not familiar with our good friend Nowhere Man.
He likes to construct "debates" or arguments that fit his preconceptions, or which don't relate to what the other person in the debate said. He has been doing this for years.
I made the point that right wing media had convinced many "conservatives" to believe that California was the reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It wasn't, for the reason I explained.
If NM or BF want to argue another point, fine, but don't use what I said as a basis. Because you are not representing what I said accurately.
The Senate votes that confirmed Kavanaugh represent 44% of the population. So much for the minority vote not able to rule the many.
I believe I also read recently that if you look at every one of the 100 senators now in office, and took the total votes each received when they were elected, (2, 4 or 6 years ago,) the Democratic minority in the Senate received more votes than the republican majority.
And of course, we know that the republicans have LOST the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections.
Gee, what does that say about you? Everyone beats you in debate ?
-
I didnt bring up the popular vote, I replied to the person that did. You need to read a little closer bro.
We all did, the point being that you are making an argument that a minority vote is what caused all this political mayhem that you particularly despised.
I didn't invent the argument, you ran with it....
All I'm doing is posting the facts from the beginning that clearly and completely destroy your argument.....
So I don't know what your going to do now, since you can't throw out the blind insults you used to be so fond of...
That is my ENTIRE comment that you originally responded to. Please show me one sentence in that comment that has to do with whether or not we should use the popular vote or the electoral vote?
You made the response that you wanted to make, whether or not it had anything to do with what I had said. Because that is what you usually do.
Blowharding like that is what always gets you in trouble.
If I was always in trouble, then why is it that you haven't won a debate around here in the entire time I've been here and from witnesses even further back beyond that.
I mean I'll be fair, occasionally you have a valid point on some obscure minor issue.
and are overall a pretty decent guy, (acknowledging that we all have our moments of less than stellar behavior)
But in general, on politics, you create the punch lines John.
We just laugh at them...
I will give you this, you know a good deal about history and the constitution,
you just don't know how to convert the material into cogent relevant arguments. Keep working at it though !
Would that be anything like someone seeding an article, making a comment on the article, and then flagging direct responses to his comment as off topic?
Why would he? Did he not support the accusations against Kavanaugh to be absolutely credible without their being proven beyond all doubt?
Yeah, those allegations didn't even reach the level of probable cause, the lowest legal level of proof.
Yet he adamantly supported the idea that such was evidence...
So I have to agree with ya Buzz.....
Which is what you are doing when you are promoting results based on popular vote.
lol, thats a good one. You have accused me of flagging comments on this article.
Here's a little surprise for you. Prior to the time I wrote this article, my flagging privilege was suspended (for reasons I do not accept, at all) and I have yet to get it back.
So it is literally impossible for you to be correct. How does that feel?
My apology, I confused you with another poster.
ok, i accept that
The rules of a football game say the winner is team that scored most points. Touchdowns, extra points, field goals and safeties count and compare to Electoral College votes. Popular vote is like yards gained, a statistic that might go along with points scored or not but does not determine the winner
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[76] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan," failed in Congress.[77]
Via wiki
In an effort to curb this runaway spending I suggest cutting the number to five. No sense paying nine people and their staff to do what five can do. Big boated government needs to tighten its belt.
Cut the five conservatives and we'll be down to 4.
I find it funny that if 4 are cut from the current court , it is still a 3-2 conservative court , doesn't matter if they get rid of the 4 senior member that have served the longest or the 4 that have the least seniority. of course the chief justice is a separate seat and not an associate justice.
pick your poison , hemlock or arsenic?
Justice Roberts is the new Swing Vote, lol
Did Congress know he was a swinger when they interviewed him?????
Events Now Dictate That The Democrats Alter The Supreme Court At Their First Opportunity
At their first opportunity? (And just when do you think that will be?)