HomerJS
Lifer
It would be 6-3 long enough to do severe damage if not outright elimination of...
worker rights
voting rights
woman's right to choose
civil rights.
Potentially the country would never recover.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread
Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
worker rights
voting rights
woman's right to choose
civil rights.
Potentially the country would never recover.
No, I already mentioned this many times. Keep trying to win elections. You guys act like a SCOTUS seat will never, ever be up for grabs ever again. When history shows up that in fact, they are up for grabs almost every term. So work on that. That's not surrender, at all.
MrSquished
Lifer
The elections are unfair and broken. You at least have to try to fix the system.
[DHT]Osiris
Lifer
So 'keep doing what you're doing, and take it like a bitch, while the Republicans trample over their own established standards and fuck the Democrat congressmen, presidents, and constituents as hard as possible'?
HomerJS
Lifer
Are you forgetting SCOTUS could hand the election to Trump? You say just keep trying to win election. Ever seen what happens in a boxing match when one fighter has 11oz gloves and the other only has 6oz? Yet you say Dems should just keep fighting under the same conditions.
Any comments on my list?
MrSquished
Lifer
He wants to let the Republicans gerrymander the shit out of the house, pack state courts, suppress voting by groups that lean Democratic, make up norms that they then trample solely on the name of expanding power, and he wants to do nothing to fix anything wrong with our government. It's pathetic.
I think a lot of it is unfounded fear. Gorsuch has already voted against this admin how many times? I don't think it's an absolute certainty any or all of those things on your list get shot down.
soundforbjt
Lifer
Like the republicans failed to do?
Zorba
Lifer
Dems have won more presidential votes every election since 1988, except for 2004, yet here we are with a 6-3 court.
HomerJS
Lifer
Go back and read up on Bush v Gore. Go read Kavanaugh's latest comments about counting votes and then tell me how unfounded my fear is.
Hell, we lost teeth in the Voting Rights Act when RBG was alive. What do think this court would do?
I think the most plausible answer is the public simply doesn’t care very much.
HomerJS
Lifer
Across the country Democrats are winning majorities in the vote but losing seats in state legislators. I don't see how Dems can continue to fight under the conditions that exist now.
Perhaps making Washington DC and Puerto Rico a state. PR has the same precedent as Hawaii. DC is the victim of taxation without representation.
If you show up to a knife fight and your opponent has a gun I wouldn't continue to fight with a knife.
Last edited:
MrSquished
Lifer
I'm not aware of any voting rights issue he has broken with the conservative position on, whether while on the SC or prior to that. There is a great chance a major voting issue goes to the supreme court from this election. I'm pretty sure I know where his vote will go
Starbuck1975
Lifer
It's myopic to look solely at what occurred with the process of confirming judges. There are other problems that led up to this such as the decision in Bush vs. Gore. What's more, even if we gave Bush Florida, the House cap I don't believe is constitutional either, and Gore only needed a modest House size increase for the result to change. Republicans have also been relying on the courts to suppress the votes and turn the HoR into another Senate. They have also blocked the voters from information about Trump's criminality before Trump's midterm and presidential election and have a massively corrupt AG trying to engineer the coverup along with the Republican Congress.
While some of that (e.g. impeachment) blends into a political process, Republicans didn't want to do the right thing. Just because the Constitution allows them to ignore blatant corruption and criminality doesn't mean they should. And the same goes for Kavanaugh -- they decided perjuries don't matter anymore, and who woulda thunk it -- he revealed himself as a political operative in the Wisconsin case. I don't know in what world this is more acceptable than Democrats trying to bring sanity back into the federal government.
Because now there is almost a magnitude difference between the original ratios of the largest and smallest states, the 2 Senators per state proposition is comically bad. Republicans now removing some of the past norms (i.e. now we won't confirm any Democrat nominee for courts if they don't hold the Senate) is exposing how broken the system is, since it'll be much easier for Republicans to maintain a hold of the judiciary with that mindset. So we now have the majority of justices from presidents who couldn't win the popular vote and they are far to the right of the electorate. Democrats see a remedy with the trifecta option of expanding the court. I don't know why you would get upset at them trying to bring things back to a more sane balance.
"In the early years of the Republic, the population ratio of the most populated state, Virginia, and the least populated state, Delaware, was 12 to 1. In 2004 that ratio was an incredible 70 to 1 between California and tiny Wyoming. Therefore, the current Senate is absurdly skewed in the direction of the small states. Theoretically, if the twenty-six smallest states held together on all votes, they would control the U.S. Senate, with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population!"
[...]
The key to keep in mind is that under the Constitution's bicameral system for the legislature, nothing passes without Senate assent. Therefore, the Congress has a one-house veto on legislation, and to control the Senate is to control the legislative outcome, and indeed much of what the federal government actually does. James Madison foresaw this dilemma, and he vigorously argued, during the Constitutional Convention, for proportional representation by population in the Senate, not just the House. Madison's fears have been validated as the gap between small and large states has grown to the point that states with fifty-one times the population as others have the same representation.
It’s Time To Increase The Size of the House - Sabato's Crystal Ball
“Our founders put the first amendment first for a reason. It protects all Americans’ right to free speech, regardless of political affiliation or views.” This statement was made by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) in 2007, but it expresses a commonly cited view among lawyers, judges, politicians...
centerforpolitics.org
In simple English, this amendment, properly interpreted (most agree that there’s a scrivener’s error in the final line), would have fixed the maximum size of a congressional district at 50,000 people. It should technically be part of the Constitution: It was ratified by the requisite number of states in June 1792, but for whatever reason, Connecticut’s vote to ratify the article was not recorded and was only later rediscovered. Indeed, there has been (unsuccessful) litigation to force the Archivist of the United States to do so.
With that said, it is probably just as well that it has never been recorded. We would be forced to choose between two bad options. First, we could allow the size of Congress to grow to over 6,100 members. When Congress was in session it would qualify as a top-20 city in eight states; California would have more than 700 representatives. The other option would have been to amend expressly our original Bill of Rights, a precedent we’ve thus far avoided.
Nevertheless, this article really was placed first for a reason. The debates over the ratification of the Constitution, as collected in the Federalist Papers and less-well-organized Anti-Federalist Papers, contain a surprising amount of discussion over the size of congressional districts (the Federalists argued that large districts were beneficial to avoid elections from turning into personality contests), and there was an implied promise contained in the ratification of the Constitution to pass an amendment regulating district size.
[...]
Today a representative answers to over 700,000 constituents, well over 10 times the number of constituents deemed appropriate by the First Congress. While it seems unwise to adhere to the strict letter of Article the First, the time has likely come to abide by its spirit and increase the size the House.
And they start to agree with whatever their party leadership says, which will happen with Democrats as well if Biden and Democratic Congress makes the case. Look at Republicans. Trump can make them do a 180! And even bizarre shit like Qanon.
MrSquished
Lifer
It's myopic to look solely at what occurred with the process of confirming judges. There are other problems that led up to this such as the decision in Bush vs. Gore. What's more, even if we gave Bush Florida, the House cap I don't believe is constitutional either, and Gore only needed a modest House size increase for the result to change. Republicans have also been relying on the courts to suppress the votes and turn the HoR into another Senate. They have also blocked the voters from information about Trump's criminality before Trump's midterm and presidential election and have a massively corrupt AG trying to engineer the coverup along with the Republican Congress.
While some of that (e.g. impeachment) blends into a political process, Republicans didn't want to do the right thing. Just because the Constitution allows them to ignore blatant corruption and criminality doesn't mean they should. And the same goes for Kavanaugh -- they decided perjuries don't matter anymore, and who woulda thunk it -- he revealed himself as a political operative in the Wisconsin case. I don't know in what world this is more acceptable than Democrats trying to bring sanity back into the federal government.
Because now there is almost a magnitude difference between the original ratios of the largest and smallest states, the 2 Senators per state proposition is comically bad. Republicans now removing some of the past norms (i.e. now we won't confirm any Democrat nominee for courts if they don't hold the Senate) is exposing how broken the system is, since it'll be much easier for Republicans to maintain a hold of the judiciary with that mindset. So we now have the majority of justices from presidents who couldn't win the popular vote and they are far to the right of the electorate. Democrats see a remedy with the trifecta option of expanding the court. I don't know why you would get upset at them trying to bring things back to a more sane balance.
"In the early years of the Republic, the population ratio of the most populated state, Virginia, and the least populated state, Delaware, was 12 to 1. In 2004 that ratio was an incredible 70 to 1 between California and tiny Wyoming. Therefore, the current Senate is absurdly skewed in the direction of the small states. Theoretically, if the twenty-six smallest states held together on all votes, they would control the U.S. Senate, with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population!"
[...]
The key to keep in mind is that under the Constitution's bicameral system for the legislature, nothing passes without Senate assent. Therefore, the Congress has a one-house veto on legislation, and to control the Senate is to control the legislative outcome, and indeed much of what the federal government actually does. James Madison foresaw this dilemma, and he vigorously argued, during the Constitutional Convention, for proportional representation by population in the Senate, not just the House. Madison's fears have been validated as the gap between small and large states has grown to the point that states with fifty-one times the population as others have the same representation.
It’s Time To Increase The Size of the House - Sabato's Crystal Ball
“Our founders put the first amendment first for a reason. It protects all Americans’ right to free speech, regardless of political affiliation or views.” This statement was made by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) in 2007, but it expresses a commonly cited view among lawyers, judges, politicians...
In simple English, this amendment, properly interpreted (most agree that there’s a scrivener’s error in the final line), would have fixed the maximum size of a congressional district at 50,000 people. It should technically be part of the Constitution: It was ratified by the requisite number of states in June 1792, but for whatever reason, Connecticut’s vote to ratify the article was not recorded and was only later rediscovered. Indeed, there has been (unsuccessful) litigation to force the Archivist of the United States to do so.
With that said, it is probably just as well that it has never been recorded. We would be forced to choose between two bad options. First, we could allow the size of Congress to grow to over 6,100 members. When Congress was in session it would qualify as a top-20 city in eight states; California would have more than 700 representatives. The other option would have been to amend expressly our original Bill of Rights, a precedent we’ve thus far avoided.
Nevertheless, this article really was placed first for a reason. The debates over the ratification of the Constitution, as collected in the Federalist Papers and less-well-organized Anti-Federalist Papers, contain a surprising amount of discussion over the size of congressional districts (the Federalists argued that large districts were beneficial to avoid elections from turning into personality contests), and there was an implied promise contained in the ratification of the Constitution to pass an amendment regulating district size.
[...]
Today a representative answers to over 700,000 constituents, well over 10 times the number of constituents deemed appropriate by the First Congress. While it seems unwise to adhere to the strict letter of Article the First, the time has likely come to abide by its spirit and increase the size the House.
It's a simple fact the government created 250 years ago was already quite flawed when it was established and in some instances has not scaled well with changes in population size and geographical patterns, economic changes as well as technological changes. If you point any of this out, you are a terrorist.
Grey_Beard
Golden Member
Not enough red team votes to make that happen, as they are the minority party now much more so than in 2010. I have read your posts and you do not have a grasp on reality. The red team has smaller total numbers even if they mobilize the base. If this current turn out continues, in 2022, everyone will still remember tRump because he will be tweeter extraordinaire, which means big blue turnout again. In 2024, rinse and repeat. tRump will be a stain on the red team for the foreseeable future, especially if Jr or Incest Girl run.
Last edited:
iRONic
Diamond Member
Get right the fuck out of here with that bullshit! Mitch just pulled that very thing off while letting the house approved bill die.
225,00 dead , asshole.
Grey_Beard
Golden Member
How can the party that has the most popularity be “ended” like you say? Suddenly more people will convert and say, “Well, you know, this advertisement and message from the guy with the boot on my neck is good. I just got to join them since they rigged things in a way and I cannot beat them.” You have a weird sense of reality.
Last edited:
Sunburn74
Diamond Member
We're all just rolling around in the mud as long as your side is winning right? When was the last time you punished the GOP because of bad behavior?
ch33zw1z
Lifer
They were only bad because the Democrats made them do it.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
Anything that gives their party an advantage, more money or more power.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
I see you found your introspection, lol.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
.
That's 250,000-350,000 dead Americans from medical error every damn year and it's been going on for every year for a decade at least.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-