What Mitch fears sounds good to me

[SteveGrabowski]

First off sorry for the pop up links.

McConnell fears Kamala win would:
Eliminate the filibuster
Pack the court
Make PR & DC States

All that sounds good to me. Maybe Democrats have finally come to the obvious conclusion that the game has changed and the way to play it has changed too.

Here’s What Scares Republicans Most About a Harris Win

Mitch McConnell is terrified Kamala Harris will enact policies that end up kneecapping the Republican Party.

newrepublic.com

Should admit DC and South DC as two states just like the GOP did with Dakota.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I view the two Senators per state rule as an unfortunate anachronism giving the small populations in some states an oversized voice in Congress. As I do not expect this will ever be changed, I am dead set against adding any of these suggested tiny states.

I would also be against increasing the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court. I much prefer reforms like those that Biden proposed.

 

[fskimospy]

I view the two Senators per state rule as an unfortunate anachronism giving the small populations in some states an oversized voice in Congress. As I do not expect this will ever be changed, I am dead set against adding any of these suggested tiny states.

I would also be against increasing the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court. I much prefer reforms like those that Biden proposed.

Why are you against those things?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Why are you against those things?

Well, as I said... Giving small (population) states two Senators gives their voters more influence in Congress than the voters in larger (population) states. I'm of the opinion that the votes of all citizens should have the same weight.

Packing the Supreme Court with more justices under the same (lack of) rules will only make it a bigger (and more political) circus.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I view the two Senators per state rule as an unfortunate anachronism giving the small populations in some states an oversized voice in Congress. As I do not expect this will ever be changed, I am dead set against adding any of these suggested tiny states.

I would also be against increasing the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court. I much prefer reforms like those that Biden proposed.

There is nothing sacred about the number nine for sc justices. McConnell was more than happy to keep the court at 8 for a year after Scalia died. And if Dakota can have four senators there is no reason DC shouldn't also. GOP plays dirty, the DNC should too.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Well, as I said... Giving small (population) states two Senators gives their voters more influence in Congress than the voters in larger (population) states. I'm of the opinion that the votes of all citizens should have the same weight.

Not realistic since the south wanted their slaves to count towards representation without having to give them voting rights and now we're stuck with the electoral college. You don't get to quit just because the GOP has this enormous senate advantage you'd like to enshrine because they already got to craft their states to maximize senate representation (eg Dakota being split in two).

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Some people just can't let tradition get out of the way when it doesn't make sense besides that's just the way it is.

Reminds me of that fiddler on the roof song.

View attachment 105415

I for one, believe in traditional marriage between one man and several women.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Grouping the Pacific Islands into one, you'd get over 300,000 population.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, as I said... Giving small (population) states two Senators gives their voters more influence in Congress than the voters in larger (population) states. I'm of the opinion that the votes of all citizens should have the same weight.

Packing the Supreme Court with more justices under the same (lack of) rules will only make it a bigger (and more political) circus.

If you feel that way expanding the court is a good Idea. It would allow the voice of the people to be heard.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you feel that way expanding the court is a good Idea. It would allow the voice of the people to be heard.

I certainly agree that something needs to happen with the SC and an increase in the number of justices seems to be the most logically feasible way to go, but the real problem in my opinion is that in some ways the court really does represent the will of the people as the system is currently configured and conservatives have successfully played that system. What we really need, I think. is a political system that seeks to serve justice over all else. Then the numbers wouldn't be such an issue.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, as I said... Giving small (population) states two Senators gives their voters more influence in Congress than the voters in larger (population) states. I'm of the opinion that the votes of all citizens should have the same weight.

Packing the Supreme Court with more justices under the same (lack of) rules will only make it a bigger (and more political) circus.

Well, the House is for representation by population. The Senate is designed to balance that power for the theoretically underrepresented smaller states, so that all have that equal representation. The problem is that the House--and therefore the larger states--are woefully underrepresented due to available seats based on population.

As it stands, the smallest states have vastly outsized power as it is. I see no issue with increasing whatever number of states that all citizens agree to, as well as increasing representation to an acceptable number that is more relevant to our current population instead of the current standard of, I dunno...~1893?

As for the SCOTUS, I agree with Biden's proposition, but I don't see any reason not to increase the number of the seats. It's already been done before and it isn't something that is that difficult to do. It currently represents yet another over-powered, over-represented body where the extreme minority of our country vastly outweighs something like what 90% of this country actually wants to be. It's wholly unsustainable. Likewise, the federal judiciary is woefully understaffed, by design of the GOP. We need something like 300 or more seats throughout the US, also with term limits and something like an actual experience/qualification standard to be offered a seat.

I'd rather not see any more justices appointed with the qualifications of: "Denny's picture menu reading level," and once said a very nice thing about an 78 year-old senile toddler man baby.

 

[Pens1566]

PR would be something like the 30th state ranked by population.

 

[ivwshane]

Representation is severely lacking in government and it’s weird that it’s not even in a discussion at any level, media, or in politics. Just increasing the amount of representatives per person would create a huge boost in representation. As our population grows and therefore representation gets smaller, the representation will favor the most extreme (those who are vocal and who are reliable votes) as well as the donor class.

As far as the judiciary goes, we need more judges and federal cases should be randomly given out (I’m ok limiting it by region) with no chance for the plaintiff to withdraw and resubmit the case. The fact that judge shopping exists is an indictment on the failing state of the judicial system.

 

[IronWing]

Representation is severely lacking in government and it’s weird that it’s not even in a discussion at any level, media, or in politics. Just increasing the amount of representatives per person would create a huge boost in representation. As our population grows and therefore representation gets smaller, the representation will favor the most extreme (those who are vocal and who are reliable votes) as well as the donor class.

The people with the ability to increase the size of the House are occupying the seats in the House. Increasing representation would dilute their power.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

PR would be something like the 30th state ranked by population.

Good reason to split it into two states to admit then.

 

[PowerEngineer]

There is nothing sacred about the number nine for sc justices. McConnell was more than happy to keep the court at 8 for a year after Scalia died. And if Dakota can have four senators there is no reason DC shouldn't also. GOP plays dirty, the DNC should too.

I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.

Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.

Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.

Not realistic since the south wanted their slaves to count towards representation without having to give them voting rights and now we're stuck with the electoral college. You don't get to quit just because the GOP has this enormous senate advantage you'd like to enshrine because they already got to craft their states to maximize senate representation (eg Dakota being split in two).

I have to laugh whenever I hear today's Republicans refer to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln". It seems pretty obvious to me that what were the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats have gradually swapped their positions over the last 150 years. It is therefore somewhat silly to suggest that the GOP of the late 1800's was enshrining a senate advantage for the GOP of today. And as far as I can tell, the splitting of the Dakota territory into two states was all about politics with the Dakotas rather than about national politics.

If you feel that way expanding the court is a good Idea. It would allow the voice of the people to be heard.

The Supreme Court (and the entire judicial system) is not meant to reflect the "voice of the people", but is supposed to ensure a fair and impartial interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The recent practice (by both parties) to litmus test nominees on their political views rather than their qualifications as fair and impartial justices is what has gotten us to where we are today. Doing more of the same is not going to solve the problem.

Well, the House is for representation by population. The Senate is designed to balance that power for the theoretically underrepresented smaller states, so that all have that equal representation. The problem is that the House--and therefore the larger states--are woefully underrepresented due to available seats based on population.

As it stands, the smallest states have vastly outsized power as it is. I see no issue with increasing whatever number of states that all citizens agree to, as well as increasing representation to an acceptable number that is more relevant to our current population instead of the current standard of, I dunno...~1893?

As for the SCOTUS, I agree with Biden's proposition, but I don't see any reason not to increase the number of the seats. It's already been done before and it isn't something that is that difficult to do. It currently represents yet another over-powered, over-represented body where the extreme minority of our country vastly outweighs something like what 90% of this country actually wants to be. It's wholly unsustainable. Likewise, the federal judiciary is woefully understaffed, by design of the GOP. We need something like 300 or more seats throughout the US, also with term limits and something like an actual experience/qualification standard to be offered a seat.

I'd rather not see any more justices appointed with the qualifications of: "Denny's picture menu reading level," and once said a very nice thing about an 78 year-old senile toddler man baby.

Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.

Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.

 

[Paratus]

I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.

Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.

Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.



I have to laugh whenever I hear today's Republicans refer to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln". It seems pretty obvious to me that what were the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats have gradually swapped their positions over the last 150 years. It is therefore somewhat silly to suggest that the GOP of the late 1800's was enshrining a senate advantage for the GOP of today. And as far as I can tell, the splitting of the Dakota territory into two states was all about politics with the Dakotas rather than about national politics.



The Supreme Court (and the entire judicial system) is not meant to reflect the "voice of the people", but is supposed to ensure a fair and impartial interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The recent practice (by both parties) to litmus test nominees on their political views rather than their qualifications as fair and impartial justices is what has gotten us to where we are today. Doing more of the same is not going to solve the problem.



Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.

Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.

This is all very nice and high minded.

The problem is the other side agrees with you - that the liberal side should work long and hard at trying to make these high minded changes.

Of course it’s impossible to implement these changes because the conservative side is required to jointly make them and they are interested in power which they currently have.

So while trying to implement those ideals we can expect to see SCOTUS and conservative legislatures at the state and federal level working to implement local and nationwide bans on abortion, birth control, porn, industry regulation and rolling back taxes on the 0.01%. Voting restrictions and replacement of the civil services with loyalists will also proceed.

I used to think the same as you do but I’ve come to realize that game theory probably illustrates the right course. If your opponent is incentivized to violate the rules of the game then to force them to play by the rules again you must break the game even more until they realize their self-interest is actually in playing by the rules.

If you take the high road and keep playing by the rules while they continue to beat you there is no impetus for them to change. And in this game that means real people will be losing their health, quality of living, freedoms, and lives.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.

Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.

Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.



I have to laugh whenever I hear today's Republicans refer to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln". It seems pretty obvious to me that what were the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats have gradually swapped their positions over the last 150 years. It is therefore somewhat silly to suggest that the GOP of the late 1800's was enshrining a senate advantage for the GOP of today. And as far as I can tell, the splitting of the Dakota territory into two states was all about politics with the Dakotas rather than about national politics.



The Supreme Court (and the entire judicial system) is not meant to reflect the "voice of the people", but is supposed to ensure a fair and impartial interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The recent practice (by both parties) to litmus test nominees on their political views rather than their qualifications as fair and impartial justices is what has gotten us to where we are today. Doing more of the same is not going to solve the problem.



Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.

Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.

All three branches are inherently political and it is long past time we accept that. At the current time the Supreme Court is trying to usurp the power of the elected branches and the appropriate remedy is for the political branches to hit back and reduce their power.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.

Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.

Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.

To that I'd say tough shit, packing the court and admitting new states to try to bring balance to the senate is the only viable option to fight back unless you want to go and overthrow the government and write a reasonable constitution.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.

Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.

Of course there should be no senate, but it's not going away unless the government is overthrown. So the only real option is to try to neutralize the enormous structural GOP advantage in the senate by admitting states that will vote center right for Democrats instead of hard fascist right for Republicans.

 

[Zorba]

Of course there should be no senate, but it's not going away unless the government is overthrown. So the only real option is to try to neutralize the enormous structural GOP advantage in the senate by admitting states that will vote center right for Democrats instead of hard fascist right for Republicans.

I will say that any additions to the Senate should come along with a significant increase in the size of the House. Don't want to give even more EC and over representation to the small states.

 

[dank69]

I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.

Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.

Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.



I have to laugh whenever I hear today's Republicans refer to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln". It seems pretty obvious to me that what were the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats have gradually swapped their positions over the last 150 years. It is therefore somewhat silly to suggest that the GOP of the late 1800's was enshrining a senate advantage for the GOP of today. And as far as I can tell, the splitting of the Dakota territory into two states was all about politics with the Dakotas rather than about national politics.



The Supreme Court (and the entire judicial system) is not meant to reflect the "voice of the people", but is supposed to ensure a fair and impartial interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The recent practice (by both parties) to litmus test nominees on their political views rather than their qualifications as fair and impartial justices is what has gotten us to where we are today. Doing more of the same is not going to solve the problem.



Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.

Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.

Oof term limits. Absolutely dreadful thinking. Increasing lame ducks makes sense to you?

 

[Zorba]

Oof term limits. Absolutely dreadful thinking. Increasing lame ducks makes sense to you?

Term limits also makes it so there is no old guard that actually knows how to get anything done, except staffers. Our government affairs guy has told me how term limits just make the staffers very powerful because the reps turn over so much they don't know what they are doing. Term limits are a feel good band-aid. The much better solution is top two, rank choice open primaries.

 

[Stokely]

Key word, "old" guard.

I'd be for age limits. No fricking way some 80-year-old should be in government. I'd make the limit 70--past that at the day you would take office, go play golf. "but they were elected!" Sure, they had all the money and power. Money wins elections, and that power can be used to squash careers of anyone daring to run against them.

 

[PowerEngineer]

To that I'd say tough shit, packing the court and admitting new states to try to bring balance to the senate is the only viable option to fight back unless you want to go and overthrow the government and write a reasonable constitution.

I can see it now... In the year 2300 A.D. there could be another SteveGrabowski lamenting the imbalances resulting from court packing and state creating that today's SteveGrabowski instigated.

Using the same unfair or unethical tactics used by your opponents to defeat them only proves to them (and to you) that those tactics work - and that both sides acknowledge that using them is accepted as part of the political process (so making them neither unfair or unethical). It is a hollow victory if in order to beat them you must join them. Or so it seems to me...

My mistake... I meant to say limited terms for Supreme Court justices - not "term limits".

FWIW I am content to have spurred a little debate about this.