US Election 2020 - Pt 3

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Regardless if Dems win the Senate the SC is enormously powerful in its ability to interpret the Constitution, and as I just said, currently skewed so heavily right that it had become a Republican court.

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

 

[Cray]

The fact is, at both times, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they get to do what they want.

Remember, the reason that they control the senate is because they got enough of the vote. Its literally democracy at work. They would not have control of the senate without the support of the people.

There are 100 seats in the senate, two per state. States get those two seats regardless of their population size which leads to the following problem...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/

Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.” Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.

The senate composition is a lot of things but it's certainly not equal or truly democratic.

 

[buka001]

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

Because Republicans have nominated 21 supreme court justices since 1960, to 11 from Democrats.

 

[rietrot]

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

Does a communist power grab need justification? She is doing it for the people, just trust her.

 

[Cray]

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

When was that exactly? Having been trying to find a record of when last the democrats held a 6-3 split on the supreme court but my google fu is failing me...

 

[konfab]

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

Progressives like AOC and the people in this thread seem to think that only people who they agree with will ever have power.

 

[rietrot]

There are 100 seats in the senate, two per state. States get those two seats regardless of their population size which leads to the following problem...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/



The senate composition is a lot of things but it's certainly not equal or truly democratic.

It's not a problem it's the design of the system that each state gets fair representation. The US isn't "true democracy" whatever you mean by that. The US is a federation of different states.

 

[wbot]

This thread is gold!

Keep going guys! You're in that final stretch. Finish line just in front

Haha still plenty of fun to be had after the election regardless of who wins. It's far from over

 

[buka001]

Progressives like AOC and the people in this thread seem to think that only people who they agree with will ever have power.

That is a strawman argument.

She is looking for a balanced, bipartisan SC, which is opposite to a "quest for power".

 

[cerebus]

Republican presidents in the past have had to deal with a Democratic SC and they didn't threaten to pack the courts....so again, what exactly is AOC's justification?

Your argument seems to be that Democrats should just continue allowing Republicans to obstruct and play dirty constantly while they should always follow the rules and attempt to cooperate. It's certainly what was implied when you blamed the rushed and hypocritical nomination on Harry Reid (which is false, btw. Reid didn't change the SC filibuster).

 

[Cray]

It's not a problem it's the design of the system that each state gets fair representation.

Fair representation would represent the will of the majority of the population of the whole... Supreme court justices confirmed by the representatives of the minority of the population shouldn't be able to make decisions that affect the majority.

 

[konfab]

There are 100 seats in the senate, two per state. States get those two seats regardless of their population size which leads to the following problem...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/



The senate composition is a lot of things but it's certainly not equal or truly democratic.

It was never intended to be representative of that elusive creature called: "the people".

 

[cerebus]

Sorry double post

 

[rietrot]

Fair representation would represent the will of the majority of the population of the whole... Supreme court justices confirmed by the representatives of the minority of the population shouldn't be able to make decisions that affect the majority.

Complete BS. Fair representation means each state gets 2 senators.

Each state is represented by the same amount of senators as any other state. That is fair.

 

[greg0205]

The fact is, at both times, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they get to do what they want.

Remember, the reason that they control the senate is because they got enough of the vote. Its literally democracy at work. They would not have control of the senate without the support of the people.

Excellent.

So if Dems flip the senate blue, you'll be taking a seat and not moaning about Congress adding seats to the SC, which is their constitutional right.

You'll also, no doubt, champion Congress granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood.

Glad we could clear that up, Ancalagon.

Oh, wait. Nearly forgot... Here's a fascinating 538 article on how the GOP Senate represents a minority of Americans.

The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’t Help Republicans Until Now.

The fight for D.C. statehood is hardly new. It’s been decades since Congress first introduced legislation to make Washington, D.C., a state, and 27 years since …

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Cray]

It was never intended to be representative of that elusive creature called: "the people".

Yeah, am sure "We the people..." was just for show...

 

[Cray]

Complete BS. Fair representation means each state gets 2 senators.

Please show you working... simply saying it's BS and repeating yourself is not a valid argument. Please tell me why it's fair that California, with a population of 39 million has just as much say in senate matter as Wyoming with about 600 000 people..

 

[Unhappy438]

Maybe you misunderstood.

When I said they must just love their governor, I was being sarcastic.

Im pretty sure they don't love their governor, its just rather amusing that they were probably clapping and cheering whilst Trump was saying how he was gonna fsk them.

 

[Unhappy438]

So Pennsylvania does NOT love their Dem governor? Good to know....

They literally keep voting for him. That must mean something.

Trumpets who dont understand simple English and the difference between do and must. No surprise.

 

[rietrot]

Please show you working... simply saying it's BS and repeating yourself is not a valid argument. Please tell me why it's fair that California, with a population of 39 million has just as much say in senate matter as Wyoming with about 600 000 people..

Just saying it's BS is good enough if you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how the US political system functions.

I don't have to entertain your fantasy world.

You are delusional if you think more people should just mean more power. Then we all might just as well bow down to our Chinese overlords and forget about person sovereignty.