https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8AN7QLT0w
It's really simple... want to be able to control the direction of things in Washington... win elections. Plain and simple.
All this talk of changing the rules to favor those who can't win elections and hold power isn't quite so simple. The US Constitution has many checks and balances to protect the integrity of the republic. It's the main thing that has prevented bullshit like what's being proposed today from jacking the core of the foundation of the republic for over 200+ years.
The US constitution was written hundreds of years ago by super rich slave owners and now you can't change it. It's not a religious text or maybe it is since it's just some shit some people wrote years ago when they didn't know any better. :D
The funny thing is that the US and the UK have been instrumental in helping (new) countries write their constitutions over the last 100 years and the funny thing is the first meeting must always start with 'whatever you do don't do what we did!'.
As far as I know the size of the supreme court isn't in the constitution anyway?
Also I do find it a little surprising that 4 out of 9 are now whack job extreme catholics who try to be more catholic than the pope, when electing JFK used to be a big deal. :)
Five of the nine justices on the court have been appointed by presidents who got fewer votes than their opponent, surely the number of votes you get should decide an election?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZahZoo
If Biden is elected, he will only be the second Catholic President in the history is the US, but now they have 7 of the 9 seats on the Supreme Court. 4 of those 7 being extremists. Breyer & Kagan are Jewish, as was RBG.
7 Catholics & 2 Jews or 6 Catholics & 3 Jews... this is supposed to be a court that "looks like America"??
New York City, possibly.... but not America.
I'm always more about policy than "identity politics", but the Court really could use some diversity. Not in terms of race or gender, but definitely in religious perspectives, and for fucks sake, add some people that aren't from the NYC - DC bubble.
As for the court membership, it's historically gone up and down over the years, though it's been stuck at 9 since the 1930s. FDR threatened to pack the court, which in those days were basically a bunch of black robed bullies, historically referred to as "the Lochner Court" After the 1936 election, he had the numbers in the Senate to pull it off, but just the threat was enough to get them to knock off their bullshit.
Sadly, I don't have a lot of faith in Biden or the pathetic Schumer to stand up to them like that.
Your logic is sound regarding popular vote counting... but... it would require a constitutional amendment to alter or abolish the electoral college. Came close in 1969, but they couldn't convince a total of 38 states to support the change. Many of the smaller, less populated states would not and will not cede power to the more populous states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seshmeister
Once again the US Constitution's checks and balances retained the balance for the republic...
It's not a perfect or totally logical system. But it works for the most part, balances power and minimizes the whims of the times.
Well, the thing is....the Rethuglicans are unable to win unless they change the rules or steal elections. It has been that way for at least 50 years.
The Democrats try (or appear to try) to take the high road.
Nobody is going to fault them if they decide to pack the court.
It would be sinking to the same level as the Rethuglicans, though with more noble intentions (that of helping The People of the USA, instead of just the fascists rich butthole-buddies).
But the problem is that it isn't balancing power any more and 1/3 of the court are very much the whims of the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZahZoo