SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

She probably did but that isnt what they are saying. (plus she had no way to know things would go this way...I doubt any of us would have bet we would be here at that point) They literally insult and spit on her for not retiring. Apparently doing her job and fighting the good fight makes her a selfish, egotistical narcissist. And this is the stuff they said in response to Bernie's message of remembrance for her life. They didn't even let the body get cold...

To be fair, English probably isn't the first language of many of those responders.

 

[SJHovey]

I mean... it's a plan.

We definitely have to nail the door shut after we do it, and I don't think that is possible. I guess what happens in reality is we hold the House for as long as the GOP are Nazis, so they can't add back, and once the GOP comes to its senses and deNazifies itself it's really not a problem if they do name judges again.

When sanity returns someday we (all of us as citizens) do have to Amend eventually to fix the problem. But the Founders did not design a system of government that anticipated a fascist movement rising from one-third of the population to destroy democracy. Historically, the only way democracy has been preserved in the face of those movements has been waiting for the fascists to start a genocidal war and then kicking their cowardly posteriors.

I grew up during the 60's and 70's. The Supreme Court was quite liberal at that time. I think there used to be jokes about Rehnquist as the "lone dissenter" or something like that.

Throughout its history the court has swung from conservative to liberal and back again. It will continue to do so, although I've always maintained never to the extreme desired by certain members of the public.

I also believe that, over time, the shift has generally been in a more liberal direction than conservative.

But, we live in a "right now" world so I expect there will be demands to take some futile and completely stupid gesture.

 

[aparch]

Let me ask you this about court packing. Yeah, it mollifies, temporarily, a current frustration. But as an actual practice how effective will it really be, and how good of an idea is it?

Say the Dems add four court seats and get Biden to appoint four liberals.

Don't the Republicans just do the exact same thing the next time they hold the White House and Senate?

And then the Dems do it, again, after that. At some point we end up with 157 Supreme Court members. Is that really the plan?

I.... have the same concern. There has always been a pendulum swing between the two parties, but it seems to have been pulled to the right more often in the last decade (despite a Dem President).

I too fear what happens after the pendulum swings left. How far right is it going to be dragged after that?


What is also frustrating is items that once were halmark GOP legislation (EPA crackdown, public land protection) have become flaming liberal left ideas merely a generation later. But those are concerns for other threads to discuss.

 

[Kepler]

I grew up during the 60's and 70's. The Supreme Court was quite liberal at that time. I think there used to be jokes about Rehnquist as the "lone dissenter" or something like that.

Throughout its history the court has swung from conservative to liberal and back again. It will continue to do so, although I've always maintained never to the extreme desired by certain members of the public.

I also believe that, over time, the shift has generally been in a more liberal direction than conservative.

But, we live in a "right now" world so I expect there will be demands to take some futile and completely stupid gesture.

And that foot... is me.

The problem is the EC and Senate dictate that not just the right but the far, far right has an outsized influence. We no longer have one man vote, we have one square mile one vote, and it is destroying democracy.

Packing the Court is jerry-rigging and inelegant and temporary; we need a systemic fix. But we can't get a systemic fix because of the very problem we need to fix.

The real solution is obvious and one nobody wants to talk about: we are two countries and always have been. We are an urban European democracy welded to a rural Asian Mystery Cult Caliphate and the two cultures do not reconcile.

We had our chance. Lincoln f-cked up. Unless we undo that we are doomed to be dragged down by the Somalis among us.

 

[French Rage]

Was the Democratic Senate of the 60s and 70s straight-up refusing to hear and debate conservative judges?

 

[SJHovey]

And that foot... is me.

The problem is the EC and Senate dictate that not just the right but the far, far right has an outsized influence. We no longer have one man vote, we have one square mile one vote, and it is destroying democracy.

Packing the Court is jerry-rigging and inelegant and temporary; we need a systemic fix. But we can't get a systemic fix because of the very problem we need to fix.

The real solution is obvious and one nobody wants to talk about: we are two countries and always have been. We are an urban European democracy welded to a rural Asian Mystery Cult Caliphate and the two cultures do not reconcile.

We had our chance. Lincoln f-cked up. Unless we undo that we are doomed to be dragged down by the Somalis among us.

I understand the frustration. But in situations like this, I always suggest to people that, before acting, put everyone in the exact opposite position.

I tend to think we have a pretty good system in place. It's not perfect, and it certainly hasn't treated everyone the same, but the concept, I believe is excellent and probably shouldn't be blown up just because we're not happy with how things are right now.

I don't want to live in a country with just pure majority rule on everything. Even if I'm in the majority. It's unlikely anyone stays in the majority forever.

We're a union of individual states. The electoral college was intended that those of us in "flyover land," as some here like to describe us, are not ignored.

This country is not ruled by the minority. That's simply the frustrated claim of the majority unable to completely unleash its tyranny.

 

[unofan]

Let me ask you this about court packing. Yeah, it mollifies, temporarily, a current frustration. But as an actual practice how effective will it really be, and how good of an idea is it?

Say the Dems add four court seats and get Biden to appoint four liberals.

Don't the Republicans just do the exact same thing the next time they hold the White House and Senate?

And then the Dems do it, again, after that. At some point we end up with 157 Supreme Court members. Is that really the plan?

When the GOP doesn't feel constrained by anything, why should the Dems? This is the type of government Mitch McConnell, Trump, and GOP voters want, then lets give it to him.

Put another way, your concern would be more noteworthy if it was directed at your own party. You're pre-emptively skewering the Dems for things they may do in January while ignoring the antics of the GOP that are going on right in front of you. I'll care about your thoughts on Dem actions once you get your own house in order.

 

[Kepler]

The electoral college was intended that those of us in "flyover land," as some here like to describe us, are not ignored.

That is a myth. Flyover land didn't exist when the Electoral College was created. The Electoral College was explicitly created to entice slave holding southern states to support the Union.

As for being ignored, if 40% of the population has 40% of the voting power that isn't being ignored, it's being fairly represented. 40% of the population having 60% of the voting power is not some self-protective measure, it's saying rural voters are more important -- more authentic, more moral, more Christian, more white -- than urban voters. And that's just bullsh-t, even if it gives you personally a warm fuzzy.

You like the EC and Senate because it works for you and that's more important to you than democracy. I hate the EC and Senate because it works against me. I think I also hate them because they are against democracy, but it's fair to say that if they benefitted me I might not be as fired up about protecting democracy.

Rotten boroughs suck. We should either fix this so we are more democratic or we should allow the people in the Second America go their separate way, finally, peacefully, and have two happy countries instead of one miserable one.

I want a divorce. The kids are all grown up and outta the house now. It's time to see other countries.

 

[SJHovey]

That is a myth. Flyover land didn't exist when the Electoral College was created. The Electoral College was explicitly created to entice slave holding southern states to support the Union.

As for being ignored, if 40% of the population has 40% of the voting power that isn't being ignored, it's being fairly represented. 40% of the population having 60% of the voting power is not some self-protective measure, it's saying rural voters are more important -- more authentic, more moral, more Christian, more white -- than urban voters. And that's just bullsh-t, even if it gives you personally a warm fuzzy.

You like the EC and Senate because it works for you and that's more important to you than democracy. I hate the EC and Senate because it works against me. I think I also hate them because they are against democracy, but it's fair to say that if they benefitted me I might not be as fired up about protecting democracy.

Rotten boroughs suck. We should either fix this so we are more democratic or we should allow the people in the Second America go their separate way, finally, peacefully, and have two happy countries instead of one miserable one.

I want a divorce. The kids are all grown up and outta the house now. It's time to see other countries.

The EC and Senate, under the current system, are not guaranteed to always work for me. They could easily work against me. In fact, I could make that happen tomorrow, simply by moving. The wind is blowing in my favor today. That won't always be the case, but it doesn't change my mind.

 

[Kepler]

Practical things the good guys can do procedurally in the Senate.

 

[SJHovey]

When the GOP doesn't feel constrained by anything, why should the Dems? This is the type of government Mitch McConnell, Trump, and GOP voters want, then lets give it to him.

Put another way, your concern would be more noteworthy if it was directed at your own party. You're pre-emptively skewering the Dems for things they may do in January while ignoring the antics of the GOP that are going on right in front of you. I'll care about your thoughts on Dem actions once you get your own house in order.

I'm not pre-emptively skewering anyone. Court packing is a stupid idea no matter who proposes it, simply because once it's done, it's open season and the other side will quickly retaliate when presented with the chance. If people can't see that, well I can't help them.

 

[unofan]

I'm not pre-emptively skewering anyone. Court packing is a stupid idea no matter who proposes it, simply because once it's done, it's open season and the other side will quickly retaliate when presented with the chance. If people can't see that, well I can't help them.

Yeah, it's so much better right now when the GOP pack the courts under current rules and the Dems just roll over and accept it rather than fighting fire with fire.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Because we should totally follow the same rules that were set in... 1869. Because nothing has changed in 150 years.

 

[jerphisch]

Pretty sure 2016 Hovey would tell 2020 Hovey that he's being hysterical and should quit whining.

 

[French Rage]

That is a myth. Flyover land didn't exist when the Electoral College was created. The Electoral College was explicitly created to entice slave holding southern states to support the Union.

As for being ignored, if 40% of the population has 40% of the voting power that isn't being ignored, it's being fairly represented. 40% of the population having 60% of the voting power is not some self-protective measure, it's saying rural voters are more important -- more authentic, more moral, more Christian, more white -- than urban voters. And that's just bullsh-t, even if it gives you personally a warm fuzzy.

You like the EC and Senate because it works for you and that's more important to you than democracy. I hate the EC and Senate because it works against me. I think I also hate them because they are against democracy, but it's fair to say that if they benefitted me I might not be as fired up about protecting democracy.

Rotten boroughs suck. We should either fix this so we are more democratic or we should allow the people in the Second America go their separate way, finally, peacefully, and have two happy countries instead of one miserable one.

I want a divorce. The kids are all grown up and outta the house now. It's time to see other countries.

His reasoning is BS too. How does the EC help rural voters in Illinois? They are outnumbered by Chicago and as such have no say in the EC. If there were a popular vote, rural voters from across the country would form a sizable block that would have definite influence. All the EC does is create the problem 50 times instead of once.

 

[SJHovey]

His reasoning is BS too. How does the EC help rural voters in Illinois? They are outnumbered by Chicago and as such have no say in the EC. If there were a popular vote, rural voters from across the country would form a sizable block that would have definite influence. All the EC does is create the problem 50 times instead of once.

By definition "rural" refers to lower population density, so this seems a bit incongruous to me.

Furthermore, part of the point of the EC has to do with differing interests relative to location. Rural voters in Alabama or New Mexico may not have anything close to the same concerns that say a rural voter in northern Minnesota might have. A rural Minnesota resident is likely to have much more in common with another Minnesota resident than someone from a completely different part of the country.

 

[SJHovey]

Pretty sure 2016 Hovey would tell 2020 Hovey that he's being hysterical and should quit whining.

2016 Hovey would tell 2020 Hovey he's not aging well.

 

[Kepler]

By definition "rural" refers to lower population density, so this seems a bit incongruous to me.

Furthermore, part of the point of the EC has to do with differing interests relative to location. Rural voters in Alabama or New Mexico may not have anything close to the same concerns that say a rural voter in northern Minnesota might have. A rural Minnesota resident is likely to have much more in common with another Minnesota resident than someone from a completely different part of the country.

The Federalist Papers (I forget which one so let's say 10, it's always 10) spoke directly to this and said there are many crisscrossing (orthogonal for those with more college loan debt) interests. Popular vote speaks to each of these by allowing freeform and natural coalitions that disregard state boundaries. So if for example we abolished the Senate and the EC entirely and went to pure popular vote, the same electorate would split many ways: rural/urban, educated/uneducated, religious/irreligious, conservative/liberal, authoritarian/libertarian, capitalism/socialist, white/non-white, coastal/flyover, etc... The aggregate of all these splits would be the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to some majorities in order to keep faith with other minorities.

So, for example, rural voters would only be ignored if they also aligned with every other minority opinion, and at that point they should be ignored because the majority does have the right, within limits, to steer. Minority rights are still protected by Constitutional protections. So you are not oppressed but you don't get to dictate policy to a majority unless you can appeal to other majorities on other issues.

That is fairness.

Edit: Holy balls, it is Federalist 10!!!

 

[Handyman]

To be fair, English probably isn't the first language of many of those responders.

It does sound nicer in the original Russian ;-)

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

By definition "rural" refers to lower population density, so this seems a bit incongruous to me.

Furthermore, part of the point of the EC has to do with differing interests relative to location. Rural voters in Alabama or New Mexico may not have anything close to the same concerns that say a rural voter in northern Minnesota might have. A rural Minnesota resident is likely to have much more in common with another Minnesota resident than someone from a completely different part of the country.

Not if we’re talking about talibangelicals and the abortion and gun issues.

I imagine a rural Minnesota voter wants to pollute with impunity, wipe out all gov regulations, put women in their place and lock up the darkies in the big bad city. Not sure that’s a lot diff than West Virginia rural voters