It is interesting to look at the statistics of SC judges in recent history: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm Since president Kennedy, 15 judges were appointed by GOP presidents, only 6 judges were appointed by a Dem president. This is reflected by the leaning of the court, which has been conservative for a LONG time. If one thinks about this, the GOP has a 71% "majority" in SC judge appointments, while being represented by the minority of the US population. Of course, this follows directly from the two powers appointing the judges, the President and the Senate. Both of them are elected on mechanisms that allow for minority rule. The Senate, for example, pushed Kavanaugh through with a Senate "majority" that represented only 44% of the American people. This will be getting worse. As the population disparity between big and small states widens, the Senate majority will represent less and less of the American population. In 2040, it is estimated that 2/3 of the Senate is represented by only 1/3 of Americans. Therefore, the SC will follow similar trends. Increasing minority representation. Of course, we know what this means: Increasing polarization and further drift to the extreme right, as they are the ones benefiting from the minority rule. It should be remembered that justice Ginsburg was elected with a 96:3 Senate vote. Today, she was seen as a liberal "activist" judge by the far right. That's how far our system has strayed from centrist representation by moderate judges.
This is precisely what the framers consciously intended. BTW, Ginsburg was well known as a liberal activist when all those Republicans voted to confirm her.
So the framers intentionally disenfranchised a growing segment of the population to have a say in governance? We always hear about the tyranny of the majority, but what about a built-in tyranny of the minority? My guess: You wouldn't defend such a system if the shoe was on the other foot.
The Court doesn't represent the people...they are suppose to take the people out of it, and rule on what the law is. As we have seen from your post...that the GOP's picks since have done a great job of doing just that....abortion rights, Miranda, Griswald v Conn, Loving v Virginia, NY Times v United States, Miller v California , Texas v Johnson, Planned Parenthood v Casey, USA v Lopez to just name a few. Obviously, we shouldn't be letting Dems make the picks
Hey, I think you should stack the SC so they could rule that only the GOP can nominate justices? Maybe that would work to your liking? Typical anti-democratic talk of the ones who like their minority rule and who want to disenfranchise the majority.
i'm fine with 9, not need to stack it with more. Judges aren't elected on a federal level, they are appointed via democratic-republic way...not an election...so not sure what you mean about minority rule. ...additionally, whoever had the Senate or President since JFK was elected by the People and how our Constitution requires. Moreover, more Americans ID themselves as Conservative, then Liberal....so your other point is further moot.
The framers consciously, purposely and with considerable forethought divided the overall power of government among states, not individuals. It is called a republic. Tyranny of a minority is almost impossible. A minority in a republic doing things that the majority is entirely possible. This is called tough s$$t. Tyranny of a majority is both very possible and as the founders said every bit as bad and destructive as the tyranny of despots. I'll defend the republic until the cows come home for the last time.
Well, if tyranny of the minority is impossible, why have 15 of the last 21 SC appointments been by Republican presidents? If we assume that the majority is 50/50, if not slightly Dem leaning, considering that Dems won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 elections, this is clearly an aberration. Statistically, over such a long period of time, you would think Dem and GOP appointments would cancel out, but they did not. This is a problem, because those consistently right-leaning courts gave us abominations like the Citizens United decision, which further cements the minority rule stronghold the GOP is enjoying.
I guess the dems talking points this week must be something about minority rule because they've started like 5 threads with the same theme since Monday AM. Can you guys just share the instructions with the rest of us? It would be easier for you.
Yeah, if I was in a competitive foot race with my only major opponent having one leg tied behind their backs, I'd also advocate for keeping the rules the same.
Look man, its not my fault your team chose a candidate who has functionally half a working brain at this point. Democrats have had every opportunity...
And thus, the flaw in your argument. - A minority does not elect a President . A majority of the people do not elect a President. The people do not elect the President. - Senators represent their states, not the people in same. These people are elected by a majority of the people in their state. Nice try, though.
I don't even like Biden. That's however, a very poor argument against the systemic disenfranchisement of Dem voters.
Moreover... Why dont you like Biden? I thought he was a a safe but lame choice. He certainly doesnt seem like a candidate for 2020.
The framers, with amazing brilliance and foresight, imagined the day when hive-mind thinkers would bunch up in a few small, tightly-packed, urban population clusters and, by force of sheer numbers, dominate the smaller population spread out across huge swathes of land in the rest of the country. The founders basically foresaw the day when the Democrats would become the Borg, and it terrified them, and they put an institution called the Electoral College in place to stop the nightmare from happening. Those founders were smart cookies.
I've said it before: -Low energy -Too old -Establishment candidate -No new ideas -No excitement With that said, I think he is a decent human being. That alone elevated him over Trump.
Fair enough. Here is a good comparison though. I own a couple businesses, one wasnt doing so well a few years ago and everything, on the surface of things, seemed to be running smoothly. No staff issues, but numbers were garbage, staff was complacent. Turns out my operations manager was a total pushover and was not doing his job at all. He wanted to be liked and friendly. I got rid of him and hired a total ballbuster of a woman from Schenectady, NY who whipped that business into shape faster than you can say Richard Simmons. Moral of the story is nice does not always win the race. Sometimes it takes a donkey orifice to get results.