Vote!

[The Sultan]

Yes, but there was a proposal to extend it due to increased absentee voting because of Covid.

I would have liked to see the change...but don't see the Court's ruling as a huge deal. Anyone who has been paying attention should either have voted by now or be planning to vote Nov. 3.

I agree on both counts.  I find the outrage over the Court's decision to be a little...much.  My guess is that the outrage is more about spurning people to get off their ass and turn in their ballots in person.

[Pakuni]

I agree on both counts.  I find the outrage over the Court's decision to be a little...much.  My guess is that the outrage is more about spurning people to get off their ass and turn in their ballots in person.

The decision actually is fine.
Kavanaugh's concurrence is trash. Gorsuch, regardless of his leanings, has so far proven to be a thoughtful, competent justice. Kavanaugh has proven to be a child allowed to sit at the grown ups table.

[MUfan12]

The decision actually is fine.
Kavanaugh's concurrence is trash.

Agree on both counts.

It was alluded to a few posts ago, but I do think "suppression" and "disenfranchisement" get thrown around way too often after decisions like these. People had ample time to request and return absentee ballots, two weeks of in-person early voting, and election day. Plenty of opportunities to vote, at some point it has to be on the voter to actually do it.

[GB Warrior]

The decision actually is fine.
Kavanaugh's concurrence is trash. Gorsuch, regardless of his leanings, has so far proven to be a thoughtful, competent justice. Kavanaugh has proven to be a child allowed to sit at the grown ups table.

Nailed it. I think Gorsuch will continue to disappoint them by being principled (wrong, but consistently principled) on some landmark cases (like the decision whether or not to include illegal immigrants in the Census).

Kavanaugh (and ACB) are the worst sort of activist judges by which the law is distorted to reach their desired outcome

[4everwarriors]

Too bad RBG didn't resign during BO's time in office. Musta bin overly confident of a Hillary win or just plane selfish, aina?

[tower912]

Why?   McConnell would have just held up the vote until after the election.   Like he did for Scalia.    At least he is consistent about not wanting to have a Supreme Court nomination during an election year.    Aina?

[wadesworld]

Too bad RBG didn't resign during BO's time in office. Musta bin overly confident of a Hillary win or just plane selfish, aina?

Or maybe she had faith that the Republicans would have the best interest of the United States of America at heart, like the Democrats did in 1988 and 1991, and not turn the Supreme Court into a political organization, aina?

Now therein lies her mistake.

Is this where I play victim and say "IBTL?"

[Galway Eagle]

Too bad RBG didn't resign during BO's time in office. Musta bin overly confident of a Hillary win or just plane selfish, aina?

Probably both tbh and that sucks for the left. Shame the right doesn't adhere to the standard they set months out from the end of Obama's 2nd term. Unless 250+ days out it's not ok to confirm a justice but it's ok 8days before an election with record votes having been cast.

[jesmu84]

Supreme court OT -

We now have a majority of judges on the court appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote during their election.

This doesn't feel like a representative democracy.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Supreme court OT -

We now have a majority of judges on the court appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote during their election.

This doesn't feel like a representative democracy.

Like pakuni says, the people that complain the loudest about representative democracy know the least about it.

[Pakuni]

Like pakuni says, the people that complain the loudest about representative democracy know the least about it.

Thanks!
Please keep this in mind should the Dems move to expand the court.

[jesmu84]

Thanks!
Please keep this in mind should the Dems move to expand the court.

Would this be a good idea?

[jesmu84]

Like pakuni says, the people that complain the loudest about representative democracy know the least about it.

I'm no constitutional scholar, that's for sure.

Perhaps you, or someone else more knowledgeable than me, can explain why it's a good thing that the SC has judges with a majority of viewpoints not representative of the citizenry as a whole?

[dgies9156]

Supreme court OT -

We now have a majority of judges on the court appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote during their election.

This doesn't feel like a representative democracy.

We're not a representative democracy. We're a republic.

In a true Democracy, majority always rules. The majority tramples the rights of the minority because, well, they're the majority.

The electoral college is designed to give everyone a voice. Pure and simple. It means someone can't rack up a 60 percent plurality in California and trample the rights of Nebraskans, for example.

We have a court system to ensure the tyranny of the majority does not trample the inalienable rights of the minority. Just think of where we would be today without the courts and the federal government forcing Orval Faubus to uphold the law in Arkansas in the late 1950s. Or, if the President of the United States had not intervened in Alabama to ensure African Americans had the right to attend the University of Alabama.

That's what makes America great!!!!!

[Pakuni]

Would this be a good idea?

I tend to think not, but fools that they are, Nancy and Chuck aren't seeking my opinion.
Breyer and Thomas ain't getting any younger.

[Pakuni]

We're not a representative democracy. We're a republic.

In a true Democracy, majority always rules. The majority tramples the rights of the minority because, well, they're the majority.

Well thank God the founding fathers established a system where this doesn't happen.

The electoral college is designed to give everyone a voice. Pure and simple. It means someone can't rack up a 60 percent plurality in California and trample the rights of Nebraskans, for example.

The electoral college made a lot of sense when it was created, but it no longer does.
Rather than protecting the rights of smaller states, it now gives those states an outsized influence in the country's governance.
As a Florida resident, your vote counts less than a resident of any other state in the union. Your vote carries 1/4th the value as one from Wyoming.

We have a court system to ensure the tyranny of the majority does not trample the inalienable rights of the minority. Just think of where we would be today without the courts and the federal government forcing Orval Faubus to uphold the law in Arkansas in the late 1950s. Or, if the President of the United States had not intervened in Alabama to ensure African Americans had the right to attend the University of Alabama.

That's what makes America great!!!!!

I agree. But it's worth noting that the conservative voices of the day called this judicial activism and cried over the loss of states' rights.

[GooooMarquette]

The electoral college is designed to give everyone a voice. Pure and simple. It means someone can't rack up a 60 percent plurality in California and trample the rights of Nebraskans, for example.

Actually, it was designed as a compromise between rights of individual citizens ('national powers') and the rights of the states ('federal powers').

Congress has two houses: members of the House of Representatives are apportioned based on population (a nod to individual citizens' rights to vote them in - national powers) and members of the Senate are apportioned equally to each state (a nod to states' rights - federal powers).

The Electoral College was intended to be a mixture of these two modes. Madison explains it better than I do in Federalist No. 39.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0234

The next relation is to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The house of representatives will derive its powers from the people of America, and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular state. So far the government is national not federal. The senate on the other hand will derive its powers from the states, as political and co-equal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the senate, as they now are in the existing congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the president is to be made by the states in their political characters. The votes allotted to them, are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act, they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations from so many distinct and co-equal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government, it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

[forgetful]

The decision actually is fine.
Kavanaugh's concurrence is trash. Gorsuch, regardless of his leanings, has so far proven to be a thoughtful, competent justice. Kavanaugh has proven to be a child allowed to sit at the grown ups table.

Agree with this 100%.

Regarding the decision, I at first thought it was bad. Then red Robert's part of the decision and agreed with him. Kavanaugh's concurrence as you say, was trash.

[The Sultan]

Would this be a good idea?

It's not a great one.

But I think the hypocrisy of the Scalia v Ginsburg seats means a price will be enacted.

Honestly I think a better idea would be a gradual increase to 15 or so over the next decade. That way one seat is relatively less important.

[jesmu84]

I don't think the Dems have the guts to do something so dramatic

They could have done just about anything when they had a supermajority under Obama and the gutsiest thing they did was pass a conservative healthcare bill.

[reinko]

Move it to 13, to match it to the 13 Federal courts, just like when they moved from 7 -> 9. 

[GooooMarquette]

I don't think the Dems have the guts to do something so dramatic

They could have done just about anything when they had a supermajority under Obama and the gutsiest thing they did was pass a conservative healthcare bill.

That was all before the Republicans played "let the people decide" in 2016, then ignored the people in 2020. Now that the Democrats have been stung, they might be more bold.

In hindsight, the Republicans may end up wishing they had confirmed Garland in 2016. With the two vacancies they have filled since then, that would still give them a 5-4 advantage, and make it less likely that the Democrats would expand the Court. Instead, if the Democrats decide to increase the number of seats now, the Republicans could quickly find themselves on the short end once again.

[Billy Hoyle]

I tend to think not, but fools that they are, Nancy and Chuck aren't seeking my opinion.
Breyer and Thomas ain't getting any younger.

what do you think the odds are that in the event of a Biden victory and Democratic capture of the Senate that Thomas steps down so Trump and McConnell can rush another appointment of a 30-year replacement?

[reinko]

what do you think the odds are that in the event of a Biden victory and Democratic capture of the Senate that Thomas steps down so Trump and McConnell can rush another appointment of a 30-year replacement?

Not out of the realm of possibility, but the government will need to be open for that to happen.  Current CR expires in early December, and if Trump and Rs in Senate lose, no reason for them to negotiate to keep the govt open.

[The Sultan]

Supreme court OT -

We now have a majority of judges on the court appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote during their election.

This doesn't feel like a representative democracy.

The bolded isn't really true.  Alito was nominated during Bush's second term, and he won a majority of the popular vote in 2004.

Roberts and the three Trump justices are the only ones who were nominated by presidents who didn't win the popular vote during the term they were nominated.