This is the same irrational mentality used to defend businesses or the wealthy from doing immoral or harmful things by arguing only that the behavior is legal.
Complaints about the size or make up of the court, the electoral college vs popular vote, or really any other issue based on the current state of affairs would have significantly more weight if the people complaining weren't complete hypocrites.
Case in point, the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. After Trump sprayed WD-40 on in it and loosened up those voters, Democrats cried foul in unison solely because they lost.
If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS picks and they'd all be loving the electoral college. But she didn't so here we are. Elections have consequences.
Reforming the electoral college is not new at all, or partisan, but that's not to say that it's not political. Here are some links regarding historical[0] and present[1] efforts to reform the apportionment of elector votes:
> the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt.
In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
> In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time.
The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement.
> And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents.
The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.
> So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
> The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement.
It's merely a statement of fact.
> The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.
And I'm sure that their mothers love them very much, too, but that's irrelevant.
> You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.
Of course not. The wreckage of their administrations—the hundreds of thousands of dead, the economy in freefall, our position of leadership in the world in tatters—makes it so.
The economy isn't in freefall, but if it were, it would be because of statewide lockdowns. States that impose fines or take away the license to do business if they dare open. In my state, the governor forced infected elderly back into nursing homes--a population of people who are at 3x or more risk than the general population.
Honestly, if you think that Trump, a person I find stupid, despicable, and generally bankrupt, has any responsibility for those things then appeals to reason are simply not going to work on you..
> If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS
Don't be so sure. At least three Republican Senators in 2016 (Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Richard Burr) suggested leaving Supreme Court vacancies unfilled during Clinton's entire term(s) if she were elected.
I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution.
You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"?
Edit reply due to rate limit:
> Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution.
Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes".
Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
> You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations?
So 4 years ago they "weren't constitutionally compelled to give advice", whereas now they're following the Constitution's "clear direction on the structure of government"? Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. I guess it must be one of those documents where you can do whatever you want and say it's what the Constitution says.
When they refused to bring Obama's nomination up for vote, because voting on a Supreme Court Justice during an election year would be wrong. And now here we are, 2 weeks before and election, and surprise! Suddenly it's alright!
Not everything that is allowed to be done, has to our even should be done. The judicial system needs to be perceived as impartial as their decision are to be respected by all sides regardless of majorities.
And that is not guaranteed simply by the letter of the word.
> The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51
> The Kentucky senator said: "We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be confirming. You can't win them all, and elections have consequences."
34 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 55.6 ms ] threadAnother 4 years + a refusal to leave after 8 years might get it to a point for Civil war though.
Case in point, the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. After Trump sprayed WD-40 on in it and loosened up those voters, Democrats cried foul in unison solely because they lost.
If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS picks and they'd all be loving the electoral college. But she didn't so here we are. Elections have consequences.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_S...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement.
> And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents.
The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.
> So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.
It's merely a statement of fact.
> The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.
And I'm sure that their mothers love them very much, too, but that's irrelevant.
> You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.
Of course not. The wreckage of their administrations—the hundreds of thousands of dead, the economy in freefall, our position of leadership in the world in tatters—makes it so.
Honestly, if you think that Trump, a person I find stupid, despicable, and generally bankrupt, has any responsibility for those things then appeals to reason are simply not going to work on you..
I was discussing several administrations; the current economy isn’t in freefall but it was after President George W. Bush.
Don't be so sure. At least three Republican Senators in 2016 (Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Richard Burr) suggested leaving Supreme Court vacancies unfilled during Clinton's entire term(s) if she were elected.
You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"?
Edit reply due to rate limit:
> Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution.
Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes".
Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
So 4 years ago they "weren't constitutionally compelled to give advice", whereas now they're following the Constitution's "clear direction on the structure of government"? Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. I guess it must be one of those documents where you can do whatever you want and say it's what the Constitution says.
Not everything that is allowed to be done, has to our even should be done. The judicial system needs to be perceived as impartial as their decision are to be respected by all sides regardless of majorities. And that is not guaranteed simply by the letter of the word.
Yeah, about that.
https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070
There are 13 federal circuit courts where the supreme court has to manage them, so get ready for 13 judges.
It's not going to be hard to argue this to the public after they get a taste of the rulings over the next few months.