Trump vs. Biden

[Jaguar]

FBI Warns ‘Foreign Actors’ Could Use Lengthy Time For Mail-In Election Results To Undermine Credibility

 

[Z Buck McFate]

However I am curious, to which degree blue president, senate and house could hold clearly red supreme court "under control" ?

There's talk floating around about adding seats, which we'd be able to do (supposedly) if we have control of Congress and the White House.

There's also talk of making DC and Puerto Rico both states, which would increase presence in Congress (which doesn't influence the Supreme Court, but it's worth mentioning if I'm commenting on ideas being floated around).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeap, it isn't good. Plus this is defined as "US as a whole", therefore Trump himself is way down from this.
What is opening the question of will he be able to fulfill his promises. Because if your allies and enemies dislike you, you will have quite limited options.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There's talk floating around about adding seats, which we'd be able to do (supposedly) if we have control of Congress and the White House.

There's also talk of making DC and Puerto Rico both states, which would increase presence in Congress (which doesn't influence the Supreme Court, but it's worth mentioning if I'm commenting on ideas being floated around).

It would not be the first time the number of justices on the court has been changed. I think FDR also tried to “pack” the court but didn’t have the numbers he needed to get it passed through Congress. It’s been at 9 since the 1860s

There’s no good reason it couldn’t be expanded if there was support for it in the Executive and Congress, but of course this could backfire on the dems some point down the road. Also, careful we don’t plant ideas in Trump’s head. If he gets re-elected and has the numbers in Congress to back it, he might try to expand the SC and create a conservative SC “supermajority” just out of spite for the dems even suggesting trying to do it. If you’re worried about how the current court makeup will affect policy over the next decades, that would be nothing compared to what it could do with said “supermajority”

This is something I’d be careful with. I wouldn’t add more than 1 or 2 seats

 

[Red Memories]

I lived in Florida during the 2000 presidential election - yes, the one famous for the "hanging chads". Pollworkers in largely poor, black precincts were turning away young black men for being felons - when many had never so much as been arrested in their entire life, much less convicted of anything. But how do you prove you are not a felon, when you are standing at the check-in desk to vote and you have to be at work in a half hour, and you had no idea you would even be accused of this? Hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters ended up not voting because of this, in yet another example of voter suppression.

That is appalling and angers me greatly. That isn't being patriotic or being civil. IT IS AMERICA, EVERYONE HAS A VOICE.

 

[ceecee]

It would not be the first time the number of justices on the court has been changed. I think FDR also tried to “pack” the court but didn’t have the numbers he needed to get it passed through Congress. It’s been at 9 since the 1860s

There’s no good reason it couldn’t be expanded if there was support for it in the Executive and Congress, but of course this could backfire on the dems some point down the road. Also, careful we don’t plant ideas in Trump’s head. If he gets re-elected and has the numbers in Congress to back it, he might try to expand the SC and create a conservative SC “supermajority” just out of spite for the dems even suggesting trying to do it. If you’re worried about how the current court makeup will affect policy over the next decades, that would be nothing compared to what it could do with said “supermajority”

This is something I’d be careful with. I wouldn’t add more than 1 or 2 seats

I'd much rather increase seats in the house - somewhere in the 900 range if they want to be representative of the US population - and abolish the senate. Then the number on the court can stay 9.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'd much rather increase seats in the house - somewhere in the 900 range if they want to be representative of the US population - and abolish the senate. Then the number on the court can stay 9.

I could get behind this but I don't think I'd outright abolish the senate, just seek to lessen their power and influence, as was done to the House of Lords in the UK. Ultimately I think their power should mostly be symbolic and the senate would ideally only vote on a few key or crisis types of matters. Most of the power in Congress should reside in the House, ideally I think it should be like 75/25 in terms of the power balance.

 

[ceecee]

I could get behind this but I don't think I'd outright abolish the senate, just seek to lessen their power and influence, as was done to the House of Lords in the UK. Ultimately I think their power should mostly be symbolic and the senate would ideally only vote on a few key or crisis types of matters. Most of the power in Congress should reside in the House, ideally I think it should be like 75/25 in terms of the power balance.

I support this but I don't think it could remain a constant. There would continue to be increases in power - manufactured "crisis", national security, some other bullshit authoritarian measure - they can't be reformed. Most Americans don't care and won't be willing to grasp in large enough numbers to stand on them.

This piece was written in 2018. See how much of it has come to pass or will if he wins another term.

The Case for Abolishing the Senate | GQ

 

[The Cat]

That is appalling and angers me greatly. That isn't being patriotic or being civil. IT IS AMERICA, EVERYONE HAS A VOICE.

except that's not true. It's just something we're taught to keep us manageable. -_-

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I support this but I don't think it could remain a constant. There would continue to be increases in power - manufactured "crisis", national security, some other bullshit authoritarian measure - they can't be reformed. Most Americans don't care and won't be willing to grasp in large enough numbers to stand on them.

This piece was written in 2018. See how much of it has come to pass or will if he wins another term.

The Case for Abolishing the Senate | GQ

I mean, I'm willing to go even further than this. Let's totally rewrite the constitution every 50 years or so. And supreme court justices should have a single "lifetime" term of 20 years, no more. Even that might be too long.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I could get behind this but I don't think I'd outright abolish the senate, just seek to lessen their power and influence, as was done to the House of Lords in the UK. Ultimately I think their power should mostly be symbolic and the senate would ideally only vote on a few key or crisis types of matters. Most of the power in Congress should reside in the House, ideally I think it should be like 75/25 in terms of the power balance.

Perhaps, but I would go in a different direction. Maybe it would be better that the senate itself is remade. By this I mean that larger states in the terms of the population get to have 3 seats, medium ones 2 seats and small states 1 seat. Therefore the idea is that you make it more like the house, so that it is more representative of the population. What makes it more ok that it keeps it's current powers.

 

[ceecee]

I mean, I'm willing to go even further than this. Let's totally rewrite the constitution every 50 years or so. And supreme court justices should have a single "lifetime" term of 20 years, no more. Even that might be too long.

There should be no lifetime appointments for any position, imo. But I like Bernie's idea - especially rotating SC to the lower federal level.

Bernie Sanders’s radical plan to fix the Supreme Court - Vox

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There should be no lifetime appointments for any position, imo. But I like Bernie's idea - especially rotating SC to the lower federal level.

Bernie Sanders’s radical plan to fix the Supreme Court - Vox

That's a good idea, but imagine how opponents will try to frame it. That said, it's not unlike how the early justices did their jobs, literally riding the circuit to hear cases in various locales, only this would be more like an inverse of that system. So a good way to propose this measure is definitely to bring up the tradition aspect to any potential constitutional "traditionalists"

 

[Red Herring]

I mean, I'm willing to go even further than this. Let's totally rewrite the constitution every 50 years or so. And supreme court justices should have a single "lifetime" term of 20 years, no more. Even that might be too long.

Well, here in Germany the Constitutional Court consists of two senates of 8 judges each. One senate mainly deals with issues concerning basic rights and one with public law. The judges' term lasts 12 years or until the month they become 68 years old (at which point they become replaced). The upper and the lower house of parliament both get to elect half the judges and if a judge must be replaced they get to be replaced by a 2/3 majority of whatever house of parliament happens to have chosen the judge who needs replacement.

The whole model is based on consensus and chosing candidates who were suggested by the Departement of Justice and/or other intitutions based on merit.

 

[The Cat]

wow. pretty sure guy at 1:46 just outed his grand parents as fleeing the Nuremberg trials...

 

[The Cat]

Holy fuck. he's a fucking piece of shit. cant even commit to a peaceful transition...doesnt want anyone to vote...

 

[Jaguar]

wow. pretty sure guy at 1:46 just outed his grand parents as fleeing the Nuremberg trials...

I've never even been exposed to crazy people like this. Jesus.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]