SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 06:37:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!  (Read 27873 times)
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,567


« on: January 31, 2017, 04:19:17 PM »

Just remove the filibuster immediately without even trying, Mitch. This will be a waste of time otherwise. Democrats' votes shouldn't matter on this.

That is not right either and Republicans could well be in the minority eventually.

The GOP did not win the popular vote for Presidency and Obama should have picked the replacement for Scalia's seat not Trump.

But needless to say I do not think this would be worth filibustering because it is essentially replacing a conservative with a conservative. A fight to replace Gingsburg would be more worth it.

Are you just saying who ever is in the minority party should just have no voice?
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,567


« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2017, 04:27:25 PM »

The Senate was designed to be insulated from public opinion and not stomp on the minority!

The House was designed to be be the people's house.

I normally do not care in the year 2017 what some people in the late 1770s thought but I agree with them on the two above statements.

Preserve the filibuster but obviously do not abuse it.

And House districts should be required to make geographic sense and correspond to population requirements. That is it.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,567


« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2017, 04:30:22 PM »

Oh and let me add this: I do not think if the founding fathers were alive today that they would design the Senate the way they did. Especially with the extremely dramatic population differences between the states now. I would think they design a senate in which every state gets a senator plus as many Senate districts as there are states. So half the Senate would represent the states and the other half would represent roughly population districts that could cross state lines.

The Senate should be designed for actual deliberation. Not stomping out the minority who are only the minority due to the stagger nature of the body.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,567


« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2017, 04:34:14 PM »
« Edited: January 31, 2017, 04:41:33 PM by Jimmie »

The thing about Supreme Court nominations is that it is impossible to know what issues and how justices will rule 20 years down the road.

Even Roberts has taken observers by surprise.

Obvious grain of salt, but the Rogue POTUS Staff account says Trump has finalized on Gorsuch.

Good, even though I still have some doubts that he won't turn into another Souter.

well yea I sorta agree.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,567


« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2017, 01:28:32 PM »

Which is to demoralise and dishearten an overreaching judiciary.

Why even have a judiciary anyway? Let's just fold all the branches of government into the White House. We can also schedule the next presidential election for 2024, where the two candidates will be members of Trump's family!

I love how the GOP opposes power outside the presidency. Which is very dangerous.

The presidency, if anything, is too powerful.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.