Comments regarding the Kavanaugh nomination (thread 3)

[Torie]

Thread 2 was locked by a co-mod due to a lack of decorum, to put it mildly. So since the saga is not yet quite complete, here is thread 3. I just deleted a few posts myself that missed the scalpel  of my co-mods without infraction that went down the road of extreme hyperbole, etc. (e.g. Pubs love rape). On this thread, posts that inflame or derail among others will all be infracted.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

When is the vote supposed to be?

[Person Man]

Like 4 Eastern I think.

[President Johnson]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

[Person Man]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

[JoeyOCanada]

I knew he was going to be confirmed but when I read about Collins and Manchin last night it made me genuinely sad

[RI]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

[Person Man]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

Which is fine but this is blatant feudalism.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

No, but we are meant to be a representative democracy.  When the minority has more power than the majority, that's not representative.

[RI]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

No, but we are meant to be a representative democracy.  When the minority has more power than the majority, that's not representative.

It is representative. It's representative of the states. We are always a union of states, not of people. If the left wants this to not harm them, they need to be willing to live places other than a handful of coastal cities.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

No, but we are meant to be a representative democracy.  When the minority has more power than the majority, that's not representative.

It is representative. It's representative of the states. We are always a union of states, not of people. If the left wants this to not harm them, they need to be willing to live places other than a handful of coastal cities.

There has never been any sensical reason for why states are sufficient representative units other than "Welp, that's the way it is." The idea of statically fixing the same amount of power to arbitrary plot of land regardless of how many people live there is, honestly, a joke.

"Why don't people just move to Iowa if they want more political power?" is a dumb and heartless argument that ignores pretty much all of the other realities of life in this country, like family, work, availability of jobs, etc.

Example of why this argument is dumb:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1048591018608791552

[OSR stands with Israel]

Unless you get all 50 states to agree to change the allocation of the senate , that will never change as making an amendment too change allocation rules in senate require 100% of the states to ratify.

[Virginiá]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

Which is fine but this is blatant feudalism.

Mind your business serf!

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Unless you get all 50 states to agree to change the allocation of the senate , that will never change as making an amendment too change allocation rules in senate require 100% of the states to ratify.

Okay? Your insight that people who hold disproportionate power don't like giving it up isn't anything new or profound. It's just another argument that centers around "It's the way it is" rather than "This is a good way to do things"

[Alabama_Indy10]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

[Person Man]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

Which is fine but this is blatant feudalism.

Mind your business serf!

Serfin' USA

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Unless you get all 50 states to agree to change the allocation of the senate , that will never change as making an amendment too change allocation rules in senate require 100% of the states to ratify.

Not true, constitutional amendments to fix the US electoral system can be passed with (effectively) a simple majority. You probably want to have a trifecta to do this, but all you have to do is admit new rotten borough states to obtain a sufficient majority to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.

The procedure for this is you create a lot of new rotten borough states whose borders are drawn to elect particular Senators, admit them temporarily to the Union, hold an election the next day, swear in the Senators/representatives/governors the next day. These rotten borough states can just be drawn to include only the houses of particular carefully selected people for whom it is planned, in advance, that they will elect themselves as Senators/representatives/Governors, and will go and pass the constitutional amendments. A sufficient number of temporary rotten borough states will be created to get the 2/3 majorities. Remember, there is no inherent limit to how many states can be created in this way - we could make 500 (or 5000) such states if we want. After the amendments are passed, the rotten borough states are abolished and merged back into the states that they were split from, using the same procedures through which they were admitted.


Amendments that can and should be passed this way (examples, the details could vary slightly):

1) Senators are no longer elected per state; there are 100 Senators (or however many) who are elected from equal population districts across the United States. Districts can be drawn to cross state lines so as to ensure equal population and equal representation, redistricted every 10 years as with House districts. House districts should also be drawn to cross state lines, IMO - there is no real justification in the 21st century for people in Wyoming to have twice the representation of people in Montana (and Rhode Island, after the next census).

2) The Electoral College is abolished and the President is elected by a national popular vote.

3) Political gerrymandering is outlawed and all legislative districts are drawn on a national basis in a non-partisan/neutral manner similar to how districts for Parliament are drawn in the United Kingdom.

4) Personally, I would say that in both the Senate and the House, keep maybe 75% of Representatives/Senators elected by district, and have 25% elected by proportional party list, with the proportional representation being used to correct any over-representation or under-representation of parties as compared to the overall popular vote.

There is no reason for anyone to oppose this if they truly support a democratically elected government that is representative of the will of the people.

This procedure is entirely legal and constitutional, because new states can be admitted or split whenever Congress wants. The only question is whether it can be justified to the American people. For genuine good-government reforms to make America an actual representative democracy, this can be justified. Of course, it is only defensible to use this procedure to fix actual structural problems, not to impose particular policy preferences, so passing other sorts of amendments  (changing the 2nd amendment, an amendment either way on abortion, etc) in this way would be, I would say, illegitimate (though technically legal). In that case, a future majority could simply (and justifiably) repeal those amendments using the same procedure.

To stop any possibility that the Supreme Court might attempt to interfere with this, you can simply pack the Supreme Court temporarily (again, with a simple majority), and then un-pack it after this is accomplished.


This proposal is currently outside the overton window, but it is the only way I can see to fix the un-representative and unjustifiable nature of the U.S. Senate in particular. The United States has come a long way since 1776, when the Senate was not even elected at all, and only property owning white males could vote. The U.S. Senate, as constituted, can no longer be justified. Other things that were previously outside the overton window, such as abolishing the filibuster, not giving Merrick Garland a hearing, etc have been moved inside the overton window over the past decade or two, and this can now be moved inside the overton window as well. The time has come to shift the overton window to move this proposal to be inside it. Then we can live on in an actual representative democracy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The constitution literally says no amendment may be made which deprives a state of equal representation in the senate without consent from that state

[7,052,770]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

It's almost like we were never meant to be a direct democracy.

No, but we are meant to be a representative democracy.  When the minority has more power than the majority, that's not representative.

It is representative. It's representative of the states. We are always a union of states, not of people. If the left wants this to not harm them, they need to be willing to live places other than a handful of coastal cities.

Hillary received 10s of millions of votes from places "other than a handful of coastal cities." Trump received millions of votes in said coastal cities.

[Xing]

I'm sure when the Founding Fathers (who were not right about everything) envisioned our country, their dream was for our system to lead to men such as Donald Trump becoming president and Brett Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

[RI]

Unless you get all 50 states to agree to change the allocation of the senate , that will never change as making an amendment too change allocation rules in senate require 100% of the states to ratify.

Not true, constitutional amendments to fix the US electoral system can be passed with (effectively) a simple majority. You probably want to have a trifecta to do this, but all you have to do is admit new rotten borough states to obtain a sufficient majority to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.

The procedure for this is you create a lot of new rotten borough states whose borders are drawn to elect particular Senators, admit them temporarily to the Union, hold an election the next day, swear in the Senators/representatives/governors the next day. These rotten borough states can just be drawn to include only the houses of particular carefully selected people for whom it is planned, in advance, that they will elect themselves as Senators/representatives/Governors, and will go and pass the constitutional amendments. A sufficient number of temporary rotten borough states will be created to get the 2/3 majorities. Remember, there is no inherent limit to how many states can be created in this way - we could make 500 (or 5000) such states if we want. After the amendments are passed, the rotten borough states are abolished and merged back into the states that they were split from, using the same procedures through which they were admitted.

Yeah, that's a one-way ticket to a civil war.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The constitution literally says no amendment may be made which deprives a state of equal representation in the senate without consent from that state

This is pretty simple and is not an actual obstacle. There is nothing in the constitution that says that you cannot pass a Constitutional Amendment that amends the process of amending the constitution (i.e. an Amendment that amends Article 5).

The article you are referring to is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Step 1: You pass an amendment that amends Article V to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Step 2:

You pass an amendment that deprives states of each having 2 Senators.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Yeah, that's a one-way ticket to a civil war.

I think most Americans do actually support representative government. If you don't, and you choose to rebel, then your rebellion would have to be put down.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

This got a million dollars overnight:

[2016]

Just a thought: 51 senators who represent 40% of the population vote for a man who has been nominated by someone losing the popular vote by three million votes. Trump was right: The system is rigged.

Nothing is rigged here. Democrats better win an Election (Electoral College) before they talk.

Trump does what he is supposed to be doing: Appoint Conservative SCOTUS Justices. That's why the White-Working Class who was completely abandoned by Obama elected him.

As I said numerous times: Elections do have consequences.

Had Hillary won in 2016 Roles would have been reversed.