2020 US Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
cjn said:
I quite like Mayor Pete's proposal. It was something along the lines of having three justices nominated by Democrats, three by Republicans, and three mutually agreed upon by the other six. All with 18 year terms. I think that would solve the issue.
Click to expand...

Republicans and Democrats are conventions -- what happens if we morph to three parties or four?
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Republicans and Democrats are conventions -- what happens if we morph to three parties or four?
Click to expand...
I dunno, instead of "Republicans" and "Democrats" change it to the top two vote getting parties in the last presidential election or something like that? This would allow for the possibility of some new party to popping up. And I really doubt we're going to a coalitional system any time soon but you could also work in a rule where if the top two parties don't receive X percentage of the total vote it splits into the top four parties? There are a few different ways you could structure it.
 
SWP's back said:
And you don’t see the inherent issue that a 1 term president could, in effect, tilt the court hugely to the right or left with 3 or 4 appointments and it be stuck there for 30-40 years despite 70% of the population being of another persuasion on (what are weirdly American only) critical matters such as Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
No, I don't see an issue with it. If 70% of the population is of a different persuasion, then they'd simply have enough legislative power to make laws. Which as you may or may not know, is in the definition of their jobs.

Supreme Court's role is simply to interpret the laws whenever there's ambiguity and to
 
Dax777 said:
No, I don't see an issue with it. If 70% of the population is of a different persuasion, then they'd simply have enough legislative power to make laws. Which as you may or may not know, is in the definition of their jobs.

Supreme Court's role is simply to interpret the laws whenever there's ambiguity and to
Click to expand...
Then why is Row v Wade likely to be overturned when 70% of the population back it?
 
SWP's back said:
Then why is Row v Wade likely to be overturned when 70% of the population back it?
Click to expand...

Dax777 said:
1. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.
2. 70% do not back Row v. Wade
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to get involved when Dax leans towards being correct on anything, but here's a transcript coming from Pelosi's own mouth where she, basically, plays the game for voting.

From the 'Sway' podcast
Kara Swisher

All right, let me give you one of your arrows in your quiver. If the court overturns Roe but you have Biden and a Democratic Senate, what will you do specifically to help protect abortion rights in red states, and can you do anything if the GOP keeps the Senate?

Nancy Pelosi

Well, that would be much harder. That’s why we want people to vote now. Let me just say this. They’ve had the House and Senate and Republican president for a while. They’ve, by and large, been fakers on Roe v. Wade when they could have done it. They didn’t. They just like to use it. But now, I think with the, shall we say— I don’t what the word is to use about this president, but the lack of balance that is there, you never know what he may try to do. But this is vital. And if the court cares anything about precedent, they will not overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

The only thing she's not sure of is #45's behaviour as he doesn't 'play the game', but she likes to shout this out in order to get vote and donations in. As #45, himself said, his new pick hasn't been asked about RvW, so how would Biden know if she's a 'bad pick'.

Biden was, pointedly, silent on that line of attack afterwards.

All I know is the 'Face Lift Queen', herself, loves political theatre and tends to drops herself in it, every now and then.
 
Dax777 said:
1. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.
2. 70% do not back Row v. Wade
Click to expand...
1) Trump has stated he will on nominate SC Justices that are on record opposed to Roe.

2) You’re quite right. It’s 71%.
www.wsj.com

Record 71% of Voters Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade

As the Senate nears debate on a new Supreme Court nominee who could give the panel a conservative edge, a majority of voters say they are increasingly opposed to undermining a woman’s right to have an abortion.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com
 
SWP's back said:
You know you’re the only first world country that does it this way?
Click to expand...
I’m okay with that.

I’m not a fan of messing with systems that have worked reasonably well for a long time just because they look unfair at the moment (read — I’m not getting the result I’d prefer). It’s why I don’t want the Electoral College disbanded (though the weightings may be off) or the method of selecting SC or other federal post nominees messed with. I do think the number of representatives to the House is extremely small — one per every 700k+ people now, the highest folks per rep of any democracy — with the number of reps fixed. The problem isn’t the system with the SC nomination — the problem is appalling Republican hypocrisy, treating the Garland and Barrett nominations 100% differently. So vote them ALL out. They spent their political capital talking out of both sides of their mouths — so make them pay, never vote red again, ensure blue SC nominees for the next 50 years.

And as I keep saying — remember US vs Nixon.
 
cjn said:
I dunno, instead of "Republicans" and "Democrats" change it to the top two vote getting parties in the last presidential election or something like that? This would allow for the possibility of some new party to popping up. And I really doubt we're going to a coalitional system any time soon but you could also work in a rule where if the top two parties don't receive X percentage of the total vote it splits into the top four parties? There are a few different ways you could structure it.
Click to expand...
12 year appointment. 3 appointed each 4 years by proportional representation (single transferable vote) then good chance of diversity on the SC. You might get some weird choices that way, but... Kavanagh.
 
SWP's back said:
1) Trump has stated he will on nominate SC Justices that are on record opposed to Roe.

2) You’re quite right. It’s 71%.
www.wsj.com

Record 71% of Voters Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade

As the Senate nears debate on a new Supreme Court nominee who could give the panel a conservative edge, a majority of voters say they are increasingly opposed to undermining a woman’s right to have an abortion.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com
Click to expand...
Ah! It seems you are right. I was thinking about this differently.
 
Zuriblue said:
Was that a woman he hit? (going by the size and the hair)

Wouldn't surprise me, these tough guys are always braver when going against someone who isn't equipped to fight back.
Click to expand...
Nah, was a dude. But it still doesn't matter. This is a horrible and unacceptable behavior. Period.

Glad the Denton police have him arrested and in custody.

This should be the response to all rioters, assaulters, fire-starters and business looters when caught. Prosecute and jail them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top