1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

USSC decisions

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by NewRoxFan, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,775
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Something needs to be done. We cannot allow the right wingers to continue to thwart the will of the majority for 30 years or whatever just for comfort or moderation. This will lead to increasing unrest and actually will not be congruent with moderate contentment. One suggestion is to take away the life time appointments on the S. Ct and make them 18 yr terms. You can also make it so each president gets to make 2 appointments per term or however it comes out. This would take care of the fear of what happens when the Congress switches from conservative to liberal .
     
    #41 glynch, Jun 29, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2020
    RayRay10 likes this.
  2. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,805
    Likes Received:
    111,568
    The Supreme Court is not going to be expanded and there are not going to be term limits....... and their shouldn't be.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  3. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    Yup that's the way we work now.

    You have to realize that the Republicans literally just packed the courts over the last four years. They broke every procedure and just rushed through court nominees without vetting or honoring traditional processes like blue slips. So yes, this is exactly how it works now. And Republicans arent going to change. So if Democrats go back to the old way of nominating and vetting court judges, you know that Republicans will revert back to their current process the moment they regain power.

    As for the Senate, that institution is going to become less democratic over time as people move to cities. The Senate will be governed by a smaller and smaller set of the population over time. By 2040, one third of the population will represent 70 of the 100 seats in the Senate. And that disparity will always strongly favor Republicans (unless the voting coalitions magically change). And ultimately, the only way to offset this is to add Senators via new states. Now I will also preface that DC Statehood should be a no brainer regardless of the Senate. Its silly that it isn't a state (or part of a state) already. As for Puerto Rico, I'd only propose statehood if more than 2/3 of people voted yes on a referendum (with above 50% turnout). Now fortunately, there will be such a referendum this year and its an up or down question (either become a state or keep the current status) so we'll get that answer as well.
     
    dmoneybangbang and RayRay10 like this.
  4. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    I fully agree. To me this is like the filibuster arguments. Everytime a party gets in power they argue against the filibuster. What we've seen then is a far narrowing of the use of filibusters and when a party get's out of power they do a 180 on the issue. This has bitten both Democrats and Republicans on the ass as they've found that they are unable to filibuster appointments when they are the minority party.
     
    jiggyfly, RayRay10 and Nook like this.
  5. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    This why congressional elections are just as important as Presidential elections. Control of the Senate in 2020 might actually be even more important than control of the Presidency as McConnell has shown.

    As I noted above if the Democrats win I doubt they go back to the way things worked in Senate 20 years ago. Republicans are going to complain as much as Democrats do now about how appointments are made. This isn't a partisan problem but a problem of partisanship and that both parties are too obsessed with winning of the moment and don't consider the long term results of when they might be out of power.

    I agree that the Senate isn't that democratic and will get less so. The Founders though didn't want the Senate to be democratic and didn't have direct election of senators for much of history. Our country does have a major rural urban split but rather than bemoan it I think it is important that elected officials find ways to work with both rather than just run roughshod over places with less population.
     
    RayRay10, ElPigto and Nook like this.
  6. sealclubber1016

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,000
    Likes Received:
    27,536
    Why shouldn't there be?

    I certainly agree that a judge should never have to "campaign" for reselection. But one person's voice being that important for 30 years, possibly longer, is too much power for the judge and the selector IMO. One 15-20 year term, and then out.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  7. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,805
    Likes Received:
    111,568
    The problem I have with it is that it then gives definitive dates for changing of Justice's. The only real problem that has emerged is that both the Republicans and Democrats have decided it smart to nominate candidates decades younger than those in the past.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  8. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    I have a radical idea...

    Win elections at all levels...

    Having the majority in Congress and the presidency can change a lot of things. If one party can't win in particular races and regions we should be looking at why that party isn't winning there rather than changing the rules of governance.

    As I was just saying in my response to Geeimsobored the nature of our government isn't about the majority runs roughshod over the minority. Our government is meant to force compromise and agreement. The changes that have been made to the Senate and on appointments have made it more difficult to compromise and find consensus. In fact the rule that appointments can't be filibustered that many people feel are allowing McConnell to railroad through appointments wasn't made by a Republican Senate but a Democratic Senate that was frustrated with Republicans filibustering. I said at the time this would come back to haunt the Democrats and sure enough it is.
     
    jiggyfly and RayRay10 like this.
  9. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    I think any talk of winning the Senate and not the Presidency is academic. The only chance Dems have taking the Senate is if they have enough turn out against Trump in the presidential election. 'Voters' are more motivated to show up for presidential elections. Few voters who only show up for presidential elections don't study enough candidates to split senatorial and presidential votes.

    These are overly broad statements but I think that is warranted when discussing elections.
     
    Nook, Invisible Fan and RayRay10 like this.
  10. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    3,812
    What about McConnell makes you think he wouldn't have changed the filibuster rules as soon as Democrat's began using them in the same way as Republicans to slow appointments to a crawl? Only there would have been even more positions for him to fill.
     
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,429
  12. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    I really don't think the founders envisioned a situation where a super majority of the Senate represented less than 1/3 of the US population. No one envisioned a situation where state population discrepancy would get to a point like this. I think we all understand the origin of the Senate but the present situation is out of control and will only get worse over time. People can talk about reducing partisanship but there is no evidence that we'll see a less partisan political framework. That sort of thing died when Newt Gingrich defeated Robert Michel to become Speaker and Mitch McConnell has similarly destroyed the Senate.

    If we want to move forward, I'd suggest the following:

    1. Abolish the filibuster. (requirement for any of the items below)
    2. DC Statehood (and potentially Puerto Rico) to offset the imbalance of the Senate. Also pass a law or resolution that makes the terms of statehood clear. I'd argue that a 2/3 majority with 50% minimum turnout is an acceptable floor.
    3. Since the Constitutional Amendment that created electoral votes for DC is still on the books, pass a law to allocate those electoral votes based on the national popular vote.
    4. Civil Service Reform to primarily remove a large number of appointed positions and replace them with career civil service positions (who can only be removed for cause). Same goes with replacing the appointed US attorneys with career attorneys. Basically try to limit the ability of a future administration to politicize and influence agencies.
    5. Voting Rights reform - New Voting Rights Act (that covers all states) with specific language around both racial and partisan gerrymandering. All 50 states have to follow pre-clearance requirements Create a new non-partisan federal commission that draws suggested maps for all states. (obviously state legislatures have the option of not adopting federal maps but it at least creates a transparent version of non-gerrymandered maps for all states). Additionally pass laws that mandate same day registration, online voter registration, no fault absentee voting, automatic registration, election security standards etc..
     
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    True McConnell might but the fact is that the Democrats did this to themselves and are now crying about it. If they hadn't done it then who knows how things would be different. My point is that both parties are responsible for the breakdown of Senate norms that were meant to encourage compromise.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  14. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    I think the Founders were very aware of the possibility that a minority might have an outsize control. The tools they put in place made that more likely. I agree with most of your reforms but I strongly disagree with abolishing the filibuster. What we've seen in the past few years since the filibuster has been eroded is not an improvement but things getting worse. There is less impetus to compromise or debate.

    Also I find it strange to argue that we need government to be more democratic and representative of the people to say that the 23rd Amendment should be changed so that DC's electoral votes are allocated based on the national popular vote. That seems like that would be disenfranchising DC even more.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  15. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    3,812
    I think this this type of "both sides" analysis obscures the Republican's far greater role in shattering what were previously at least semi-functional congressional working relationships. And this false equivalency bears a lot of responsibility for our current shitshow.

    On another note, I hope the Democrats have learned that "norms" don't mean **** and as soon as they are in a position to do so, they formalize every "norm" that's worth keeping.
     
    jiggyfly and RayRay10 like this.
  16. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    DC gets statehood (so it gets its own electoral votes, along with Senators and a Congressional district). However, technically there would still be a tiny federal district (made up of a few federal buildings like the Capitol complex and the White House) to meet the constitutional requirement of having a capital district. The Constitution still grants three electoral votes to this tiny federal district. My argument is that Congress should pass a law to allocate these three extra votes by national popular vote.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  17. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,149
    Likes Received:
    25,188
    This. Newt Gingrich's role in destroying working norms in congress is well documented.

    Bush era incompetence continued the precedence for a downward spiral yet it seemed only the president (and moderate Republicans) took the brunt of that disaster.

    Now with unlimited dollars and zombie campaigns propped up by billionaires and out of state PACS, there's no need to win over the "hearts and minds" of the people. Just bombard lazy voters who tune into the same slop messaging on TV and their social feeds and you're set
     
    Nook, RayRay10 and gifford1967 like this.
  18. LongTimeFan

    LongTimeFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Messages:
    7,757
    Likes Received:
    963
    What's wrong with that? Make the terms be 12 years so it runs past the president who appoints them. IMO, there's no benefit to having them serve lifetime terms. It was done so to "not be political" -- but it's political anyways! Justices are going on Fox News segments to give interviews (and liberal justices may have done similar, I am not sure). If the American people are not happy with the decisions the Court is making, they should have the opportunity to replace them.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  19. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    What was the Senate Democrats' alternative? Just never confirm another judge again?
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,668
    Likes Received:
    41,551
    To respond to you and some of the other posters.

    Yes, both sides have done this to themselves. That the GOP has done it more is true but this is a matter of degrees not a matter of motive. The Republicans of late have been better at using and changing the rules. I will go back again to my earlier point if the Democrats had put more into contesting elections at every level the Republicans wouldn't have been in a position to do what they did. For that matter a lot of what McConnell has done will come back to bite the Republicans on the ass as we are seeing in the House where Pelosi is using the same tactics as Gingrich to enforce party discipline and get things through.

    What the Senate Democrats could've done is what had been done in the Senate before. Negotiate. Work with the McCain's and other Republican Senators who were interested in Senate norms rather than threaten to tear them down. The Senate as an institution has existed for a long time and was able to get things done before under rules that at times were more stringent than they are now.

    Beyond that I will say again. Win elections at all levels.

    Everyone believes that their positions are right and best for the country. If so then we should be able to convince people of those views instead of looking to change the rules. If I believe in my views I should be willing to win over people in the inner city, suburbs or rural areas instead of just writing them off.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now