...Yeah, yeah they do actually. Money equals votes, the more you have, the more you can advertise, it turns out being a pretty big deal in elections.
When you go around labeling people socialists that I know are absolutely not socialists, it just exposes how far out of touch with reality you truly are.
True that is the federal system and we're not going to change it anytime soon. Further just adding more seats doesn't change the Federal power distribution. WY and CA will still have two senators each and they will each get a vote on USSC confirmation. Again stacking the courts is only being pushed as a short term expediency. A future Republican senate will still have the say on who serves on the court and how many justices. Also regard to the amount of conservatives on the court as I've long said that has to do with the inability of Democrats to win elections at all levels. In the last 20 years there has only been 8 years of a Democrat Presidency but of those 8 years only two years had a Democratic Senate. Further in the last 20 years there has only been 6 years of a Democratic Senate. I do blame Mitch McConnell for abuses of power of the Senate but it's not like Democrats are blameless for the predicament they are in.
Do you think the inability has to do with people in states like Wyoming having 70 times the voting power as someone in Cali when it comes to nominating judges? Seems like a major handicap for Democrats to work with.
That doesn't answer my question considering in 2016 there was still a conservative majority on the court and a Republican Senate. I personally have no problems with ending life time appointments or staggered terms but that will require an amendment to the Constitution.
But history agrees with my assessment. 2016 was an outlier in more ways than one, that's one of them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/
Obamacare was a policy about regulating the private healthcare market. It is working within the capitalist structure.
It probably does but that doesn't change anytime soon. Also keep in mind there are very blue states like Delaware and RI that have a disproportionate amount of power relative to population. Also if DC is granted statehood it has a population less than South Dakota but will also get two senators and three electoral votes.
Is it? It is hard to know. For example, Trump in his term will have named 2-3 justices. It really depends. We are talking about people in their 50's through their 80's..... there is a good chance one or more of them dies or retires over the next 4 years. Stephen Breyer is 80..... Clarence Thomas is 72..... Sam Alito is 70.... even Roberts is 65.... If Biden wins, Breyer is expected to retire and will be replaced by a liberal judge........ The actuary tables have about a 50% chance that all 5 conservative Justices being alive by 2025..... that does not take into account the possibility of disability or retirement. So my point is, it is a crap shoot and things change....... When Scalia dropped dead on a heart pillow, the day before Valentines...... away from his wife, in another state....... it looked like the Supreme Court would go liberal and obviously that did not happen....... so you just never know.
And you are thinking that these Senators do not care about siting another conservative judge on the SC. I think you are also minimizing how much the people that matter want to see the SC go 6-3 conservatives and their ability to black ball people. Who do you think is hiring these people and what are their political leanings?
There are far more low population conservative states than low population Liberal states. So ya... States like Wyoming, ND, SD, Utah, Montana, Nebraska so on and so forth having 40-80x the voting power of populous blue states when it comes to judicial nominations means that liberals will never effectively pack the courts. Rural America has a disgustingly disproportionate voice in our legislative and judicial process.
It's totally a fact that the federal bench is too small and can't process the cases in front of it on any reasonable timeline. Again this has been true for decades. There's a boring mass of op eds and law review articles on this. It's also true that enlarging the court and limiting appointments makes any individual appointment less consequential as a matter of arithmetic. Finally it's absolutely true that the Supreme Court in particular is absolutely not representative of the political mainstream and stacked hard right. There hasn't been a Democrat appointed as chief justice since 1954. 66% of the country is not Republican, like the justices. And of you look at the partisan lean of the decisions to the extent you can assign one, they win 80 or 90% of the decisions! The country is not 90% Republican. Facts, all of them.
I just don't see how they have time to get this done prior to the election. Even if Trump nominates someone this week, they still have to vet, have hearings, and get through the judiciary committee. Dems have the option of not showing up to the committee which means that there is no quorum and the committee cannot move forward. Also, is Mitch going to keep his party members in Washington during October when they're supposed to be home trying to get reelected? That's why I was surprised about Lindsey Graham's reaction...he's in a dogfight right now in South Carolina and there's no way to gauge whether this will be good for Republicans or Dems. But, then again, Graham is trying to show his Trump chops after taking the blame for the Woodward idea. But, what about Joni Ernst (also on the judiciary)...who is losing in Iowa right now? What about Cornyn (also on the judiciary) who seems to be in a close race? Besides McSally and Gardner, who both look to be trailing big, Tillis, Collins, Daines, and Perdue are also in trouble. They need to go home and campaign. If I'm Mitch, I publicly proclaim that this will get done before the election, let the Dems play their games, and then try to blame them for not getting it done (in reality, he never planned to do it prior, just wanted to look like he did). Maybe it turns out a few more Republicans that weren't planning on voting end up doing so. Of course, it could backfire...
It wasn't that long ago that the Democratic majority leader of the Senate was from SD. Until 2018 SD had Democratic Senator. MT currently has a Democratic governor and Senator. UT had a Republican Senator that voted to remove Trump. The electoral college and Senate structure isn't changing anytime soon but Democrats can have won in those states. This is why I emphasize the importance of winning at all levels and also the importance of finding candidates that fit their constituencies.
op eds and law reviews are the epitome of opinions. But I am bowing out because I do not have a great grasp of the subject matter.
Those senators such as Joe Manchin are mostly blue dog Democrats that aren't privy to liberal judges and actually will vote along with conservative judicial appointments. They are catering towards their constituents. A South Dakota Democrat is quite different from a Massachusetts Democrat. And you are just picking random examples. Statistically those states will push constructive legislators. The current system just gives undue influence to rural voters.
Yes. Collins, Gardner, McSally, and Tillis have all shown they are willing to stick with their party and ideology even if it costs them support in their states. Jeff Flake decided not to run again. That's very different than losing your race. These people might not like Trump but they are Republicans. If Collins didn't actually believe in the party she's had plenty of chances to vote against it or leave. Given ME has elected Angus King she likely could win as an independent. She didn't.
