trump and his enablers had the idea that the most important factor in their USSC choices was age, so he chose young justices. The three names being floated are Barrett (48 years old), Lagoa (52) and Rushing (38). Gorsuch is 53. Kavanaugh is 55. So retirement ages are clearly not in play. Term limits would be a option that could work
What then? Their votes shouldn't matter as much? Are we going to do the same thing to states like DE and RI that are small blue states? Somehow I don't think the current Democratic nominee for President will be for seeing Delaware lose a Senate seat. These arguments show a lack of faith the idea of democratic republic (emphasis on small 'd' and 'r'). It's a lack of faith in the possibility of winning over voters in small states and a lack of faith in that small states should have some level of equal representation.
Please stop. Go live in rural America and see how disproportionate it really is. It truly sucks. And you are insisting on a system that makes it worse. There is a good reason why everyone flocks to the cities. Nobody gives a **** about rural America until it comes time for elections. The same can be said about urban areas.
Actually it's pretty clear. You out rightly move the mandate to the tax powers of the government. It was only because Obama and the Congressional Dems didn't want to say it was a tax that we got the situation. Roberts in his ruling was essentially telling them that is what should be done. Now that won't happen without a Democratic Congress or President but nothing will happen without that either way. Even with a 6-3 conservative majority the Roberts' ruling established that the Government can tax people for all sorts of reasons. In a new 6-3 court Roberts will still be chief justice so it would be very unlikely that precedent get's overturned. Building on the ACA there also isn't anything standing in the way of having a public option or since Medicaid and Medicare exists greatly expanded versions of those.
Well, I didn't mean to counter the GOP. I just meant for the good of the system, in an abstract way. LOL.
I care more about the individual voter rather than the state and rural voters as individuals have significanltly more influence than an individual urban voter.
If you take away senators from rural states how does that help the individual rural voter? We have a democratic republic. What it sounds like you're looking for is something more like a straight up democracy. If it comes to straight majoritarian rule I'm not sure that will make things better. Also the states don't have border restrictions. There is nothing stopping people from moving. Sioux Falls, SD has grown in recent years. AZ and TX could become blue states largely because of interstate migration.
A "direct democracy" is a democracy where the voters directly vote for legislation. You don't really see this anymore at the nation-state level but you do see this with small towns. So no, I'm not asking for a direct democracy as I'm still advocating for a representative system. I just want to move past this zero-sum false paradigm between rural vs urban. The individual is more important than the state. Each individual should each recieve an equal weight in their representation hence why all voting districts should have a similar population size. Universal healthcare benefits both rural and urban voters. When urban communties do well, that helps rural communties. When rural communties do well, that helps urban communties. They are a symbiotic relationship when it comes to commerce. Also it seems like you are projecting your abilities on to all citizens. Many citizens are just too poor to move. They are stuck where they are at.
First of all, I am speaking rhetorically - we both know you aren't personally responsible, the point being is that it's easy to talk about these things in disconnected logic while ignoring the impact on people's lives. This is a point where you and I disagree a lot. Same thing with impeachment - you saw it as important for the history books, I saw it as dangerous as it would empower and embolden a tyrant which is exactly what has happened. Your argument that the current court wouldn't overturn abortion even with a conservative majority is very flawed. That's because Roberts is a balancing vote - there are only 4 far right Justices which isn't enough to overturn abortion or the ACA. Those 4 have already made their stance clear on the ACA and it's pretty certain that Republican will appoint a justice that would overturn it along with abortion. It's not what's the difference between 5-4 and 6-3, it's that Roberts who is normally a swing vote on the court would lose that power and the right-wing justices could completely undo any legislation passed by Dems. Those justices have already shown us this is how they will operate - your view is dangerously and tragically naive. At the very least, the Dems can force the Republicans to compromise by giving them the option to either face 4 new liberal justices or only 2 to correct what McConnell did in exchange but coupled with reform in the senate to prevent abuses in the future by either party - and to ensure steps the that SCOTUS is never politized again.
Yes that was the intention of the founding fathers as a compromise to create the USA. Rural states would never have joined the union without that concession. The whole intention was to give them more per capita influence then more populous states.
I strongly believe that there are some basic human rights that should be available to ALL Americans. Once you start parsing them out to states or local governments, then America as a country ceases to exist. And RvW is established law, and covers all Americans.
Sure, we can allow states to decide everything. Heck, we can have red states form a confederacy of states... that way they can bring back all their preferences... and like minded people can move to the southern states. And the people that can't afford to move from the southern states to the north, well, I am sure the southern leaders can come up with ideas for them too...
Par for the course from Trump. That said many here are for term limits and for RBG trying to influence her seat on the court beyond her days. Her dying wish is a non factor.
A vast majority of the US economy comes from its cities. The rural states don't really contribute much to America.
Wow. Pure arrogance. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles...he-largest-exporter-of-food-in-the-world.html Let me explain to you why this is so important. Maslows Heirachy of needs loosely applies to countries too. This is why liberals like yourself love to compare our country to the Scandinavian countries. When a country can apply basic needs, the nation can grow and thrive. For you to imply rural America doesnt contribute significantly to America as a whole, you're a complete moron.
