US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2660

On September 23 2020 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:
If Trump has a strong case then yes this can happen. But SCJ are not stupid, they are not going to simply try to give Trump the Presidency just because he complained about losing with no actual solid legal foundation.

On September 23 2020 01:32 farvacola wrote:
If I were reading tea leaves, I'd guess ACB is less likely to rule in Trump's favor and Lagoa more likely. The former, though extremely Catholic, is very much a product of the decidedly old school 7th Circuit, whereas Lagoa has already signaled that she cares very little for stuff like conflicts of interest (her recusal choices relative to Florida's felon franchise disputes have been flatly awful).

Unfortunately, that's why I think Lagoa may have the better shot, she'll kiss the ring better than ACB and that's Trump's primary test for supporters.

On September 23 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:
If you want to say “the Supreme Court has no actual power,” then states can decide whatever the hell they feel about abortion and gay marriage. They have no power, right?

On September 23 2020 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:


They have power because there is a great deal of respect for the court in all states. If that stopped being true, poof, all gone. That's why Alabama kind of complies.

On September 23 2020 03:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:


It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself.

On September 23 2020 03:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:


It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself.

On September 23 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:

Maybe I’ve just seen more Democrats losing their shit over RBG, and a helluvalot of Trump being defeated at the Supreme Court by justices nominated by Republicans ... and him just accepting it and moving on. A real tyrant would’ve just moved forward using executive orders to undo other executive orders.

“Abusing the system” = “the Electoral College is illegitimate, and popular vote is only legitimacy.”

You need to sit down for an hour and think about how the constitutionally legitimate allocation of powers is illegitimate because of results you don’t like and want to call abuse of the system. I don’t really see people calling into question the legitimacy of the electoral college and Supreme Court as righteous crusaders countering abuse ... literally, work on winning more in the present system instead of delegitimizing it when you lose. I don’t really care that progressives want to tear it down and act all self-righteous in the process. They don’t decide what’s good and bad about the system.

They don’t decide what’s good and bad about the system.

Public support for Electoral College reform
Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority or plurality of Americans support a popular vote for President. Gallup polls dating back to 1944 showed consistent majorities of the public supporting a direct vote.[86] A 2007 Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.[87]

A November 2016 Gallup poll following the 2016 U.S. presidential election showed that Americans' support for amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote fell to 49%, with 47% opposed. Republican support for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote dropped significantly, from 54% in 2011 to 19% in 2016, which Gallup attributed to a partisan response to the 2016 result, where the Republican candidate won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.[88] In March 2018, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 55% of Americans supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, with 41% opposed, but that a partisan divide remained in that support, as 75% of self-identified Democrats supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, while only 32% of self-identified Republicans did.[89]

On September 23 2020 03:47 Nouar wrote:


"Legitimate" isn't necessarily fair. I'd advocate for the same change (each vote having equal value), whoever is winning or losing.
The current system might be fair, but the constitution isn't necessarily adapted to what's going on after 200+ years, and some things might need tuning to have a functional government, which has been pretty much increasingly impossible as time goes. Whoever wins or loses, it'd be a lot harder for people to complain if these unfair systems were reworked.

I understand why the Senate, but I find its members themselves elected is a fair manner at least so I'm not complaining too much (though I'd love for territories like DC or Puerto Rico to have a voice there instead of being treated like colonies -other territories really have too few inhabitants...-), but the presidential election is a mess, and this will increasingly bring issues when 70% of the country's votes are worthless.



Who, then, when being the majority isn't enough ? You have to beat an unfair system from the inside to change it ? Man, did the US do that to gain its independance ? Got votes in the british parliament to vote for them, have they ? Wasn't an issue of representation one of the sparks for the independance ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
This is probably just progressive extremists then.



That's overall a good 70% of the population supporting a popular vote. If they aren't able to change the system by using the system, isn't there a problem somewhere ?



SURPRISINGLY, the republican support suddenly fell when they realized that having fair laws meant they would have been *losing* these elections. That is called hanging on to power, even if they knew previously it was not the right way.

On September 23 2020 05:18 Danglars wrote:

I've posted a lot on this thread and the UK thread before about my opposition to simple distribution of votes to proportionately mirror the distribution of people. I don't want to write at too much length about it again for people that are tired of hearing the same point repeated. The USA is not a country of two coasts and scattered metros. The major population centers have no distinct right to pass national legislation that bullies smaller states with less people out of their preferences. Any sense of proportionality has to defray the population advantage. At the same time, the smaller states should not have too outsize an influence on where the money goes from income taxes primarily raised in major metros and big states. I do like larger states having greater representation in the lower house, just not overwhelming representation to just dictate the way things will be in the United States.

I think you can understand why I want greater devolution of power to the states from that point. No massive federal regulations on health care, just state-by-state. No high rates of federal income taxes, more balance towards state taxes. The Federal government in all three branches has done wrong by increasing its powers relative towards the states. I don't see giving the monster population centers even more say in laws that affect every state, relative to how that's already the case now, as any improvement whatsoever.

Maybe you can conceive of farmers in Iowa feeling like it's the United Kingdom telling its colonies what taxes and trade regulations will happen, but now it's NY-Acela Corridor, DC-Northern Virginia, and Los Angeles telling their colonies that their interests only matter in proportion to their (lack of) population. I see that your argument arrives at a conclusion that the United States should be broken in two. Major population centers can vie in terms of their votes mattering to their population, and the governance change in that order, since it's obvious that many city-dwellers don't like current power-sharing arrangements. A second country can continue where populous areas don't wield that kind of power over multiple states combined.

Regarding other points raised:
I can agree that the psychology of your average American changes when they think their views are shared by the country at large, and suffer disappointment when they see that their friends and neighbors don't reflect the millions very distant from them. I wish the education system did a better job going over the debates that happened 250-300 years ago when smaller states were afraid of the power exercised by a handful of larger states, and larger states were afraid of smaller states banding together against them. I don't see the polling data changing until the public school system does a better job at middle school and high school debates and contrasts. If you think the country's with you, most people want to charge forward ... and if you think the country at large is more against than for you, you want to preserve and expand minority power. This shouldn't be the case, and the polling results show problems in education and an informed population.

This actually harkens back to the arguments for relative-elites helping shape and change popular opinion through the process of a Republic. These are arguments presented hundreds of years ago about defraying powers through several non-representative branches, and setting power against power, so as to upset a majority pushing through legislation recklessly. These are the Federalist Papers, see for instance Federalist #45 and #47. The larger protection was the original intention to make the Federal government small and lacking in authority, whereas state governments had great authority and together eclipsed the fed. This protection is largely lacking, and dare I say, abused by big government types of both parties.

If I had seen great gains by the alternatives offered to the current system, I would be in favor. However, I see even worse difficulties should they be made law or constitutional amendment. In trying to fix problems, the net effect is a worsening of problems and invention of new areas of difficulties. The exceptions to this include more term limits on Executive appointees and representatives, as well as more state vetoes over federal department rules and regulations.

On September 23 2020 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Actually, they do decide what is good or bad.

That's how the world works. The people in the system decide if it's good or bad. If the amount of people that think it's bad reaches a critical point, you end up with laws being changed, protests, riots, constitutional crises, revolutions, etc. depending on the severity of the situation and the type of government.

Just because it's built into the system doesn't mean that it's legitimate or just. It has been made abundantly clear that the Constitution is a highly flawed document that isn't and shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are a number of comparisons to various fascist and authoritarian regimes in history that developed entirely by legal means, so while we're making suggestions to each other, I would suggest that you take some time to critically reflect on your blind support for the system, because your current attitude paints a very poor picture of yourself.

On September 23 2020 06:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:


No one said that progressives have a unique claim to criticizing the system or otherwise have a "privileged viewpoint".

However, you tried to summarily dismiss their criticisms simply on the basis of being progressive. I called you on your B.S.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion of thinking that most progressives are dead wrong. I happen to think that, not only are you dead wrong, but that you are a disgustingly immoral human being. You aren't special and you aren't a unique arbiter of legitimacy, just like progressives aren't, but their opinions count just as much as yours.

It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself.