Kavana(ugh)

[JohnRoberts]

what difference does it make

The supreme court matters and elections have consequences.

I hope this encourages more people to vote and learn civics.

I've posted this link before but IMO this stuff is actually important.

JR

“To teach our kids how to run our country, before they are called upon to run our country…if we don’t, someone else will run our country.”
– Richard Dreyfuss

https://thedreyfussinitiative.org

 

[Gold]

I have a feeling he will have a hard time sitting on many cases. Hire a lawyer who worked in the Clinton administration and ask for a recusal citing bias.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have a feeling he will have a hard time sitting on many cases. Hire a lawyer who worked in the Clinton administration and ask for a recusal citing bias.

Does this mean SCOTUS jurist RBG would have to recuse herself from all administration cases because of her widely publicized pejorative comments about then candidate Trump?  For the record she apologized after the fact for the multiple indecorous comments, but did not subsequently recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case.  :

but she's old...  I thought Hillary would win too.   

Judges rarely question their own judgement, and the public/media apparently question it too much. 

JR

 

[pucho812]

The supreme court matters and elections have consequences.

I hope this encourages more people to vote and learn civics.

I've posted this link before but IMO this stuff is actually important.

JR
https://thedreyfussinitiative.org

Yes JR.  I think you missed my joke there. if you recall someone else was getting angry during questioning in the senate and that was her response.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes JR.  I think you missed my joke there. if you recall someone else was getting angry during questioning in the senate and that was her response.

Sorry I didn't see the emoticon....  : denoting sarcasm?

IIRC her quote was something like "at this point what difference does it make" (about Benghazi, because they're still dead). I would have recognized the full quote (I hope). She is also big on declaring a "right wing conspiracy" against her, so there is some symmetry in the competing conspiracies (do they cancel each other out?).  I have not been thinking about her much lately. 

Sorry if I take this stuff too seriously.  My apologies to all, I'd prefer to cool things down, while keeping things accurate, not heat them up.

JR

 

[pucho812]

Understood

 

[Banzai]

I'm incredibly sad for America tonight.  Putting everything to do with the accusation against Kavanaugh aside his behavior during the hearings was brazenly partisan and unbalanced, he is not fit for the office he now holds.

Same applies to this guy...

 

[dmp]

It's a nice sentiment to think your votes matter and elections have consequences.

But I read that the 51 Senators who voted yes for Kavanaugh were represented by 143 million voters. The 51 Senators that voted no were represented by 181 million voters. That is a popular deficit of 38 million voters.

And of course the nomination was by a President that lost the popular vote by 3 million.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's a nice sentiment to think your votes matter and elections have consequences.

But I read that the 51 Senators who voted yes for Kavanaugh were represented by 143 million voters. The 51 Senators that voted no were represented by 181 million voters. That is a popular deficit of 38 million voters.

And of course the nomination was by a President that lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Another reason for civics lessons. We are not a simple democracy, on purpose, for good reason.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Another reason for civics lessons. We are not a simple democracy, on purpose, for good reason.

JR

Maybe a good reason in the 18th century. Today it makes little sense.

The most backward people are overrepresented in the system and drag down the entire country (and in extension, the world). And to their own detriment.

The system also insures low turnout and general apathy. Why would anyone even go out and vote in California or Wyoming.

Good quote from Bill Maher: "Why are there even two Dacotas?".

 

[Matador]

Another reason for civics lessons. We are not a simple democracy, on purpose, for good reason.

JR

A casual read-through of the Federalist papers makes the intentions clear, that 'good reason' means 'to keep control within the white, male, land-owning elite'.

From Federalist #36:

From the natural operation of the different interests and views of the various classes of the community, whether the representation of the people be more or less numerous, it will consist almost entirely of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions, who will truly represent all those different interests and views.

From #35:

But where is the danger that the interests and feelings of the different classes of citizens will not be understood or attended to by these three descriptions of men? Will not the landholder know and feel whatever will promote or insure the interest of landed property? And will he not, from his own interest in that species of property, be sufficiently prone to resist every attempt to prejudice or encumber it? Will not the merchant understand and be disposed to cultivate, as far as may be proper, the interests of the mechanic and manufacturing arts, to which his commerce is so nearly allied? Will not the man of the learned profession, who will feel a neutrality to the rivalships between the different branches of industry, be likely to prove an impartial arbiter between them, ready to promote either, so far as it shall appear to him conducive to the general interests of the society?

In other words, who could conceive of a world where white male elites would ever not represent the interests of the common man?

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are far more embarrassing examples you could pull from the constitution (thank you for not doing so).  Another glaring example of how much culture has changed in the centuries since then, and why we have the vehicle to amend the constitution written into the constitution.

The constitution is based on protecting individual rights, from the tyranny of the masses.  Thankfully they have amended the definition of who is entitled to that protection to include more groups (and sexes) who weren't originally protected, not just white male landowners.

The majority of rich white people seem to be living in NY and CA, and leading the charge to remove and replace the electoral college with something more democratic. To shift power to populous (liberal) large cities. If they get enough votes they can change it any way they want, within the rules of the system (passing amendments is hard on purpose).

JR

 

[Matador]

It does make for an interesting thought experiment:  let's say all 350 million people moved to California and Ney York, except for ~550 people.  Those 550 people split into groups, and went to live in the remaining 48 states, and were either senators or representatives in the House, or Supreme Court Justices.

Those ~500 people would decide every presidency, make whatever laws they wanted to, would decide every court case, and could amend the constitution however they wanted.  The rest of the people could only play within the 55 representatives of California and 27 of NY, and would never have any power to effect any national or state outcome (except those two), which the other 48 could override.  This is the textbook definition of an oligarchy.

Now flip the other way:  The 350 million split equally between party lines, and each states population was exactly the same.  Every presidency and Senate seat would essentially be picked by popular vote, as the number of representatives in each state would be the same hence the electoral college could be a wash.  Having no clear majority in any state or in any federal branch means nothing could every be passed other than legislation that a plurality agreed upon.  This would be the textbook definition of a direct democracy.

So we are sliding along this scale, starting more towards the second case, but have been steadily sliding along this scale towards the first.  And it's becoming more and more pronounced.

 

[DaveP]

The most backward people are overrepresented in the system and drag down the entire country

I seem to remember Adolf Hitler saying much the same thing about Jews and Slavic peoples, so we don't want to go down that road do we?

DaveP

 

[living sounds]

I seem to remember Adolf Hitler saying much the same thing about Jews and Slavic peoples, so we don't want to go down that road do we?

DaveP

Please don't distort the meaning of my words like that. I was stating facts. People that are culturally and ideologically in the past (the meaning of the word "backwards") do have a disproportionate influence on politics. The US population as a whole is a lot more liberal and progressive on most issues than the current government.

 

[Matador]

I'm interested in where the line is for Kavanagh supporters in terms of what makes an accusation credible:

1) If Ford remembered the day, would it have changed you mind?
2) If Ford had remembered the day and the location would it have changed your mind?
3) If there were people that remembered Ford at that house, along with Kavanagh, would it have mattered?
4) If people remembered her running from the house, would it have changed your mind?
5) If someone had witnessed it happening besides her, would it have changed your mind?
6) If someone produced a video of it happening, would it change your mind?

In other words, what number along this scale causes you to flip from 'yes' to 'no'?

 

[john12ax7]

It does make for an interesting thought experiment:  let's say all 350 million people moved to California and Ney York, except for ~550 people.  Those 550 people split into groups, and went to live in the remaining 48 states, and were either senators or representatives in the House, or Supreme Court Justices.

Those ~500 people would decide every presidency, make whatever laws they wanted to, would decide every court case, and could amend the constitution however they wanted.  The rest of the people could only play within the 55 representatives of California and 27 of NY, and would never have any power to effect any national or state outcome (except those two), which the other 48 could override.  This is the textbook definition of an oligarchy.

Now flip the other way:  The 350 million split equally between party lines, and each states population was exactly the same.  Every presidency and Senate seat would essentially be picked by popular vote, as the number of representatives in each state would be the same hence the electoral college could be a wash.  Having no clear majority in any state or in any federal branch means nothing could every be passed other than legislation that a plurality agreed upon.  This would be the textbook definition of a direct democracy.

So we are sliding along this scale, starting more towards the second case, but have been steadily sliding along this scale towards the first.  And it's becoming more and more pronounced.

That's not really how things work.  The House is proportional to population,  the Senate each state gets 2. If the majority moved to CA / NY then they would control the House with the minority controlling the Senate.  Effectively a stalemate where neither side could rule the other.

For the presidency CA / NY would now have way more electoral college votes and would be the decider.

The US has many problems,  not being a direct democracy is not one of them.

 

[Matador]

Yes, that is true, but I think my larger point stands...the nation did not start out with a representative ratio between cities and urban areas exceeding factors of 200:1 or larger.  The entire population of the country could be contained within present-day San Francisco.

The aim was to prevent 'tyranny of the majority', but now we've crossed into a 'tyranny of the minority'.

 

[DaveP]

Please don't distort the meaning of my words like that. I was stating facts. People that are culturally and ideologically in the past (the meaning of the word "backwards") do have a disproportionate influence on politics. The US population as a whole is a lot more liberal and progressive on most issues than the current government.

I think we have to be careful what we say when we talk about people who don't agree with us, everyone is entitled to some respect.  Hysteria labels every conservative a fascist and every liberal a commie.

There are aspects of the conservative approach that I find unacceptable (climate change denial) and there are aspects of the liberal agenda I find unacceptable (abortion on demand).  In the US you only have to wait 4 years until you get to vote again, it's hardly an eternity as some would have us believe.  I would be very interested to see who will oppose Trump, but there is no-one putting their head above the parapet yet, which I find strange.

DaveP

 

[living sounds]

I think we have to be careful what we say when we talk about people who don't agree with us, everyone is entitled to some respect.  Hysteria labels every conservative a fascist and every liberal a commie.

But I didn't do that. Take notice how the "Conservatives" in the US have now embraced tribalism, anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism and a few other negative traits. Objectively it is correct to state that they have moved closer to Fascism.