Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.
The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
The anti-majority aspect should be obvious at this point: the President lost the popular vote (and indeed got the votes of only 26% of eligible voters), and the majority of the Senate represents a minority of voters.
The continual part is also essential. The less frequent the votes and/or elections, the less the public is able to express their wishes (and hold representatives accountable). Lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are the worst aspect of this. A member of the Supreme Court may be nominated by a President who lost the popular vote, confirmed by the Senate controlled by a minority of voters and whose members are only up for election once in 6 years. The Supreme Court justice then may hold power for decades, even as the "political winds" shift underneath the Court.
It's also important to note how difficult it is to change the laws, especially the Constitution itself. The Constitution was amended relatively frequently in the past, but now it's almost unthinkable. Separation of powers, checks and balances, mean that a determined minority can prevent pretty much anything from happening. They can completely thwart the majority from acting or changing the existing laws (which unfortunately have no expiration date).
Remember that Plato defined democracy in opposition to monarchy and aristocracy. Universal suffrage, freedom to form parties and to manifest against the government are (part of) what defines modern democracies. Even Switzerland only resorts to referendums in relatively rare cases.
Limited ≠ Anti
Representative democracy is also limited compared to direct democracy, for example.
If Obama had a Democratic Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed. That's the precedent.
> The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life.
> Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues.
> In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
> By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
> President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
> It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
Again, you're responding to some point I haven't made. I'm not claiming there's any way to stop it, I'm claiming McConnell is a man without honor or even decency and that the United States is headed into the toilet.
Sure, but it doesn't really matter. The issue is whether or not McConnell can confirm a Trump nomination this year, and he absolutely can.
To quote a great comment:
> McConnell had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote. So it’s a little different than you pose: you a pretending that Obama’s nomination came to a vote and lost (which would be entirely legitimate). The majority leader prevented that from even happening.
The Republicans are on the way out of the Senate, and McConnell knows it, which is why he's trying to ram this through now. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/...
It’s the constitution, particularly the election process of the senate that’s wrong: There’s no reason every state, regardless of their population, should have equal say in who gets to decide the judiciary (among other things).
If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years.
Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly.
Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.
So, yes, the total number isn't fixed but the apportionment is.
We’re in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and we’re still in the “last turn sets the new norm” phase. I’m hoping there’s a way out before too long.
- Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters.
- Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity.
Why is this being downvoted?
1. The supreme Court is not comparable to any other appointment 2. There's no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done this regardless
Didn't happen.
>Asking for Putin to join the G7 several times
Not treason.
>before and after it was clear that he put bounties on American soldiers.
There is no proof Russia actually put bounties on soliders.
>Calling Americans soldiers losers and suckers.
No proof he did this except for McCain. Wouldn't be treason if it were true.
>Pardoning war criminals.
If this is the same case I know about then he was acquitted of war crimes. I doubt it would be treason though.
>Telling voters to commit election fraud by voting twice.
Maybe but I think he was trying to call out the risk on mail in voting. Most of media was not talking about the risks like people double voting. After his statement they talked about it. I think that was his point.
>And, last but not least, killing more than 200k Americans even though he knew perfectly of coronavirus risks.
Not treason and Trump is not really responsible for all deaths. Trump does not have the authority to do what people want him to do. That is on the states. If Trump locked down the states which would have been unconstitutional he would have been called an authoritarian.