Replacing Ginsburg's Supreme Court Seat

[lrrps21]

Folks in the U.S. should be thanking RBG for taking one for the team.

[Beastdog]

they can't just do it on any of those items.  There is a lengthy process for any of them.  It's threats to try to control the power the Republicans have right now.

If they control the House, Senate, and WH, they can absolutely do this. First step is filibuster eliminated, the rest can be done legislatively. The only question would be if they had enough seats to eliminate the filibuster, as I think at least one Dem (Manchin) would oppose it. He might be the only one, though.

[3rdgensooner]

I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

You need to brush up on your civics a bit. It takes more than that to get a constitutional amendment done. HT was correct that we will never see a constitutional amendment again added in this country. At least not one addressing a significant issue.

Either party with control can change the number of justices. They can't lock it in of course. I'm saying the threat may bring them to the table to lock it at 9. Would it be horribly difficult to get an amendment passed to lock it in? Hell yes. But if a party had control the threat might get the other party to go along.

[davebucknut]

I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

You need to brush up on your civics a bit. It takes more than that to get a constitutional amendment done. HT was correct that we will never see a constitutional amendment again added in this country. At least not one addressing a significant issue.

Sadly I agree with you both as I think the only way to save our republic is to hold an article 5 convention on states to add a constitutional amendment to enact term limits in congress and senate.

I say 2 terms total for each job, after that we want/need fresh blood instead of constantly campaigning for their reelection.

We would need 38 states to do it and 20 have already agreed to hold a state convention, so we need 14 more (34 is required to hold a convention of states) and a total of 38 states would need to ratify the amendments.

It's not impossible, but is unlikely.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[davebucknut]

If the Democrats actually follow through on their threat to pack the court, the government has officially become defunct. They are saying they are going to make Puerto Rico and Washington DC states and then pack the courts. The US would become a one party nation, which would be a sad end to a great country. The minute they try to enact restrictive gun laws, which they would be able to pass by doing this, the US is going to have a civil war, and I don't think Democrats have yet realized that is not a war they can win.

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[wydileie]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, and that's all I'd be doing if I voted for Trump. I will continue to vote for who I think is the best candidate and maybe ranked choice voting will actually become a thing sometime. If there is one thing I agree with the Democrats on, it's that ranked choice voting should be the norm.

[dkeener67]

Folks in the U.S. should be thanking RBG for taking one for the team.

Selfishness is punished with karma.

[dkeener67]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, and that's all I'd be doing if I voted for Trump. I will continue to vote for who I think is the best candidate and maybe ranked choice voting will actually become a thing sometime. If there is one thing I agree with the Democrats on, it's that ranked choice voting should be the norm.

So what's the difference? If you vote against someone, you are in essence saying the other candidate is better, no? Or the other party is better?

[wydileie]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, and that's all I'd be doing if I voted for Trump. I will continue to vote for who I think is the best candidate and maybe ranked choice voting will actually become a thing sometime. If there is one thing I agree with the Democrats on, it's that ranked choice voting should be the norm.

So what's the difference? If you vote against someone, you are in essence saying the other candidate is better, no? Or the other party is better?

There are more than two parties. I don't like the Democrats, and most of the Republicans, Trump included.

[Beastdog]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, and that's all I'd be doing if I voted for Trump. I will continue to vote for who I think is the best candidate and maybe ranked choice voting will actually become a thing sometime. If there is one thing I agree with the Democrats on, it's that ranked choice voting should be the norm.

Are you in academia? People who work in the real world don't often think like this. Pragmatism is a good skill to have.

[wydileie]

Are you in academia? People who work in the real world don't often think like this. Pragmatism is a good skill to have.

No, but I think the country would be much better off if we were all more educated on available candidates and voted on who we most agreed with instead of sticking to the two party system, which is clearly broken. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't follow my own voting ideology. 

If it were someone not Trump, I would consider voting for a Republican, especially if it were the libertarian wing of the Republican Party like Rand/Crenshaw/Cruz/Amash/etc. I don't think Trump is a net positive to the country, even if I think he is a better alternative to Biden.

[Hightop77]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, ... .

Actually it makes good sense to vote that way.  The thing that makes no sense is when people vote for candidates that have no chance to win which often results in electing the candidate they would least prefer.  Right now in Kentucky, there is a bogus Libertarian candidate running and being funded by anti-McConnell people.  The idea is to sucker enough conservative people into voting Libertarian so the Democrat can win.  That actually worked for them in the governor's race last time.

[maize]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, and that's all I'd be doing if I voted for Trump. I will continue to vote for who I think is the best candidate and maybe ranked choice voting will actually become a thing sometime. If there is one thing I agree with the Democrats on, it's that ranked choice voting should be the norm.

I need some clarification on "ranked-choice choice should be the norm"? What does that even mean?

[ScarletHayes]

Gonna take a stab and say itâ€s a reference to the early days where the runner up ended up being the VP.  Am I even close?

[wydileie]

I need some clarification on "ranked-choice choice should be the norm"? What does that even mean?

Ranked choice voting is where each person gets some number of candidates they can write down for a position, the most common suggestion being 3. So, if I were to have my Presidential ballot, I would write down (this is an example and may or may not be my actual preferred list):

1. Blankenship
2. Jorgensen
3. Trump

Everybody's top candidates are counted and the top two candidates receiving the most #1 choices move on to a "head to head" race. For simplicity, let's say Biden and Trump were the top 2 people in the #1 slots. The other candidates are eliminated and all the votes where Trump is listed before Biden are counted as votes for Trump, and all the votes where Biden is listed above Trump, Biden gets that person's vote. 

So, because Trump was my #3 and Biden doesn't appear on my ballot, my ballot gets counted for Trump in the head to head. This is to encourage people to actually vote for their closest ideological match while allowing their vote to count for their preferred choice of the most popular vote getters. This opens up a lot more opportunity for additional parties to qualify for federal funding, as voting against someone is no longer nearly as important, so people don't feel so pressured to vote R or D, as in this election.