Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Barrett SCOTUS hearing ?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ElCid said:

The Electoral College will be around forever probably.  It is a protection for the small states, just as the two senators per state are.  Only way to remove it is have 3/4's of states agree and that is not going to happen.  Assuming it ever got out of the Senate where it requires a 2/3' vote, as it does in the House.

People forget this is the United STATES or America.  Unlike every other nation in the world.

Whatever the name of the country, the EC is fundamentally undemocratic. There is the movement among

some states to have their electoral votes given to whoever wins the U.S. popular vote. Whether that will fly

legally is another question, but it's worth pursuing. Small states will just have to learn to live with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Whatever the name of the country, the EC is fundamentally undemocratic. There is the movement among

some states to have their electoral votes given to whoever wins the U.S. popular vote. Whether that will fly

legally is another question, but it's worth pursuing. Small states will just have to learn to live with it. 

That so called movement you mention is complete and total folly;  The only states looking at this are blue lead states.     

Your last sentence is proof you're really confused.   Small states get the post benefit out of the EC.    They want to "live with it".   It is the large blue state votes that get disfranchised and it is these voters (like myself),  that have to "live with it".

Hey,  I wish it would change to a straight up votes (just like I wish CA had an additional Senator or two),  BUT that is NOT going to change because,  like getting rid of the EC,  the small states are NOT going to ever concede their power.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Senate Republican says he has the votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett

The Republican Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said he has the votes to confirm the nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett as a supreme court justice as the upper chamber’s judiciary committee scheduled a vote for 22 October to advance the nomination towards a full Senate ballot shortly after.

*******************************************************

All of this huffing and puffing can't stop the confirmation from happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

That so called movement you mention is complete and total folly;  The only states looking at this are blue lead states.     

Your last sentence is proof you're really confused.   Small states get the post benefit out of the EC.    They want to "live with it".   It is the large blue state votes that get disfranchised and it is these voters (like myself),  that have to "live with it".

Hey,  I wish it would change to a straight up votes (just like I wish CA had an additional Senator or two),  BUT that is NOT going to change because,  like getting rid of the EC,  the small states are NOT going to ever concede their power.

 

I wouldn't call it folly. Of course it has to get to 270 EC votes to make any sense and it's short of that so far,

but it might reach that threshold in the future. There is also the question of whether it would be constitutional

for states to award their electors to the U.S. popular vote winner. I meant that small states will have to live with

it if there is ever a change to popular vote determining the winner.  Small states are now not of much interest to

candidates anyway because they don't have many electoral votes. No candidate's going to spend much time in North

or South Dakota. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Whatever the name of the country, the EC is fundamentally undemocratic. There is the movement among

some states to have their electoral votes given to whoever wins the U.S. popular vote. Whether that will fly

legally is another question, but it's worth pursuing. Small states will just have to learn to live with it. 

Not the same thing as abolishing the Electoral College as each state will still have the same number of votes based on number of House reps. and senators.   So small states will probably not be significantly affected.

As for all states giving all EC votes to whoever wins the US popular vote, I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

That so called movement you mention is complete and total folly;  The only states looking at this are blue lead states.     

Your last sentence is proof you're really confused.   Small states get the post benefit out of the EC.    They want to "live with it".   It is the large blue state votes that get disfranchised and it is these voters (like myself),  that have to "live with it".

Hey,  I wish it would change to a straight up votes (just like I wish CA had an additional Senator or two),  BUT that is NOT going to change because,  like getting rid of the EC,  the small states are NOT going to ever concede their power.

 

It is still the United STATES of America.  The Constitution was specifically written as a compact between states, not people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ElCid said:

Not the same thing as abolishing the Electoral College as each state will still have the same number of votes based on number of House reps. and senators.   So small states will probably not be significantly affected.

As for all states giving all EC votes to whoever wins the US popular vote, I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

No it would not abolish the EC, just have enough states that give their state electoral votes to the winner of

the U.S. popular vote so the the EC would become irrelevant. I would give that idea a better chance of success

than passing a constitutional amendment. And it wouldn't take all fifty states to agree to it, just enough states

to reach 270 electoral votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vautrin said:

No it would not abolish the EC, just have enough states that give their state electoral votes to the winner of

the U.S. popular vote so the the EC would become irrelevant. I would give that idea a better chance of success

than passing a constitutional amendment. And it wouldn't take all fifty states to agree to it, just enough states

to reach 270 electoral votes.

I remember reading something about the proposal re: popular vote linked to EC voting.  It would be an agreement between the states and they could probably drop out whenever they wished.  Assuming you got enough states to agree in the first place.  As I recall, states that did not agree would still be able to determine how their EC votes were cast.

The EC would still exist and the number of votes per state would still be the same as under current system.  CA would still have 55 EC votes, regardless of its population or the popular vote in the state.  SC would still have 7 and NC 15.  So the EC would not become "irrelevant."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Barrett refuses to answer whether or not she believes Social Security and Medicare are Constitutional.  Which means she supports gutting or eliminating both of them.  With the current court, that would probably be a 5-4 or 6-3 position to abolish both as well as Medicaid.

There are many Republicans in government, including Trump, who share this view.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/521131-is-social-security-safe-from-the-courts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the Justices other than Roberts are voting on party lines when it comes to suppressing the vote.  Who says this isn't political?

The Republicans and their values are in the minority in America so the only way for them to come out on top is to suppress the vote.  You don't see the GOP against these voting suppression measures in 2020 do you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ElCid said:

I remember reading something about the proposal re: popular vote linked to EC voting.  It would be an agreement between the states and they could probably drop out whenever they wished.  Assuming you got enough states to agree in the first place.  As I recall, states that did not agree would still be able to determine how their EC votes were cast.

The EC would still exist and the number of votes per state would still be the same as under current system.  CA would still have 55 EC votes, regardless of its population or the popular vote in the state.  SC would still have 7 and NC 15.  So the EC would not become "irrelevant."

Yes, the states not in the compact could still assign their electoral votes to the winner of their state's vote. But it

wouldn't matter because 270 EC votes would go to the winner of the U.S. popular vote. The EC would still exist,

but it would now be decided by the winner of the U.S. popular vote, not by old system of a majority of the electoral

votes of the states. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the old EC system would be irrelevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Yes, the states not in the compact could still assign their electoral votes to the winner of their state's vote. But it

wouldn't matter because 270 EC votes would go to the winner of the U.S. popular vote. The EC would still exist,

but it would now be decided by the winner of the U.S. popular vote, not by old system of a majority of the electoral

votes of the states. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the old EC system would be irrelevant. 

 Yea,  270 EC votes would go to the winner IF they could get enough states to join the compact that have 270 or more EC votes.

BUT they are not close to even 200 based on what I last read.     E.g.   swing states like PA and FL are NOT going to join such a pack!   They like being battleground states that decide the Presidential election.         I.e.  getting such a compact is almost as difficult as passing a Constitutional amendment,  and thus you're just wasting your breath.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 Yea,  270 EC votes would go to the winner IF they could get enough states to join the compact that have 270 or more EC votes.

BUT they are not close to even 200 based on what I last read.     E.g.   swing states like PA and FL are NOT going to join such a pack!   They like being battleground states that decide the Presidential election.         I.e.  getting such a compact is almost as difficult as passing a Constitutional amendment,  and thus you're just wasting your breath.

 

 

Well that's a big if. :) I think they're a bit below 200 at this point. Even if it does eventually reach 270 there will

be plenty of legal challenges. I still think the theory of the compact has a better chance of changing the EC than

a Constitutional amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Well that's a big if. :) I think they're a bit below 200 at this point. Even if it does eventually reach 270 there will

be plenty of legal challenges. I still think the theory of the compact has a better chance of changing the EC than

a Constitutional amendment. 

Uh,   I said in my post:  getting such a compact is almost as difficult as passing a Constitutional amendment, 

ALMOST as difficult means a better chance.

Anyhow,   that still is no chance at all!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Uh,   I said in my post:  getting such a compact is almost as difficult as passing a Constitutional amendment, 

ALMOST as difficult means a better chance.

Anyhow,   that still is no chance at all!

 

I guess I skimmed over that too quickly. I would put the chances of the compact succeeding as better than

just slightly better compared to the Constitutional amendment route. Time to get rid of the undemocratic

EC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I guess I skimmed over that too quickly. I would put the chances of the compact succeeding as better than

just slightly better compared to the Constitutional amendment route. Time to get rid of the undemocratic

EC.

Will say it again.  The United States is a Republic, not a democracy.  It is a union of 50 states.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 7:36 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Hey,  I wish it would change to a straight up votes (just like I wish CA had an additional Senator or two),  BUT that is NOT going to change because,  like getting rid of the EC,  the small states are NOT going to ever concede their power.

 

Then maybe the big states should split up to counter the effect I could easily see New York split off Long Island and I'm sure California could figure out a split where both new  states are Blue. 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cigarjoe said:

Then maybe the big states should split up to counter the effect I could easily see New York split off Long Island and I'm sure California could figure out a split where both new  states are Blue. 😀

Then Texas splits into five and the Sothern states split into two's.  

NONE of this is going to happen.  Perhaps someone needs to start a thread on the Electoral College - Again.  Last one probably disappeared in 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

It has happened in the past, No?

So theoretically it can happen 

Stand to be corrected, the only time a state split was when WV seceded from VA during the Civil War.  Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress recognized it despite fact that VA had not agreed to it.

No state may be divided unless that state agrees to it and I don't believe any ever has.

As for changes to the EC, that has never happened that I am aware of.  Other than state determining on their own to let voters in that state decide on who wins rather than the state legislature.

Maybe I could have been more explicit.  None of this is going to happen in our lifetimes nor in those of your children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cigarjoe said:

Then maybe the big states should split up to counter the effect I could easily see New York split off Long Island and I'm sure California could figure out a split where both new  states are Blue. 😀

I agree;   CA should be at least two states,  if not 3.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ElCid said:

Will say it again.  The United States is a Republic, not a democracy.  It is a union of 50 states.

I'll say it again, God is a concept by which we measure our pain. :) Yes it is a republic, that is

citizens elect representatives to the gov't, they do not vote on legislation themselves. But they

elect those representatives by popular vote, except for the most powerful position in the

republic, the president. That is left to some stupid out-of-date bizarre procedure. That makes it

an undemocratic republic, at least at the highest office in the land. From what I've read, the

original concept of the EC was a group of "wise men" who would act as a buffer just in case

the people were dumb enough to elect some poor schlub who didn't fit in with what the FF

regarded as someone fit to hold the office. Of course it didn't turn out to work that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I'll say it again, God is a concept by which we measure our pain. :) Yes it is a republic, that is

citizens elect representatives to the gov't, they do not vote on legislation themselves. But they

elect those representatives by popular vote, except for the most powerful position in the

republic, the president. That is left to some stupid out-of-date bizarre procedure. That makes it

an undemocratic republic, at least at the highest office in the land. From what I've read, the

original concept of the EC was a group of "wise men" who would act as a buffer just in case

the people were dumb enough to elect some poor schlub who didn't fit in with what the FF

regarded as someone fit to hold the office. Of course it didn't turn out to work that way.

As I suggested, maybe you want to start a thread on the EC?  Of find the old one from 2016?

What you say is partially true.   While those of us who vote elect representatives by popular vote, under the Constitution not all votes are the same.  Most obvious is the two senators from each state.  Even the representatives are not evenly divided by population.  Each state, no matter how unpopulated, is guaranteed one seat.  Then the other385 seats are assigned using the method of equal proportions. (see Wiki).

The number of people each representative represents is not exactly the same from state to state or district to district.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

The last part of your post is correct historically, but the founding fathers did not envision the impact of two political parties, the vast sums of money the rich and corporations would bring to bear and vast array of aspects of life after 1850 or so.  Which is why having "originalists" such as Amy Barrett on the Supreme Court is just plain stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...