Jump to content
Guest #1Stunner

Democrats calling for changes to the Constitution / Actions

Recommended Posts

The dims had no problems with the current system when they had all or most of the power.

Now that they are getting beat regularly by Trump they want the rules changed.

It signals weakness on their part. They are essentially saying "we can no longer win under the current system."

 

  • Like 2

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

The dims had no problems with the current system when they had all or most of the power.

Now that they are getting beat regularly by Trump they want the rules changed.

It signals weakness on their part. They are essentially saying "we can no longer win under the current system."

 

I disagree. These issues/ideas have been around for longer than the past 2 years. No maybe they are getting louder or maybe the media is just covering the same people with these ideas more right now but there were people that had these same problems and wanted some of these rules changes for a lot longer than Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tspoke said:

I disagree. These issues/ideas have been around for longer than the past 2 years. No maybe they are getting louder or maybe the media is just covering the same people with these ideas more right now but there were people that had these same problems and wanted some of these rules changes for a lot longer than Trump.

They seemed rather silent during the Clinton & Obama terms.

  • Like 1

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

I thought you were fiscally conservative, think of the costs, not just the legislators, but all the staff, travel, Office Space, Etc. Also, consider the air conditioning bill, there's way too much hot air in that place already.

 

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

The reward is good governance. Improve the quality of governance by, hell, 1% and that is an investment that pays for itself in a year and continues to pay for itself every year ad aeternum. 

Does the same opinion apply to your company / firm?  

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

I thought you were fiscally conservative, think of the costs, not just the legislators, but all the staff, travel, Office Space, Etc. Also, consider the air conditioning bill, there's way too much hot air in that place already.

Sure. But people need to be better connected to their representatives.  Having 435 people represent 315 million doesn’t seem right.  If we expanded the house to say 2,000 members then the ratio would be 1 representative for every 157,000 people instead of the current 1:724,000.  I think we should try to get the ratio to at least 1:250,000 which would be 1,260 representatives. Let’s give the House back to the People!  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

They seemed rather silent during the Clinton & Obama terms.

Well as far as the electoral college thing. I'm sure people were talking about it then but probably not as much because the EC and the popular vote produced the same winner for Obama and Clinton so it makes sense people wouldn't complain about it.

As far as the other issues, I just did a quick check and found a couple articles from 2013 and 2014 talking about term limits for SC justices so it appears it also isn't a new issue.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/its-time-for-term-limits-for-the-supreme-court/371415/

https://www.ocregister.com/2013/08/04/erwin-chemerinsky-supreme-court-needs-term-limits/

 

So sure people on the left are talking more about some of these issues when they see things going against them. But it isn't them inventing rule changes because they can't win the game as it currently is. Its them picking up on ideas that have been around for a while and saying lets discuss this.

Which I think leads to some good discussion as we have seen in this thread. Even if most of the ideas are bad ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tspoke said:

Well as far as the electoral college thing. I'm sure people were talking about it then but probably not as much because the EC and the popular vote produced the same winner for Obama and Clinton so it makes sense people wouldn't complain about it.

As far as the other issues, I just did a quick check and found a couple articles from 2013 and 2014 talking about term limits for SC justices so it appears it also isn't a new issue.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/its-time-for-term-limits-for-the-supreme-court/371415/

https://www.ocregister.com/2013/08/04/erwin-chemerinsky-supreme-court-needs-term-limits/

 

So sure people on the left are talking more about some of these issues when they see things going against them. But it isn't them inventing rule changes because they can't win the game as it currently is. Its them picking up on ideas that have been around for a while and saying lets discuss this.

Which I think leads to some good discussion as we have seen in this thread. Even if most of the ideas are bad ones.

Term limits for SC justices is something that has been suggested as far back as I can recall.  I honestly don't think it's a left/right issue. 

Expanding the court to 11 is not something I recall from the past. Maybe it's been mentioned,  but as far as I know, it never got much traction.

I don't see what problem that would solve and we sure as Hell don't need more confirmation hearings.     

  • Like 1

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Sure. But people need to be better connected to their representatives.  Having 435 people represent 315 million doesn’t seem right.  If we expanded the house to say 2,000 members then the ratio would be 1 representative for every 157,000 people instead of the current 1:724,000.  I think we should try to get the ratio to at least 1:250,000 which would be 1,260 representatives. Let’s give the House back to the People!  

I agree.I think it would go along ways to help people that feel they are underrepresented in congress. I think a lot of the calls for a change in the senate based on population would go away if the house actually had representation that was truly based on population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

 

Does the same opinion apply to your company / firm?  

Have enough people doing to do more work makes the company make more money? Uh... yes... 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tspoke said:

I agree.I think it would go along ways to help people that feel they are underrepresented in congress. I think a lot of the calls for a change in the senate based on population would go away if the house actually had representation that was truly based on population.

The last thing we need in Washington is more politicians.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Term limits for SC justices is something that has been suggested as far back as I can recall.  I honestly don't think it's a left/right issue. 

Expanding the court to 11 is not something I recall from the past. Maybe it's been mentioned,  but as far as I know, it never got much traction.

I don't see what problem that would solve and we sure as Hell don't need more confirmation hearings.     

Maybe we could make the confirmation hearings pay per view? 🤷🏼‍♂️

I’m torn on the idea of SCOTUS term limits. The whole point of lifetime appointments is to isolate them from the political process as much as possible. But we’re also getting to the point that a justice could serve for 50 years. When Robo Ginsberg casts the deciding vote to invalidate Donald Trump Jr’s Electoral College victory in the 2030 election, we’ll know there’s a problem.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Term limits for SC justices is something that has been suggested as far back as I can recall.  I honestly don't think it's a left/right issue. 

Expanding the court to 11 is not something I recall from the past. Maybe it's been mentioned,  but as far as I know, it never got much traction.

I don't see what problem that would solve and we sure as Hell don't need more confirmation hearings.     

FDR tried to do something similar in the 30's apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

 

But I agree that it is not really a good idea and is done for partisan reasons. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

The last thing we need in Washington is more politicians.

You're totally right. I mean if we tried I imagine we could really pare the political side of the government down to one guy. That totally has a great history!

  • Haha 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

Maybe we could make the confirmation hearings pay per view? 🤷🏼‍♂️

I’m torn on the idea of SCOTUS term limits. The whole point of lifetime appointments is to isolate them from the political process as much as possible. But we’re also getting to the point that a justice could serve for 50 years. When Robo Ginsberg casts the deciding vote to invalidate Donald Trump Jr’s Electoral College victory in the 2030 election, we’ll know there’s a problem.

I agree. I'm torn too. But it is a problem when someone who should be retired hangs on just to wait for the right admin to come to power. RBG should retire. But I completely understand why she hasn't.

Things could get really ugly if the dims do try to impeach Kav and/or Thomas.  The right will have to push back with similar actions.

I sometimes wish we could throw them all out, regardless of party affiliation, and start from scratch.  Could things get any worse if we did?

About the only time the dems & repubs can get together on something is when they want a raise.    

  • Like 1

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

@mugtang I want my idiot button back!!

It isn't other people's fault when you don't spend enough time on your ideas to avoid spouting easily attacked ones

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

Sure. But people need to be better connected to their representatives.  Having 435 people represent 315 million doesn’t seem right.  If we expanded the house to say 2,000 members then the ratio would be 1 representative for every 157,000 people instead of the current 1:724,000.  I think we should try to get the ratio to at least 1:250,000 which would be 1,260 representatives. Let’s give the House back to the People!  

What are you MAD!  You want 2000 Members walking around RHOB and the Capitol.  Which would increase the number of congressional staffers by 5x!  You're an idealistic nut sometimes Muggy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CPslograd said:

What are you MAD!  You want 2000 Members walking around RHOB and the Capitol.  Which would increase the number of congressional staffers by 5x!  You're an idealistic nut sometimes Muggy.

If it means a more representative government, I’m fine with that. 

  • Facepalm 1

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mugtang said:

If it means a more representative government, I’m fine with that. 

Well, we could just do everything by referendum if we want a more representative government, it's worked out great in the golden state.

2000 members would result in more party centralized power and more institutional and lobbyist power by the way, not more representative government 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Well, we could just do everything by referendum if we want a more representative government, it's worked out great in the golden state.

2000 members would result in more party centralized power and more institutional and lobbyist power by the way, not more representative government 

No need to do things by referendum at the national level.  

And I disagree.  I think it would give rise to more 3rd party candidates and people would feel more connected to their representatives.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...