Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MetropolitanCowboy

Gerrymandering

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sebasour said:

To avoid partisan strangleholds on the court for potentially decades. There's proposals would set term limits and allow presidents to pick one or 2 justices per term, I think that would largely solve the issue.

If they voted straight party lines in their decisions, I'd agree with you...but they largely don't...so I don't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sebasour said:

 

I don't know what Jesus was thinking when he included that part

I love these clowns who use "constitution sez" like it's an argument unto itself.

The Constitution ALSO said white men with land were basically the only true citizens.  Quit pretending the framers were Holy Prime Movers instead of flawed men putting together a society based on 18th-century values and technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 406WarriorFan said:

If they voted straight party lines in their decisions, I'd agree with you...but they largely don't...so I don't. 

  

The USED to vote along a bipartisan edge (with the VAST majority of decisions being 9-0). That has changed radically in the past 15-20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

I don't know what Jesus was thinking when he included that part

While I understand you are trying to be facetious, the fact remains your plan is unconstitutional, however, if you feel so strongly, push for an amendment to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

The USED to vote along a bipartisan edge (with the VAST majority of decisions being 9-0). That has changed radically in the past 15-20 years.

I thought you had me on ignore? For someone who pisses and moans about the mean people on this board, and crows about having them on ignore...you really don't utilize that feature. 

There isn't party lines...if there were, the VA Gerrymandering case would have been 5-4 the other way...Obamacare would have been struck down, and numerous other things would have turned out differently. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 406WarriorFan said:

If they voted straight party lines in their decisions, I'd agree with you...but they largely don't...so I don't. 

 

 

Generally you're correct, most cases are unanimous, but there's still numerous 5-4 decisions on crucial court where the partisan balance of the court becomes a concern.

 

This could also provide proportionate power to each president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

While I understand you are trying to be facetious, the fact remains your plan is unconstitutional, however, if you feel so strongly, push for an amendment to it. 

 

Yeah, I get that. I understand that too when I bitch about guns or The Electoral Collage. 

 

I'm just voicing my disagreement, not claiming they're politically realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

Yeah, I get that. I understand that too when I bitch about guns or The Electoral Collage. 

 

I'm just voicing my disagreement, not claiming they're politically realistic. 

Do you honestly believe that making the Judiciary less independent will lead to less partisanship and partisan decisions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

Do you honestly believe that making the Judiciary less independent will lead to less partisanship and partisan decisions? 

 

I think it will be roughly the same, it'll only limit the potential of single party rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

I think it will be roughly the same, it'll only limit the potential of single party rule

You think that making justices more beholden to "mob rule" and the prevailing attitude of the time would make them less apt to make partisan, rash, or bad decisions?

I disagree, but I'm interested in hearing your reasoning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

You think that making justices more beholden to "mob rule" and the prevailing attitude of the time would make them less apt to make partisan, rash, or bad decisions?

No more than it does now. I'm not calling on elections for judges. If you're appointed, you stay appointed until your term runs out. There's no reelection to worry about it. The court would largely stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...