Should we change the constitution so the House approves both Presidential appointments and Judges and justices?

[jnug]

God no. If there is anything worse than the now throughly WHACK JOB Senate it is the drowning in WHACK JOB House.

In fact, its Newt Gingrich nonsense from the House that ultimately infected the Senate and here we are.

 

[Artymoon]

What about if the GOP starts to lose, what then. The game was set up over 200 years ago and things have changed. We can no longer trust any politico to keep their words or promises, and this fiasco is only the last time, not the first time we are seeing this. A country ruled by its minority will soon become a authoritarian state and that is where we are headed.

If I'm not mistaken, Republicans have lost plenty of presidential elections. When was the last time you heard them cry to abolish the EC afterwards? Also, we are not ruled by a minority. A majority of the states wanted Trump. As it will be with whoever wins the next one.

 

[Artymoon]

Knowledge that the rules are inherently unfair and undemocratic and advantage one party over the other still makes them no longer acceptable.

Lol. That is usually the viewpoint espoused when the left fails to win. Again, if Biden prevails, the EC will have functioned as intended and I imagine no one will be griping.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What is it with you guys asking about changing the Constitution, you guys have any concept at all of how painful that would be in the modern era with our polarization and horrible divisions these days?

 

[independentusa]

Lol. That is usually the viewpoint espoused when the left fails to win. Again, if Biden prevails, the EC will have functioned as intended and I imagine no one will be griping.

What if Trump is ahead on the first night because his voters are willing as we have seen by his rallies to catch Covid for him and Trump tells SCOTUS to stop the voting and they do? You think it can not happen, but we thought that too in 2000, but it did and this GOP court could use that as a precedent to do it again.

 

[Artymoon]

What if Trump is ahead on the first night because his voters are willing as we have seen by his rallies to catch Covid for him and Trump tells SCOTUS to stop the voting and they do? You think it can not happen, but we thought that too in 2000, but it did and this GOP court could use that as a precedent to do it again.

My goodness, it seems you have it pretty bad. I imagine next on your list is Trump seeks a dictatorship, wants to open concentration camps, steal your firstborn, etc. What are you guys reading???

 

[haymarket]

Lol. That is usually the viewpoint espoused when the left fails to win. Again, if Biden prevails, the EC will have functioned as intended and I imagine no one will be griping.

Your reply makes sense 150 years ago. Today - not so much.

 

[Artymoon]

Your reply makes sense 150 years ago. Today - not so much.

I believe it makes even more sense today. High population clusters have settled in relatively few areas of the country. As time continues to go by, these small geographical clusters will only become more dense.

This has been a good exercise. Have a good day.

 

[haymarket]

I believe it makes even more sense today. High population clusters have settled in relatively few areas of the country. As time continues to go by, these small geographical clusters will only become more dense.

This has been a good exercise. Have a good day.

So you do NOT hold all Americans as equal then.

 

[element94]

In the U.S, the majority rules, except when it doesn't.

 

[dorsai]

Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?

Supreme Courts picks are not intended to be political and they weren't until Robert Bork. Having the House involved will make a bigger mess than already exists. Politics should be removed from the Judiciary -- not introduced on a larger scale.

If Senators were still appointed, you could argue they don't represent the electorate. But Senators are now elected and it is a statewide election at that. They are more representative of their state than any single rep from the House that represents only a single district.

 

[Artymoon]

So you do NOT hold all Americans as equal then.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. But if it helps you through this time then okay.

 

[haymarket]

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. But if it helps you through this time then okay.

You give more voting power to voters in smaller states rather than voters who reside in larger states.

 

[bluesmoke]

Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?

I favor what best represents the populous. The House does so better than the Senate as they ARE more populous (have a higher number of Congressional reps than in the Senate) , represent a greater number of areas (diversity) and elect reps more often (reflecting more current/shifting view). Just as a favor the prez be elected by popular vote. If the House and Senate cannot agree, the prez decides. Or flip a coin. The Senate gets to call heads or tails. Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[Artymoon]

You give more voting power to voters in smaller states rather than voters who reside in larger states.

Hogwash. The more populous states have more electoral votes than the rural. Lock up CA and NY and you're almost a third of the way home.

 

[haymarket]

Hogwash. The more populous states have more electoral votes than the rural. Lock up CA and NY and you're almost a third of the way home.

Apparently you are confused or outright do not know the difference between an American citizen and an Electoral vote.

The facts are that voters from the smaller states have three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters in the largest states have. And that rigs the election in favor of Republicans and against the Democratic Party.

This interactive map is filled with information that proves my point.

Which States Have the Most Powerful Votes?

There are many reasons to dislike the Electoral College: It gives a handful of states the lion’s share of campaign attention; it allows a candidate wit ...

www.slate.com

 

[Artymoon]

Apparently you are confused or outright do not know the difference between an American citizen and an Electoral vote.

The facts are that voters from the smaller states have three to four times the weight behind their votes as voters in the largest states have. And that rigs the election in favor of Republicans and against the Democratic Party.

This interactive map is filled with information that proves my point.

Which States Have the Most Powerful Votes?

There are many reasons to dislike the Electoral College: It gives a handful of states the lion’s share of campaign attention; it allows a candidate wit ...

www.slate.com

Oh I'm pretty clear on the difference and my quote said nothing of a one-for-one which you are insinuating. Unfortunately, the candidates that don't win typically fail to make this distinction. Let me pose a question:

If any American city were to swell to a population of 30 million they could literally sway any presidential election under popular vote. Would you be in favor of one city dictating the outcome and the inevitable "deals" that would be made to secure that vote?