And then we purposefully amended that shitty, racist document to fix some of the problems it created after the Civil War that "states' rights" caused.
The drama queens are out in full force from the libbies. Yes, that is my opinion. You guys and gals are definitely behaving as though the sky is falling, the ocean is drying up, famine has set in, and Disney has gone completely gay….oh wait y’all might have one point.
Ok, so then there is an Amendment process to fix what you don't like in it as long as there is enough support for it. There's your solution.
You’re trick is bothersome…you search for gifs, memes, and inquirer headlines and then act like the world is ending because of Trump. You seem to need help. I’m worried for you.
All you do is post gifs and tell people they are overreacting, and you are complaining about someone else doing that? If you ever made an actual point it would be the first time here.
Good news, we don't need a constitutional amendment to expand the Supreme Court and protect our democracy from the Republican politicians controlling it.
So your solution is to "pack the court". Makes for a great solution until the other "team" gains enough control to "pack the court". And so on... And so on... Want to completely render the SCOTUS irrelevant? Congrats, you've found the best way to do that! All because you disagree ideologically.
Michael Luttig literally called it back in April: Opinion: The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election - CNN The Republicans' mystifying claim to this day that Trump did, or would have, received more votes than Joe Biden in 2020 were it not for actual voting fraud, is but the shiny object that Republicans have tauntingly and disingenuously dangled before the American public for almost a year and a half now to distract attention from their far more ambitious objective. That objective is not somehow to rescind the 2020 election, as they would have us believe. That's constitutionally impossible. Trump's and the Republicans' far more ambitious objective is to execute successfully in 2024 the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election if Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest. The last presidential election was a dry run for the next. From long before Election Day 2020, Trump and Republicans planned to overturn the presidential election by exploiting the Electors and Elections Clauses of the Constitution, the Electoral College, the Electoral Count Act of 1877, and the 12th Amendment, if Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote. The cornerstone of the plan was to have the Supreme Court embrace the little known "independent state legislature" doctrine, which, in turn, would pave the way for exploitation of the Electoral College process and the Electoral Count Act, and finally for Vice President Mike Pence to reject enough swing state electoral votes to overturn the election using Pence's ceremonial power under the 12th Amendment and award the presidency to Donald Trump.
Oh well. I'll take my chances. And yep, I'm completely fine with rendering SCOTUS irrelevant, especially under our present circumstances. You'd be wrong. I disagreed with the Supreme Court ideologically when Anthony Kennedy was still the swing vote, but I never called for expanding it back then. The Court still made some effort to be fair and not extreme. Now, it makes no effort. It is extreme. It is partisan. And it is most certainly not impartial. There's no adherence to any sort of doctrine or judicial ideology. It's simply Republican politicians finding ways to advantage the Republican Party.
They did, but that document is not the Constitution. It was the Articles of Confederation. There is a reason that the arguments in favor of the Constitution were called the "Federalist Papers" and the first major party was called the "Federalist Party."
The status quo presents that exact same issue. Republicans were unhappy with SCOTUS's decisions, and so stacked it with Republican partisans using destabilizing, but technically legal maneuvers. What's the difference?
That isn’t going to happen. Even if they blew away the filibuster Manchin and Sinema probably wouldn’t go along.
The difference is that it was random chance that a single Executive and Senate had the opportunity to appoint 3 Justices. Now THAT is an Amendment I would support. Tether the amount of Justices to the amount of Appellate Districts (minus DC) and limit the Executive to a single appointment per term. If more than one Justice dies or retires then the Court runs short until the following term.
To be fair, this case is specifically about the Article I elections clause: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. What brought this whole debate about flows largely from the advent of direct democracy - people passing redistricting referenda. Arizona’s legislature challenged their state constitutional amendment which assigned redistricting to a commission in 2015 and alleged that it infringed on the exclusive constitutional authority of the state legislature to regulate congressional elections. The Supreme Court (a Ginsburg opinion for the liberals + Kennedy) upheld their amendment and said essentially that when the Elections Clause says “the Legislature” it doesn’t actually mean the capital L Legislature, it just means whoever state law allows to make laws (in this case, the people). All of the other conservative justices dissented, with Roberts noting in his dissent that under that reading the Seventeenth Amendment served no purpose at all, because you could just read “the Legislature” in Article I, Section 3 (discussing selection of senators) to similarly mean “the people” and there would have been no problem to fix. The challenge here comes from North Carolina, which state constitutional provisions providing that “all elections shall be free,” which the North Carolina Supreme Court interpreted as prohibiting gerrymandering. Here again, the North Carolina legislature alleges that the interpretation of the North Carolina constitution applied by the North Carolina Supreme Court (and the NCSC’s own replacement map) infringe on the Legislature’s ability to control congressional elections. The argument with respect to overriding a popular vote isn’t really directly implicated here, but comes about because the Article II elections clause has similar language: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress Looking historically, there is little doubt that this does not actually require a state to hold a presidential election - plenty of states in the early constitutional times didn’t, and their legislatures directed other methods for selecting electors. Theoretically a state could choose to do so again now. But to override an election once it happens, you would have to get to an interpretation that says the state legislature can retroactively change how they select electors. I don’t see how that question is in any way implicated by this case (which concerns the Article I elections clause rather than the Article II one in the first place, and has nothing whatsoever to do with retroactivity). It’s ultimately an interesting question - I think the Arizona case’s reading of “the Legislature” is probably one that stretches the Constitutional language past its breaking point and there is a decent argument it should be overturned, but the questions here are a bit more nuanced than that.
It wasn't a random chance. McConnell refused to give Obama's moderate nominee a vote. If you really want to fix things, take the President and the Senate out of the process of appointing judges. Amend the Constitution to put a bipartisan or nonpartisan system in place. Until that happens, our judiciary will be filled with political loyalists.
