Beto: "EC basically just like slavery"
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
If courts aren't already packed, then without Senate (or with a representative senate), blue house vets and approves judiciary.
The legislating from the bench will know no bounds.
Do we really think penis and white skin taxes are that popular, that the only institutions stemming the tide are the EC and Senate?
The Rule of Law you keep citing eventually becomes whatever the dominant party makes it.
The minority value system can be legislated (and judged against) into a permanent minority.
Absolutely the rule of law can't stand against super majorities without respect for the rule of law, but that is also true today with an EC and Senate.
It is kind of the point I am getting at with Harry in terms of arbitrariness. It is just a coincidence that the Senate and EC are arrayed against the penis taxers. In 2008 and 2012 the EC was more likely to work in Dems favor than against. Sometimes the democrats hold the senate and not the house. There is no reason to expect that a system based on state representation will reliably protect any minority except the minority of people who live in the 25 lowest population states (which is arbitrary).
protection of the minority of people with a 5 as the fifth digit in their SSN is arbitrary. Those people don't need special protection because there are no forces aligned against them.
Apples and oranges.
More rural vs more agrarian. Etc.
What you claim is arbitrary, isn't.
Still arbitrary. Connecticut is very urban yet low in population. Texas is vast and rural but also highly populated.
It's only arbitrary because you think the Senate isn't something the Democrats can win a majority in anytime soon. If Democrats had Senate control we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you about abolishing it or changing it to population based. Same with the SCOTUS. Same with the EC.
A logical approach would be to pursue policies that all sides of the political aisle can negotiate to some agreement on. I've quit expecting logic from anyone on the left these days though. It's 24/365 hysteria, made up boogeymen, and alarmism from the left now. Until you guys regain control over your motions, you'll just have to share power with everyone else who doesn't buy into the garbage. People are tired of the constant crying. I hate to be that guy, but it's true. Need proof? Trump.
Not arbitrary. Move on to the next variable. Then the next. Don't misrepresent what I said. After you have all the variables, then start identifying the interactions between variables. Build out.
You haven't presented a coherent or comprehensive defense of the basic premise that majority will make the the judiciary monolithic in time and then no protections exist for those who value interpretation of the law and not legislating law.
Unilateral protection is protection for the majority only.
Sounds like your issue is the staggering of elections for senators or the 6 year term vs 2 year term.
That 6 year term helps protect the majority value from 2 years ago or 2 years ahead. It steadies against momentary zeal.
And they are both represented based on population in the House and they have equal representation in the Senate. It's part of the checks and balances of our republic.
Yet it hasn't happened.
No response to the "next variable" statement in that post? Do you truly believe it's a coincidence that the Senate protects the anti-penis taxers?
Well I was talking about the electoral college in that particular sentence, whose point was that the electoral college often works to the advantage of Dems
Now that I remember this like it was yesterday, it brings everything full circle: you're M.O. is disingenuous. "Arbitrary" is your opinion (you used the word "coincidence"). And this is nothing but a power grab.
For that reason
You might want to check the fine print in the Constitution. I'll get you some ruby slippers to wear if it would help your anxiety.
Lol you and medic are really good at attacking my supposed motivations, but not so much my actual arguments.Now that I remember this like it was yesterday, it brings everything full circle: you're M.O. is disingenuous. "Arbitrary" is your opinion (you used the word "coincidence"). And this is nothing but a power grab.
For that reason
You haven't made a coherent arguement to attack.
Brilliant article. Thanks for posting MJD.
I see that somebody in this thread was doing their expected part regurgitating Party talking points...
"As with all such enthusiasms — expanding the Supreme Court, abolishing the filibuster and the Senate itself, lowering the voting age to 16, letting convicted felons and illegal aliens vote, adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, automatic voter registration, abolishing voter ID, etc."
