Dems Latest Scheme: ‘Balance’ Supreme Court by Adding Two Liberal Judges

The left gerrymanders as well...see the State of MD currently as an example. Moreover the term "gerrymandering" was named for a Democrat, Elbridge Gerry.

As far as the President not being elected by the People....the President is elected via the people, and the States, as outlined in our Constitution. I am sorry, you have issues with our Republic, and you can feel free to leave...or amend the US Constitution. This has served us well for well over 200 years. I am not sure who's votes aren't being counted, but you might want to take that up with your local election commission. Our Founders were smart enough to set up a national election like the office of the President in such a manner that it's run locally, so you can voice your concerns quicker and get a faster response.

 

What does that have to do with what I posted?

 

If this idiot scheme worked, there'd be 40 justices by 2100...

 

I can have an opinion without leaving the country.
It’s so strange the people that constantly scream freedom of speech are so quick to tell people to get out when they have their own opinion. Furthermore the electoral college has only went against the people 4 times - in 200 years - I highly doubt it is functioning as they originally intended to.

The founding fathers had no idea what the future would bring which is why it was proposed to have the constitution rewritten every 17 years.

 

So, these were left leaning strategists and writers? No discussions of this from those Dems in power?

For the record, I think it is a ridiculous idea...before long, the court would have 30 justices!

 

The founding fathers put no thought into the election of the President as related to the will of the people, as nothing in the Constitution requires the issue to be put to the people in any way.
That is, you do not have a right to vote for President, you have a privilege granted to you by your state.

Don't like something in the constitution? Amend it.

 

They created a process for it to be amended....you are free to do that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems you are complaining about basic things on how our Govt is set up. We are not a pure democracy, our Founders never wanted it to be, and they certainly wouldn't today given how large we have become. We are a democratic-republic. A Republic, is very much not a pure democracy. Our Govt is set up in a way that we are 50 individual united States, that formed a Federal Govt. It's called the concept of Federalism. The Constitution was designed, an frankly Art II is a prime example, of allowing the people, to elect representatives in the federal Govt through sovereign states. The EC protects the interest of the individuals, through the states to elect an executive. Congress is set up in a manner, tnough two houses, the upper chamber, that represents the States, equally, and the lower chamber that represents the people, and that's broken up via population, and in districts...giving the people a closer direct relations with their representatives. The idea being that the more local Govt is, the more in touch it can be to the citizens there. That's also why elections are run, even national ones, through the state and localities.

 

The President is supposed to represent the people not the electoral college.
The electoral college in no way protects the interest of individuals.

 

Illustrating yet again your hypocrisy.

 

The President is the Head of State; in that, he represents the United States.
The President is also the Head of Government, in that he executes the laws of the United States given to him by Congress.
Nowhere is he charged with being the representative of the people -- that task falls to both houses of Congress.

In the same vein, ketchup in no way protects the earth from asteroids.

 

No, the President is not the representative of the people. The House represents the people, the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govt. who's authority comes from the States.

 

Nonsense. You're deflecting into nonsense. Taking money from Goldman Sachs is one thing. Being the party of "individual freedom" and then supporting:

-the drug war
-prohibition of alternative medicine
-restrictions on ability to form a collective
-anti abortion, large government intervention


The list goes on and on. The GOP is no longer the party of individual liberty. It has muddled that message with -corporate and business liberty- and sold the entire rotten package to its voter base as still being "individual liberty."

It isn't.

 

How was it "intended" and by whom?

 

Then the founding fathers should have specified exactly what makeup the united state supreme court should have, if they intended for it to be created in a specific manner. They did not, therefore the claim is without factual merit.

 

They could not a forseen the two party system or the corruption that would come of it.
Show me where lobbying is in the constitution or FPTP.

 

It was intended to be a method of checks and balance, not to be used to shove ideology down people’s throats.

 

Well that is why we need to get partisan liberal judges off the bench and texturalist and constitutionalist who will interpret the Constitution as written and not try to legislate new law.

 

They opposed Bjork and succeeded in getting him rejected by the Senate, which is normal procedure. Obama's nominee never even got the courtesy of interviews or a hearing. He wasn't given any part of the normal procedure. How can you claim any equivalency? None exists.

 

While it might have been an idea expressed in a speech by Biden, it was never actually done until McConnell did it against Obama's nominee. There's a substantial difference between suggesting an action and actually doing it. You can't claim Biden or Democrats started it because McConnell was the first to take it from an idea to an actual process. It's totally due to Republicans & especially McConnell that we're in such a mess as we're now in.

 

The number of members of the Supreme Court has fluctuated all through US history..

 

That is just not an accurate statement. It fluctuated for the first 75 years or so of U.S. History, but has been constant for the past 150.

 

Yes after the last agriculture presidential candidate was defeated and corporate America got its first president...But you are wrong, it's only been 149 years..

 

ROFLOLOL!! Thank you for helping me prove my point.

 

Biden thought it was a good idea - why do you hate Joe Biden?

 

It's hard to take your post seriously, so I won't