Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 192
#91
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@thett3
And before any Dems start complaining about how the small states make it impossible for democrats to win the senate (having never heard of Vermont, Delaware, Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Hawaii)...there was a democratic senate majority for years and there will be one again, most likely as soon as January 2021. All arguments to the contrary are just excuses to rig the system to ensure that instead of having a fair playing field that Dems cannot lose again, by adding deep blue “states” such as DC and packing the court every time they suffer the consequences of losing an election. 
People don’t seem to like the Connecticut Compromise anymore because it doesn’t fit the narrative. The Senate is effectively a check to the House and vice versa
#92
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@ILikePie5
People don’t seem to like the Connecticut Compromise anymore because it doesn’t fit the narrative. The Senate is effectively a check to the House and vice versa
Right. The big states already get their fair share of representation in the House of Representatives. This was the deal made to smaller states in order to get them to agree to join the union. Maybe this isn't how everyone would build the system if we were starting from scratch again (although I would), but it's the system we have and there is nothing inherently unjust about it. And I would argue that it isn't even that disadvantageous for democrats considering that senators in the smallest states are evenly split and likely to be more democratic than republican after the next election.

All of this "abolish the senate" talk is just leftists whining that they "waste" a lot of votes by running up a gigantic margin in California. They think having a monopoly on one state should ensure them a permanent majority. Before the 2010 midterms democrats held senate seats in North Dakota, South Dakota,  Nebraska, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri,  Alaska, and Louisiana. They held both seats in Montana and West Virginia and now only hold one in each state. These seats have been whittled away over the past decade. Maybe if they ran on a platform that didn't alienate an incredibly diverse set of states that they used to be competitive in they would be in a better position. 

It’s just funny to think that you have a party that in very recent history was competitive in all parts of the country, from coast to coast and from as far north as Alaska and the Dakotas all the way down to the Deep South. A party that very recently accomplished the holy grail of politics, when they briefly had a filibuster proof majority. And suddenly when this party starts losing in all kinds of places it used to win the issue is with the system and not the party 
#93
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@thett3
All of this "abolish the senate" talk is just leftists whining that they "waste" a lot of votes by running up a gigantic margin in California.
Nah. Here's what I said:

[The senate] may have been a good idea at the time, but times have changed. Populations and communities have shifted across state borders, and people don't really identify with their states as much as they did back then, except maybe Texans seem to have a Texas thing going on.
More generally I view the senate as frustrating the will of the people, and the electoral college as well, especially the first-past-the-post allocation of the electoral votes.
#94
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
More generally I view the senate as frustrating the will of the people
Why? The Connecticut Compromise was designed so smaller states can have power too. It was essential to the foundation of the nation. Otherwise, we’ve seen how majority rule has played out in history
#95
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
I view it that way because that's what it does. They had to throw the smaller states a bone so that they'd get with the program. There wasn't anything inherently good about it. Citizens in smaller states should have equal voting power as citizens in larger states. One man, one vote. That is fair.
#96
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
There wasn't anything inherently good about it. Citizens in smaller states should have equal voting power as citizens in larger states. One man, one vote. That is fair.
It completes the decentralization of the federal government- a core aspect of the concept of federalism. Citizens in smaller states have more voting power in the Senate while those larger states have more in the House. Just the way it was intended to work. One man one vote prospect didn’t hold up historically. 
#97
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
Not really. Decentralization was accomplished by sharing powers between the states and the federal government. It is not true that citizens in larger states have more voting power in the house. Citizens have roughly equal voting power in the house because representation is based on population.
#98
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
Not really. Decentralization was accomplished by sharing powers between the states and the federal government.
And the Senate was part of it. At that time the State Legislatures selected the Senators so that it was in the best interests of the States - at least until the passage of the 17th Amendment.

It is not true that citizens in larger states have more voting power in the house. Citizens have roughly equal voting power in the house because representation is based on population.
Not really. Larger states have more representatives than smaller states which means they have more influence. California’s House delegation has more impact in the House than North Dakota’s House delegation.
#99
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
And the Senate was part of it. At that time the State Legislatures selected the Senators so that it was in the best interests of the States - at least until the passage of the 17th Amendment.
You said "decentralization". I don't see how the existence or non-existence of the senate has any impact on decentralization.

Not really. Larger states have more representatives than smaller states which means they have more influence. California’s House delegation has more impact in the House than North Dakota’s House delegation.
OK. Lets look at exactly what you said:

Citizens in smaller states have more voting power in the Senate while those larger states have more in the House
Looking at this again, it's not clear exactly what you meant. But it looks like you were saying that citizens in larger states have more voting power in the house than citizens in smaller states. A citizen in North Dakota has roughly the same voting power in the house as a citizen in California. Also, California's house delegation should have more impact because there is a greater number of citizens in California. I don't really have any sense of fidelity or loyalty to any state, and I don't think most people do either. They're mostly lines on maps and a lot of red tape when you move to a different one.

#100
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
You said "decentralization". I don't see how the existence or non-existence of the senate has any impact on decentralization.
I already said how some power is shifted from the federal govt to the states under the Connecticut Compromise.

A citizen in North Dakota has roughly the same voting power in the house as a citizen in California. Also, California's house delegation should have more impact because there is a greater number of citizens in California. I don't really have any sense of fidelity or loyalty to any state, and I don't think most people do either. They're mostly lines on maps and a lot of red tape when you move to a different one.
No he doesn’t. North Dakota has one representative total in the House representing his state’s view. California has 53 representatives in the House representing views. The 53 House delegation forms up about a quarter of the votes necesssry to pass legislation in the House while ND has less than 0.05%. Our nation is a constitutional republic. Your elected representatives represent you in Congress, but as we know states have partisan leans meaning your House delegation in hyper partisan left states will have more voting power in the House compared to North Dakota.

What you are advocating for is a form of government that violates the interests of smaller states that disagree with you politically. That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to solve - the small states having checks on larger states and vice versa. It’s genius. By living in California you choose to have a state delegation of disproportionate impact in the House while not so much in the Senate. It’s vice versa for North Dakota. But take Pennsylvania tho - evenly divided House and Senate, and PA is a swing state.

One person one vote is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid - tyranny of the majority. If it were in place, Jim Crow, hell even slavery wouldn’t have been repealed because they were both favored by the majority of the people even though it was immoral.
#101
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Death23
I view it that way because that's what it does. They had to throw the smaller states a bone so that they'd get with the program. There wasn't anything inherently good about it. Citizens in smaller states should have equal voting power as citizens in larger states. One man, one vote. That is fair.
That’s not fair, actually. That’s how you get things like swathes of Nevada being turned into a nuclear waste dump, which was only stopped due to opposition from Senator Harry Reid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Frankly I don’t see why the will of the “people” matters. The idea that the United States is one “people” is utterly absurd, which is why federalism is credited. A party that can manage to run up a broad coalition that’s competitive in California, New England, the rural Midwest, Alaska, and the Deep South (aka the Democratic Party until like 2015) is a better party than one that can only win in a handful of places, even if those places are quite populated. When that party is electorally punished for alienating portions of its former base we should all celebrate. 

Moreover I don’t see any evidence that the senate obstructs the will of the “people” considering that both the ten largest and the ten smallest states are evenly split between the parties. 
#102
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Death23
[The senate] may have been a good idea at the time, but times have changed. Populations and communities have shifted across state borders, and people don't really identify with their states as much as they did back then, except maybe Texans seem to have a Texas thing going on.
This is the wrong way of looking at it. Just because people don’t have patriotic feelings towards their state doesn’t mean that there aren’t large cultural differences between states. As a person born and raised in Texas, there is a very big cultural difference between me and someone from, say, Vermont or Michigan. The cultural gap would be far larger between a farmer in Alabama and someone who has spent their whole life in Brooklyn.

The United States is an incredibly large, decentralized, and diverse country. Both the senate and the electoral college reward running up small margins in a diverse array of places over large margins in a handful. This minimizes conflict, as you can only alienate so many groups of people before you aren’t competitive, and even groups you do alienate retain a lot of power that can be used against you. The president from Tennessee can’t abuse the people of Vermont, even if he does not like them, because the senators from Vermont have significant power. He cannot alienate the people from North Dakota, even though they have a vastly different culture, because if he does they may return senators from the opposing party. Federalism encourages a delicate balancing act that is necessary to maintain peace in a country where, let’s face it, we really have nothing in common. 
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The idea that states were culturally different 200 years ago but now they are suddenly not is the most ludicrous sentiment I have seen in a while.

We need the Electoral College more than ever.
#104
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
California is the 1700s version of Virginia. The same arguments liberals put out right now were put by large states like Virgina
#105
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@thett3
We must develop your sense of community. The communist sodomites of San Francisco aren't out to get you.
#106
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
We must develop your sense of community. The communist sodomites of San Francisco aren't out to get you.
Nor are the rednecks of North Dakota
#107
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
What do you think about gerrymandering? Good or bad?
#108
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
What do you think about gerrymandering? Good or bad?
Constitutional. Except for obvious cases like racial gerrymanders - courts already found that unconstitutional.
#109
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
I asked for your judgment as to whether it was good or bad. I did not ask whether or not it was constitutional or unconstitutional.
#110
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
I asked for your judgment as to whether it was good or bad. I did not ask whether or not it was constitutional or unconstitutional.
My opinion doesn’t matter. All I care about is whether it’s constitutional or not. I have no preference as to whether it’s good or bad because it has been done since the late 1700s. Both parties engage in it.
#111
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
Gerrymandering's generally regarded as one of the more despicable practices in modern politics, with large grassroots majorities in both parties opposed to it.

This is a situation where I've asked a question, someone hasn't answered it, I then asked it again, and it still went unanswered. The most reasonable inference when one is faced with avoidant answers is that the person who is not answering the question is hiding something. So, what am I to infer that you are hiding?

I think you're hiding your opinion (obviously), and I think that your opinion is probably that gerrymandering is bad, particularly since you drew attention to the fact that both parties do it.  But why would you hide that opinion? Presumably because answering the question honestly forces you to admit that you believe there is value in representing the people. The consent of the governed is best obtained by accurately representing the people, and gerrymandering frustrates that purpose. But such a belief  would conflict with other positions you take with respect to the senate and the electoral college. Are those positions reconcilable? Perhaps, but it would be difficult to do so.

Of course, this is just hopeful speculation. Perhaps you believe in nothing but the rules of the game and more power for the GoP. Perhaps you would be supportive of a constitutional amendment making the United States a one-party state, like China, where only members of the GoP can hold any office.
#112
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
Of course, this is just hopeful speculation. Perhaps you believe in nothing but the rules of the game and more power for the GoP. Perhaps you would be supportive of a constitutional amendment making the United States a one-party state, like China, where only members of the GoP can hold any office.
Likewise. The Democrats don’t hold the moral high ground and never will.
#113
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Imagine changing the constitution in the era of cancel culture.
#114
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
I personally think the 17th Amendment was a disaster. Does it make it more democratic? Sure. Did it solve the problem it was created to cause? Nope. Is gerrymandering undemocratic? Sure. Is it unconstitutional? Nope because the states have the powers to draw lines as they see fit. The federal government has nothing to do with it unless it’s a racial gerrymander. The state courts are a different story. If you want to end gerrymandering, maybe you should take the high ground first before lecturing me.

#115
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine changing the constitution in the era of cancel culture.
Gerrymandering is constitutional whether he likes it or not. Just like how abortion is constitutional right now.
#116
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
When was the last time Congress had their shit together to change the constitution?


1992. And it was a law written in 1791.

So gtfo with the Congress can change the constitution bullshit.

States will never ratify a repeal of gerrymandering, so why even bring it up?

The Country has other problems that can't be addressed due to a toxic culture in Congress. 
#117
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
maybe you should take the high ground first before lecturing me.
How?

#118
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
How?
By telling your own party to end gerrymandering in states that they control 
#119
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@ILikePie5
@Death23
By telling your own party to end gerrymandering in states that they control 

Is Death a democrat?
#120
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Username
Is Death a democrat?
He’s a socialist. Nuf said