Post 2020 USA Presidential Election Riots

[DrewC]

@Mr_PBH

You could explain why it is you think that.

I already did in my original post. Representation should be proportional to population. You can reread it if you want.

[Mr_PBH]

Isn’t that what the House is for?

[rowland]

Someone’s idea of a staunch conservative:

Yeah baby.

[DrewC]

@Mr_PBH

Isn’t that what the House is for?

And I think it should be for all branches of power, so I disagree with how the Senate acts as a representative body. Ya done?

[Mr_PBH]

@DrewC

And I think it should be for all branches of power

So you think SCOTUS should also be representative?

[DrewC]

@rowland

Someone’s idea of a staunch conservative:

To quote you:

@rowland

I have no idea what that even means, and I suspect you don’t either.

[DrewC]

@Mr_PBH

So you think SCOTUS should also be representative?

SCOTUS doesn’t represent state populations.

[Mick]

@DrewC

If you’re able to read an NYTimes article without turning into dust, you might see that he’s sided with the conservative wing 93% of the time over the years. But you guys are so in the tank for whatever Trump or other rabble-rousers say about him, that you refuse to actually look at the facts.

Behind a paywall, but regarding % of rulings, that needs to be weighed against consequence of rulings. If 7% of the consequential rulings all went the way of Democrats and 93% were inconsequential, then you have your blue dog in red overalls.

[Mr_PBH]

@DrewC

SCOTUS doesn’t represent state populations.

You said ALL branches of power.

[DrewC]

@Mick

If 7% of the consequential rulings all went the way of Democrats and 93% were inconsequential, then you have your blue dog in red overalls.

They’re not inconsequential. Does ‘Citizens United’ ring a bell? One of the most monumental decisions of the past 30 years and he led the 5-4 conservative wing in that. That will shape elections in the country for years to come. He also overturned the Civil Rights act, one of the biggest liberal laws ever enacted.

You guys are just sour against him because every legal mind knows the ACA challenges are dubious and have weak standing. And his refusal to overturn it is 90% of the reason most conservatives think he’s a liberal, which is the shallow end of the pool when it comes to reasoning.

[rowland]

Not sure it’s their job to consider consequences. They’re supposed to focus on the law.

Consequences are for voters to deal with. Everyone else is too out of touch.

If the law has bad consequences, change the law. That’s not the Supreme’s legitimate role. It’s up to legislators. But legislators are out of touch, so the voters have to force the issue.

[DrewC]

@Mr_PBH

You said ALL branches of power.

You don’t elect SCOTUS judges. They’re appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Just like cabinet members. I can’t believe I really need to break this down for you.

[Mick]

@rowland

Not sure it’s their job to consider consequences. They’re supposed to focus on the law.

Consequences are for voters to deal with. Everyone else is too out of touch.

My point was more along the lines that some decisions carry more weight than others, actually @DrewC picked up on this correctly.

But and I might save this for tomorrow, regarding John Robberts, its far from limited to the ACA.

[Mr_PBH]

I’m just reading what you wrote dood. Spare me the gaslighting.

YOu wrote:

@DrewC

And I think it should be for all branches of power, so I disagree with how the Senate acts as a representative body. Ya done?

What are the three branches of power? Those checks and balances?

[DrewC]

@Mr_PBH

What are the three branches of power? Those checks and balances?

Well, if my original criticism is how the Senate is chosen… and the Senate can confirm or block SCOTUS Judges… then I’ll let you connect the dots.

[Mr_PBH]

That’s some pretty good contortionism.

I’d prefer to watch you connect the dots.

SO, I think we can agree that you think the way the federal government holds the country together needs an upgrade based largely upon where people live? Will those numbers be taken from the census…which also counts non citizens?

[DrewC]

Oy vey… give me strength, lord. Discussing things with you is as exhausting as explaining physics to a house cat. I’m not going to get into some tangent about census conspiracy theories now. If this keeps going we’d probably end up discussing Vince Foster by the time you gave up. Besides, if you doubt census results then you probably think the House members are elected on fraudulent grounds as well.

[Mr_PBH]

I haven’t presented any conspiracy theories.

You want a “more representative” government…including apparently the SCOTUS.

The number of House members is directly related to the census.

You want, but you don’t seem to know how to get what you want or how getting what you want is problematic.

And I’m not doubting census results. Where did you get that from? If anything I suggested that using a census which includes non citizens to restructure the how the number of House members are determined is problematic.

[Wee]

They means the right.
They won’t be rioting because they are satisfied.

[DrewC]

No, you are deliberately obtuse. You don’t win on logic, but wear down the other person by nitpicking irrelevant details until the other person throws their hands up in frustration.

I’ve already explained the Senate‘s connection to picking SCOTUS. And yes, you did sound like you were doubting the census, so thank you for clarifying. But it sounds like you want to have a completely DIFFERENT discussion about the census, then I’m trying to have. My only point is THIS and it’s been clear from the start: House members are chosen based on regional populations. That’s how I think the Senate should be chosen as well. And if info from the census is good enough for the House, then it’s good enough for the Senate.