The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[seacoaster]

"He is highly qualified. A lot better than RGB, Sotomayor and Kagan. But don't see you bitching about those unqualified women."

This one is genius. Couldn't have concocted one better myself.

Here's a tip, my tiny little Pistolero: Which of the four -- your three above and Kavanaugh -- has never tried a case in a court? Who suggested to President Obama that Kagan was the best choice he could make for a Justice of the Supreme Court? How many more cases did RBG argue before the Supreme Court prior to her nomination to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit?

This may be why you don't see anyone, anyone credible anyway, "bitching about those unqualified women."

N.B.: What's with the automatic emoji insert? I write A R G U E and get two yellow heads shouting at one another. Ick.

[MDlaxfan76]

Congressional Dems don't have to lift a finger. The libs and the media will make all the noise.

You think Roberts is going to put up with any appearance of bias? I don't.

Kav is going to wind up recusing himself from a few cases in the coming years as a result of this circus.

Which is why a Dem House may feel it necessary to hold hearings, given pressure from "libs and media". I just doubt that it is done specifically re Kavanaugh.

I hope you're correct about Roberts but I'm not sure where that line gets drawn re "appearance of bias" with regard to partisanship. There will be a lot of issues that have a partisan aspect that may be difficult to require recusal.

The one that perhaps would be most directly relevant and that we may well see in the next year would have to do with a subpoena of a sitting President. I think that could well draw a demand of recusal by Roberts unless Kavanaugh indicated that his choice would be adverse to the authority of the POTUS and he'd be joining a majority opinion to that effect.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"He is highly qualified. A lot better than RGB, Sotomayor and Kagan. But don't see you bitching about those unqualified women."

This one is genius. Couldn't have concocted one better myself.

Here's a tip, my tiny little Pistolero: Which of the four -- your three above and Kavanaugh -- has never tried a case in a court? Who suggested to President Obama that Kagan was the best choice he could make for a Justice of the Supreme Court? How many more cases did RBG argue before the Supreme Court prior to her nomination to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit?

This may be why you don't see anyone, anyone credible anyway, "bitching about those unqualified women."

N.B.: What's with the automatic emoji insert? I write A R G U E and get two yellow heads shouting at one another. Ick.

Hannity is credible!

[ggait]

Do you think it's possible that a SCOTUS that is not disposed to this thinking could somehow thwart such as an effort...as unconstitutional or something?

67% of Dems and 58% of Reps support SCOTUS term limits. Justice Breyer has been outspoken in support. Would be great to see some institutionalist types (Roberts, Kennedy, Stevens) get on board.

Never heard the suggestion that this could be done via regular legislation. I've always assumed it would take a constitutional amendment.

[thatsmell]

"On both sides."

This is probably true. And the Democrats overreached and managed the situation badly.

But it was the Federalist Society that urged him on the President; it was the President that nominated him; it was the President and McConnell who persisted in the face of considerable distaste among the general public, a tepid effort in Round 1 with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and a Round 2 in which he revealed the unmistakable fact that he was a political partisan of the worst sort, unable to maintain any semblance of decorum or place. His mediocrity and mendacity is on the GOP.

We had pretty much the same "mediocre politicians" when we got Roberts and Kagan, both pretty much shining examples of what the country is looking for in a Justice of the Supreme Court. Super highly educated, experienced practitioners and lawyers, big thinkers, advocates before the very court on which they serve, and thoughtful jurists coming at problems from right and left, but with the institutional integrity of the Court and the Constitution in mind. Where have you gone William Brennan? The nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

My point was also that if both sides had acted more like adults and looked at the facts privately and sensibly, and been willing to compromise, we'd have gotten a better SCOTUS judge.

Instead,
Feinstein kept the BK accusation to herself and only got the wheels turning when it was politically beneficial. If she had told the Republicans earlier how serious the issue was, it should have been considered.
Once credible testimony was given, Republicans stonewalled, instead of listening to common sense and trying to nominate someone else.
The Dems were hellbent on playing gotcha.
The republicans hellbent on teaching the dems a lesson for palying gotcha.
THe republicans hellbent on getting someone in before the election
etc etc.
It all could have been avoided if the People in DC didnt play politics and act like aholes.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

you do realize 3 and 4 fundamentally and entirely run counter to the compromise founding the constitution

[CU77]

The big state / little state issue that produced that compromise was already moot by the time of the Civil War ….

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

so then we scrap it and then what- the 95 corridor elects your candidate, and the rest of america gets no representation?

[ggait]

you do realize 3 and 4 fundamentally and entirely run counter to the compromise founding the constitution

The electoral college (#3) today bears zero resemblance to why it was adopted to start.

First, the EC functions today the way it does only because the states (the states not the Constitution) have largely adopted the winner-take-all delegate allocation. Madison and Hamilton thought WTA was completely contrary to constitutional intent. After WTA emerged, Madison proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the practice. Failing to nail down how EC votes would be allocated was a huge oversight and blunder by Madison and Hamilton.

Second, the EC really was not intended to help small states. In fact, it was adopted as an accommodation to certain large population states. Specifically, those large states (like VA and SC) that had a big part of their populations in the form of non-voting slaves. Those southern states would have been significantly diluted in direct election by the voters. But due to the 3/5ths clause, the congressional representation and EC votes of those states were inflated. Which explains why so many of the early presidents were from...Virginia.

You may like how the EC functions today or not. But in no way was it designed to work this way. It is evidence of the FUBAR of the Founders, not their wisdom.

[salty dog]

so then we scrap it and then what- the 95 corridor elects your candidate, and the rest of america gets no representation?

In a couple decades, it won't matter. They'll be underwater. (see the Climate Change thread)
That's how flyover country will be repopulated, revived & reforested.

[tech37]

It is evidence of the FUBAR of the Founders, not their wisdom.

Oh...OK

The 19th century concept "tyranny of the majority" seems more relevant than ever. When one considers the "resistance" and/or "blue wave," or the condition of the Democrat Party for that matter, the EC is indispensable.

[Bandito]

you do realize 3 and 4 fundamentally and entirely run counter to the compromise founding the constitution

The electoral college (#3) today bears zero resemblance to why it was adopted to start.

First, the EC functions today the way it does only because the states (the states not the Constitution) have largely adopted the winner-take-all delegate allocation. Madison and Hamilton thought WTA was completely contrary to constitutional intent. After WTA emerged, Madison proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the practice. Failing to nail down how EC votes would be allocated was a huge oversight and blunder by Madison and Hamilton.

Second, the EC really was not intended to help small states. In fact, it was adopted as an accommodation to certain large population states. Specifically, those large states (like VA and SC) that had a big part of their populations in the form of non-voting slaves. Those southern states would have been significantly diluted in direct election by the voters. But due to the 3/5ths clause, the congressional representation and EC votes of those states were inflated. Which explains why so many of the early presidents were from...Virginia.

You may like how the EC functions today or not. But in no way was it designed to work this way. It is evidence of the FUBAR of the Founders, not their wisdom.

Again, you only complain about it because Hillary lost the EC. She didn't understand the game! What a moron. If she had won it, you would be praising how amazing it is. Btw the EC and 3/5th compromise have nothing in common. You need to brush up on your history you dumbass. Your statement is completely false and full of lies.

[dislaxxic]

It never seizes (sic) to amaze me how dumb you Democrats and liberals are.

If it quacks like a numbnut...

..

[dislaxxic]

RBG, that raving lefty, does the right thing and sets up one of Keganaugh's first judicial tests

"A dispute over a court-ordered deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross headed back to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night after a federal appeals court denied the Trump administration's request to block the testimony.

In an afternoon order, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department's request to halt the deposition in suits related to Ross' decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census.

However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who oversees the New York-based 2nd Circuit — put a temporary hold on that deposition Tuesday evening in response to an emergency stay application submitted by Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

The dispute about how much deference judges should show to executive branch officials could become the first matter new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh publicly votes on. Justice lawyers took the issue to the high court for the first time last week, asking Ginsburg to halt the planned deposition of Ross, as well as a deposition scheduled for Wednesday for the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, John Gore."

..

[cradleandshoot]

You mentioned RBG and what little I saw of the BK swearing in dog and pony show RBG sure looked very weak and frail. The fact she did not want to be there in the first place made it look even worse. It makes me wonder if Ruth is running out of time? clock1

[foreverlax]

you do realize 3 and 4 fundamentally and entirely run counter to the compromise founding the constitution

Regarding the EC - the idea of winner takes all is what bugs me. I could support you eat what your kill, you get 60% of the vote, you get 60% of the EC.

[jhu72]

A new CNN/SSRS poll shows that 51% of Americans oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court and only 41% approve of it. The breakdown is very partisan, with 91% of Democrats opposing him and 89% of Republicans supporting him. Also noteworthy is that 52% believe the women accusing him of sexual misconduct and only 38% believe his denials. Half of the respondents say his personal behavior disqualifies him from being on the Court. In short, his credibility problems aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[cradleandshoot]

any credibility issues are now a moot point. I know the dems are foaming at the mouth in rabid anger to impeach him. There will never be enough evidence to be successful in trying to do so. I would suggest that Dr Ford file criminal charges and see what happens in a court of law. Given all we know today, I doubt BK would ever be convicted seeing how Dr Ford has a major case of CRS to deal with. confused3

[dislaxxic]

What may NOT be moot is whether he recuses himself when issues come up that he has opined on before, or taken a position on as a flak attorney in the rightwing legal departments that supported torture, rendition and executive privilege. Roberts may not brook too many unseemly partisan antics from his newest culture warrier...

..

[a fan]

so then we scrap it and then what- the 95 corridor elects your candidate, and the rest of america gets no representation?

What does the rest of the nation need representation for? I thought all those States were self sufficient, and neither needed nor wanted a large Federal government?

You know doggone well what flyover America wants: it wants to call all the shots, and it wants Urban America to pick up the tab for their choices.

So the last Farm Bill, they penned in $4 Billion (yeah, that's with a B) in rural utility subsidies.

What we will see in the coming decades is a battle over money. The cities have it, rural America does not. All the rest of this crap is sound and fury.