Amy Coney Barret confirmed and sworn in.

[SAJ-99]

Research the Supreme Court nominations thru history and which ones got approved and which parties held the Whitehouse, senate, and house at the time of each nomination and you will understand why this is a bogus comparison.

House has no say in the process. since 1900 I counted 16 times the two branches were held by different parties and the nominee was confirmed. 3 times they were rejected and 2 times the name was withdrawn (note: this happened 8 times when the branches were the same party). Check to make sure my numbers are right. What and I supposed to conclude from that again?
What I do notice is that the votes were rarely close. Robert Bork (Rej 42-58) and Clarence Thomas (Con 52-48) seemed to be the start of the shitshow we see today. Maybe people getting nominated were all qualified up to that point?

 

[Losing_Sanity]

That's what the confirmation process is about, checks and balances. Instead, it has become power struggle between the parties and the one who nominates. Seems the person's qualifications don't really matter in today's politics.

 

[TheGrayRider]

 

[VikingsGuy]

View attachment 159940

Just to keep this fact-based, there is no written record of Jefferson ever saying this.

 

[Dougfirtree]

The EC is not about one person being worth less than another, it is one of a dozen or so elements put in place to protect the minority from the majority. I understand the obvious emotional appeal to a pure and true democracy, but I think history shows that total power given to 51% of citizens over 49% does not end well for either. Frankly if I was going to eliminate one of these, I would punt the filibuster once and for all.

But when it comes to presidential elections, that is exactly what it does. It hurts us in two different ways. First, by essentially giving all the power to a handful of states where the political balance is fairly even, then again by making the vote of a citizen in one state literally worth more than the vote of another citizen in another state. My vote for president, in New York, will literally mean less, in terms of electoral votes, than the vote of someone in Wyoming. And doing away with the EC would not destroy the intent of the founders with regard to smaller, or less populous states. The U.S. Senate would still offer protection there.

 

[Irrelevant]

The EC is not about one person being worth less than another, it is one of a dozen or so elements put in place to protect the minority from the majority. I understand the obvious emotional appeal to a pure and true democracy, but I think history shows that total power given to 51% of citizens over 49% does not end well for either.

So instead of 51%, 52% is sufficient. Got it, makes total sense. Let's keep redrawing those voting boundaries while we're at it.

Like I said, I predict the EC will go away. "All men are created equal"

Edit:
We've already done away with most of those "dozen or so" elements.

 

[BigHornRam]

But when it comes to presidential elections, that is exactly what it does. It hurts us in two different ways. First, by essentially giving all the power to a handful of states where the political balance is fairly even, then again by making the vote of a citizen in one state literally worth more than the vote of another citizen in another state. My vote for president, in New York, will literally mean less, in terms of electoral votes, than the vote of someone in Wyoming. And doing away with the EC would not destroy the intent of the founders with regard to smaller, or less populous states. The U.S. Senate would still offer protection there.

If New York keeps driving people out of your state like they are currently doing, and you get down to the population of Wyoming, your individual vote will get you equal clout in the electoral college as it would if you lived in Wyoming. Something to shoot for there.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So instead of 51%, 52% is sufficient. Got it, makes total sense. Let's keep redrawing those voting boundaries while we're at it.

Like I said, I predict the EC will go away. "All men are created equal"

Edit:
We've already done away with most of those "dozen or so" elements.

‘All men are created equal’ is morally true but is not a form of government. Under our constitution the states elect the president not the individual citizens. Maybe it will change or maybe not, but most modern national leaders are not elected by a direct popular vote so this is hardly some outrageous outlier. Frankly the bigger problem is the inability of the two parties to put forth candidates that actually reflect a majority view. They pick party hacks and dare citizens to ‘waste their vote’ on 3rd party options.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If New York keeps driving people out of your state like they are currently doing, and you get down to the population of Wyoming, your individual vote will get you equal clout in the electoral college as it would if you lived in Wyoming. Something to shoot for there.

More likely (and ironically) NY and CA will keep driving out citizens who move to the mountain west while still voting Dem - thereby making the rural west Dem strongholds and Dems will stop whining about the EC and the Senate.

 

[Dougfirtree]

More likely (and ironically) NY and CA will keep driving out citizens who move to the mountain west while still voting Dem - thereby making the rural west Dem strongholds and Dems will stop whining about the EC and the Senate.

So true. And what's really interesting to me, is that right now, it's the left complaining about the EC because it works against them. But, we're watching the population dynamics changing in states like Georgia and Texas. We could actually see Texas vote blue in my lifetime. It won't be long before the right is feeling this hurt in a big way. If population trends continue, the Republican party is going to either take a big step left, or it's going to die.

 

[Western Traveler1]

More likely (and ironically) NY and CA will keep driving out citizens who move to the mountain west while still voting Dem - thereby making the rural west Dem strongholds and Dems will stop whining about the EC and the Senate.

...and it is noticeably underway. All one has to do is look to Colorado, Arizona and Texas to name an obvious few...

 

[noharleyyet]

View attachment 159940

Richard Blumenthal said that during the Battle of Appomattox...

 

[BigHornRam]

So true. And what's really interesting to me, is that right now, it's the left complaining about the EC because it works against them. But, we're watching the population dynamics changing in states like Georgia and Texas. We could actually see Texas vote blue in my lifetime. It won't be long before the right is feeling this hurt in a big way. If population trends continue, the Republican party is going to either take a big step left, or it's going to die.

Good! So stop complaining about the EC already.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Good! So stop complaining about the EC already.

Ok, back to hunting, I guess..

 

[antlerradar]

More likely (and ironically) NY and CA will keep driving out citizens who move to the mountain west while still voting Dem - thereby making the rural west Dem strongholds and Dems will stop whining about the EC and the Senate.

My not be true. The Gov. Texas stated that last election 58% of new resident from other states voted for far right Ted Cruz. If this is true then states like NY and CA will lean more to the left and have less representation and states like Texas will lean more right and have more representation. The recent leftward shift in some state may have more to do with new immigrants and not from people moving from other states.

 

[antlerradar]

But when it comes to presidential elections, that is exactly what it does. It hurts us in two different ways. First, by essentially giving all the power to a handful of states where the political balance is fairly even, then again by making the vote of a citizen in one state literally worth more than the vote of another citizen in another state. My vote for president, in New York, will literally mean less, in terms of electoral votes, than the vote of someone in Wyoming. And doing away with the EC would not destroy the intent of the founders with regard to smaller, or less populous states. The U.S. Senate would still offer protection there.

If the vote in NY and CA are meaningless we should just remove them from the Electoral Collage

 

[antlerradar]

The EC is not about one person being worth less than another, it is one of a dozen or so elements put in place to protect the minority from the majority. I understand the obvious emotional appeal to a pure and true democracy, but I think history shows that total power given to 51% of citizens over 49% does not end well for either. Frankly if I was going to eliminate one of these, I would punt the filibuster once and for all.

The problem with the filibuster is that there is very little political pain for the group with 41 to 49/50 votes.

 

[BigHornRam]

The problem with the filibuster is that there is very little political pain for the group with 41 to 49/50 votes.

Unless they are on the wrong side of the fence with big tech and the MSM. Then the pain is real.

 

[SAJ-99]

Exactly my point. The house has no say. Its the senate and Whitehouse. Who had the senate when Obama nominated Garland?

I am going to avoid answering questions you know the answer. The summary takeaway is that these fights over SCOTUS nominees are relatively recent. To imply that it is "politics as usual" is just not true.

 

[longbow51]