What do you like best about a Democratic President?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't recall hearing anything about "serial" rapist. Just one accusation, not a pattern of facts.


***
The notion that SCOTUS should be "balanced" in terms of 2 parties is nonsense. That was never its design intent.

The notion that a political minority deserves equal representation as the majority doesn't sound too American, to me.

[boost]

I don't recall hearing anything about "serial" rapist. Just one accusation, not a pattern of facts.


***
The notion that SCOTUS should be "balanced" in terms of 2 parties is nonsense. That was never its design intent.

The notion that a political minority deserves equal representation as the majority doesn't sound too American, to me.

Did I use the term "balanced"? My key point was that the supreme court, if it is not ideologically out of step with the public at this point, it certainly will be with another Federalist Society appointee replacing a swing or left learning justice. Either way, design intent and real world function are two different things. The founders didn't intend to design a two party system, yet here we are, two parties appears to be the only stable state of the system.

As for your second sentiment, I'm not sure how it relates to the first.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Did I use the term "balanced"? My key point was that the supreme court, if it is not ideologically out of step with the public at this point, it certainly will be with another Federalist Society appointee replacing a swing or left learning justice. Either way, design intent and real world function are two different things. The founders didn't intend to design a two party system, yet here we are, two parties appears to be the only stable state of the system.

As for your second sentiment, I'm not sure how it relates to the first.

I am skeptical that out of step with what you and I believe is out of step with the majority of Americans. It seems more likely to me that you and I are out of step with the majority.

I'm thought the founders did set up the Constitution for a 2 party system. I'm willing to be corrected, but too lazy to do the work myself.

My 2nd statement was just saying that if you and I are the ones that are out of step with the majority, then we have no reason to expect SCOTUS to be making rulings in favor of our perspectives.

[boost]

I am skeptical that out of step with what you and I believe is out of step with the majority of Americans. It seems more likely to me that you and I are out of step with the majority.

I'm curious what leads you to believe this is more likely. Here's what informs my opinion: A significant voting block, but not the totality of the party which has consistently received a minority of votes in the last several presidential elections has been animated by the promise of judges that align with them. To maintain the vote of this demographic, this party has elected to only nominate justices that have passed a stringent ideological litmus test. By luck of the draw and by gaming the system (blocking the nominations of the other party) this party has been able to appoint more justices than an even distribution would allow. These justices have been selected by a subset of the minority party.

I'm thought the founders did set up the Constitution for a 2 party system. I'm willing to be corrected, but too lazy to do the work myself.

No. Washington explicitly was against factions, what we know call parties. They were seen as antithetical to the American experiment, as they would result in partisan squabbling at the cost of better governance. The elected should serve their constituencies-- having loyalties to a faction or party creates a clear conflict.

My 2nd statement was just saying that if you and I are the ones that are out of step with the majority, then we have no reason to expect SCOTUS to be making rulings in favor of our perspectives.

I don't grant your premise that the majority of the population is happy with the conservative weighted supreme court, but at the same time I also don't find your appeal to unchecked democracy convincing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm curious what leads you to believe this is more likely. Here's what informs my opinion: A significant voting block, but not the totality of the party which has consistently received a minority of votes in the last several presidential elections has been animated by the promise of judges that align with them. To maintain the vote of this demographic, this party has elected to only nominate justices that have passed a stringent ideological litmus test. By luck of the draw and by gaming the system (blocking the nominations of the other party) this party has been able to appoint more justices than an even distribution would allow. These justices have been selected by a subset of the minority party.

I mean... you make excellent points, but you seem really invested in the R vs D thing as the right-and-good place to draw the line of who vs. who.
I really don't think there's that much difference between R's and D's at the top levels of government. The words they use are different, but their actions are the same.

I'm talking about having a generally humanist view on the world vs. whatever exclusionism, broadly, for lack of a better word, gets both R's and D's in the same level of fervor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No. Washington explicitly was against factions, what we know call parties. They were seen as antithetical to the American experiment, as they would result in partisan squabbling at the cost of better governance. The elected should serve their constituencies-- having loyalties to a faction or party creates a clear conflict.

OK.

Kinda hard to see it go any other way, given the system they put in place, though.
They were only people, after all. Times have changed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't grant your premise that the majority of the population is happy with the conservative weighted supreme court, but at the same time I also don't find your appeal to unchecked democracy convincing.

I'm not really in line with your acceptance of the political narrative as presented in the media.
C'mon.
Biden is the Dem candidate.

Just.
SMH.

The American Dems have picked Biden.


And you think they're your team in this? You think those people's pick for SCOTUS has you in mind?