Old Progressive Argument About The Senate

[GURPS]

Calling the Senate “malapportioned,” he argued that the Constitution gave “extra representation to Republicans in small states” — and that was the real reason that Democrats were unlikely to regain the majority (according to his math) until 2030 or even later.

“If Sotomayor and Kagan do not retire within the next two years, in other words, they could doom the entire country to live under a 7–2 or even an 8–1 Court controlled by an increasingly radicalized Republican Party’s appointees,” Millhiser complained.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern agreed with Millhiser, saying, “I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously.”

Vox Writer Slams RBG ‘Arrogance,’ Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Take One For The Team And Retire

Vox writer Ian Millhiser slammed late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “arrogance” and called on sitting Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to consider retiring rather than risk the possibility of an unfavorable Senate makeup later. “Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about...

www.dailywire.com

 

[Kyle]

The Constitution did no such thing.

It's construction isn't guided by, tied to or dependent upon any political party.

And the GOP didn't even exist at that time.

 

[vraiblonde]

REMINDER: These two aren't dolts. They're paid operatives talking to Democrat voters who ARE the dolts.

 

[SamSpade]

They don't quite get the purpose of the Senate - or perhaps they do, but don't give a rat's ass anymore.

Senators - ideally - represent their state and not the party. They were originally appointed by the state legislature of their respective states - they were the voice of that state, in Washington. Try if you will, to imagine sending a representative of your company to headquarters to address the needs of your local establishment - only to learn upon his return, that he didn't represent you AT ALL. Say, no upgrades to your machines, no response to the needs for leave and employment - just, whatever was going on at headquarters. He talked with other reps, and they all discussed matters of virtually ZERO concern for you - or WORSE - maybe they decided on things that will make things WORSE for your company.

That's what the Senate has BECOME. A mechanism for national parties with their own agenda to make legislation. It doesn't matter if your state WANTS fracking - the issue is going to be resolved by several dozen Senators who don't have ANY fracking, in their state. It doesn't matter if the people of YOUR state want or don't want national laws on abortion - the Senator is going to go with his party. Yeah, I hear ya - he gets voted out if he does that. Maybe. Usually not. The issue is, he's wholly committed to the idea of going with the PARTY.

So you get people who, say - want to end fracking, who live in Massachusetts or Washington State or somewhere they don't HAVE it - and they complain that YOUR Senator is a Republican and they can't end it in YOUR state. Because it's all PARTY.

 

[Kyle]

They don't quite get the purpose of the Senate - or perhaps they do, but don't give a rat's ass anymore.

Senators - ideally - represent their state and not the party.

 

[SamSpade]

REMINDER: These two aren't dolts. They're paid operatives talking to Democrat voters who ARE the dolts.

No - but I suspect they're so used to the way things are DONE, they've long forgotten or dismissed how things are SUPPOSED to work. It's like those people SO committed to freedom of speech, that they feel compelled to shut down "hate speech" so they can preserve the freedom. They view such "freedom" as "threats to democracy" and lampoon those who disagree as ignorant buffoons.

It's like those harpies in Washington who rail against "tax cuts" as a needless "expense" - ignoring that taxes are OUR money that they took from us.

 

[SamSpade]

BTW - I believe the "leak" came from one of those two justice's staffs. Of course, someone in Washington knows and has no intention of leaking THAT bit of news, and I'm willing to wager no further "investigation" will ever yield the answer.

 

[herb749]

Calling the Senate “malapportioned,” he argued that the Constitution gave “extra representation to Republicans in small states” — and that was the real reason that Democrats were unlikely to regain the majority (according to his math) until 2030 or even later.

“If Sotomayor and Kagan do not retire within the next two years, in other words, they could doom the entire country to live under a 7–2 or even an 8–1 Court controlled by an increasingly radicalized Republican Party’s appointees,” Millhiser complained.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern agreed with Millhiser, saying, “I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously.”

Vox Writer Slams RBG ‘Arrogance,’ Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Take One For The Team And Retire

Vox writer Ian Millhiser slammed late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “arrogance” and called on sitting Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to consider retiring rather than risk the possibility of an unfavorable Senate makeup later. “Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about...

www.dailywire.com

Brilliant .???? Those 2 ask some of the dumbest questions that they can't understand what's being argued.

 

[Hijinx]

3 women on the court , None of which are Blonde, but they all vote like Blondes.

Maybe they are just identify as blondes.

 

[SamSpade]

You want to know what's weird? There was a time when all of the South was Democrat - the Northeast was fairly reliably Republican - and California was Republican.

The problem with the current crop of Democrats is, they only appeal to urban dwellers. You can even see that with the Congressional district or county voting maps - their votes are all in the heavy population centers. There WAS a time, when rural people voted Democrat.

It's not that the states are "malapportioned". It's a simple matter of getting elected and running on issues that appeal to voters of that state. The problem is that national politics is more important than state concerns. If Governors and Senators and Representatives ran on issues that mattered to their constituents - they could win. But it doesn't work that way, and it's not JUST the fault of parties. People like Oz should have won in Pennsylvania based on local issues. But every campaign focuses on national issues, as though local ones are of NO concern, and why issues that have NO LOCAL value get vaulted into the mainstream.

There's a lot of crap going on in the news that you and I need to NOT care about. Because it doesn't matter if one Congressman has a view on this or that NATIONAL issue that she has NO ability to affect when you can rely on HER to ditch Amazon and lose a shot at bringing JOBS to her district.

 

[GURPS]

It's not that the states are "malapportioned"

The Progressive Talking Point is ' small ' states should NOT have 2 senators