Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[dismalist]

Think of the upside to this. The right will lose a talking point that the left can't win at the voting booth so they have to either go to the courts or bring in ringers from other countries to tilt the vote toward the type of governments that they had to escape. A right leaning court solves both of those issues simultaneously and makes the left more accountable to actual voters rather than the loudest communist with a social media platform.

And who, in this utopia of yours, holds the right to account when it oversteps its legal bounds?

Hell, who holds them to account politically when the electoral maps for the EC, Senate, and House are all so significantly tilted in one direction that defeating a Republican requires a surplus of millions each time? (Millions for the EC; proportionally more but numerically less for the others.)


Herrenvolk democracy, indeed.

Yup! So 

let's have direct elections of justices

[financeguy]

I find it amusing that one needs to arrive at a utopian society to be an improvement on the current state of affairs, as if we're presently hovering only "slightly below" this status.

[Parasaurolophus]

I find it amusing that one needs to arrive at a utopian society to be an improvement on the current state of affairs, as if we're presently hovering only "slightly below" this status.

I still don't understand who checks the minority right-wing party with all the power in your scenario.

So: fine, assume that the upside is that 'te left'is now somehow 'more accountable' to the people as a result. They're already more accountable, so-counted--by millions of votes. So your scenario seems us holding the more accountable group even more accountable, while the less accountable (unaccountable) group continues to do whatever it likes with impunity.

[financeguy]

.

[writingprof]

I still don't understand who checks the minority right-wing party with all the power in your scenario.

Minority of what?  The "right wing" is ascendant in a majority of the states.  The Constitution is a compact between the states.

[Hegemony]

Maybe in a majority of the states, but not for a majority of the people. Let's not forget that this "compact between the States" means that the country is not a true democracy, meaning a country in which every vote has equal weight.

[marshwiggle]

Maybe in a majority of the states, but not for a majority of the people. Let's not forget that this "compact between the States" means that the country is not a true democracy, meaning a country in which every vote has equal weight.

By that measure, any parliamentary democracy (and lots of other forms of government as well) are not "true democracies".

[Hegemony]

[/quote]

By that measure, any parliamentary democracy (and lots of other forms of government as well) are not "true democracies".
[/quote]

To quote the Bible, "Thou hast said it."

[marshwiggle]

By that measure, any parliamentary democracy (and lots of other forms of government as well) are not "true democracies".

To quote the Bible, "Thou hast said it."

So do you want a society where everyone has neural implants so that every decision now made by any level of government would be made by referendum? (And any malfunctioning implant should delay any subsequent voting until it's fixed since that would prevent that vote having "equal weight".)

God help us.

[little bongo]

You have to ignore a lot of nuances and differences between "democracy," "republic," and "democratic republic" to go right to neural implants.

[marshwiggle]

You have to ignore a lot of nuances and differences between "democracy," "republic," and "democratic republic" to go right to neural implants.

The point is that "equal weight" is an ideal that is only approximated in any form of democratic government. It's a convenient scapegoat for people who are unhappy with election results, (and that happens from all points along the political spectrum), but it's basically a smokescreen. True leadership requires the difficult and time-consuming task of building consensus, which if it is done will be successful despite the limitations of any specific democratic system.

Pandering to a specific group, (again, from anywhere on  the political spectrum), is vastly easier, and can have some success by leveraging the limitations of the particular system.

[writingprof]

Let's not forget that this "compact between the States" means that the country is not a true democracy, meaning a country in which every vote has equal weight.

I thank God for it.  May He bless the memory of the brilliant slaveholders who made it so.

Also, it now appears that Romney is backing the vote, which means the vote will succeed barring disaster.  Get your rape allegations ready.  My prediction is that Trump nominates Barbara Lagoa, and she turns out to be David Souter 2.0.

[Parasaurolophus]

I still don't understand who checks the minority right-wing party with all the power in your scenario.

Minority of what?  The "right wing" is ascendant in a majority of the states.  The Constitution is a compact between the states.

The popular vote, for elected positions. (Dems need to win by 2-3+ points in the electoral college, ~4+ points in House elections, and 6-7+ points in Senate elections.) That's how bad gerrymandering is, now.


For comparison's sake, Americans here might be interested to learn that basically no Canadian is able to name a single one of our Supreme Court justices. (I used to know two, but have now forgotten them, if they're even still on the court. By contrast, I can name 7 of the 8 remaining US justices offhand [I always forget Breyer].) Our court gets almost no media attention; but it also, crucially, doesn't seem to issue verdicts that just fall across party lines: you can't just predict their votes on issues based on (perceived) party affiliation.

[Puget]

The popular vote, for elected positions. (Dems need to win by 2-3+ points in the electoral college, ~4+ points in House elections, and 6-7+ points in Senate elections.) That's how bad gerrymandering is, now.

Just to be picky (I agree all are a problem), only the house effect is due to "gerrymandering" (and then only partly, since 7 states have only 1 representative, and some more of this effect is due to where people  live rather than where district lines are drawn), unless you count state lines as a gerrymander. The deeper problem (or feature, depending on your values and goals) is that low-population states are over-represented.

There are some ways we could work on addressing some of the imbalance, but we're never going to be Canada, for lots of reasons.

[marshwiggle]

For comparison's sake, Americans here might be interested to learn that basically no Canadian is able to name a single one of our Supreme Court justices. (I used to know two, but have now forgotten them, if they're even still on the court. By contrast, I can name 7 of the 8 remaining US justices offhand [I always forget Breyer].) Our court gets almost no media attention; but it also, crucially, doesn't seem to issue verdicts that just fall across party lines: you can't just predict their votes on issues based on (perceived) party affiliation.

The irony is that the appointment process here is much more undemocratic. The Prime Minister pretty much makes a choice and that's more or less it. Whereas in the US there's the whole Senate hearing process. It would almost seem that the media circus surrounding the US process makes it more partisan.

If that's the case, it raises the fascinating possibility that less media coverage is what democracy needs, not more.