Supreme Court

Does the Supreme Court Need Fixing? If So, Why and How?

Decisions that progressives don't like are not necessarily a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.

|

An op-ed forum in today's New York Times includes some interesting ideas for "How to Fix the Supreme Court." But evaluating them requires clarifying exactly what, if anything, is broken about the Supreme Court. The eight authors describe several problems, ranging from undeniable (e.g., an increasingly partisan and rancorous process for selecting justices) to misconceived (e.g., a Court that is insufficiently deferential to progressive policy preferences).

New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon's introduction falls into the latter category. Bazelon says the Court "can, and often should, be the protector of minorities whom the majority may trample (including religious groups, a current concern of conservatives)." She cites Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that overturned racial segregation in public schools, as a good example that has been "embraced by every recent nominee to the court, across the ideological spectrum." And during the 1960s and '70s, she notes, "liberals…came to rely on the court to protect civil rights and prevent the establishment of religion, even when doing so was out of step with the views of the public."

Bazelon is less keen on other judicial vetoes of the majority's will, such as the Court's 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which overturned state limits on how many hours bakers could work each day and each week. Through decisions like that, she says, "the court discredited itself by putting the interests of corporations above those of workers."

That framing seems dubious, since the rigid regulations at issue in Lochner put small businesses such as the Utica bakery owned by the plaintiff at a special disadvantage. You could say the Supreme Court sided with the little guy by upholding freedom of contract.

In any case, shouldn't Lochner be judged by the soundness of its constitutional reasoning, as oppose to the "interests" it favored? Although the decision is widely criticized by both progressives (for reasons similar to Bazelon's) and conservatives (for its "activism" and its reliance on "substantive due process"), there is strong evidence that the economic liberty it defended was supposed to be protected by the 14th Amendment, as Damon Root points out.

Similarly, Bazelon worries about the possibility that the Supreme Court's conservative majority, reinforced by the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett, will overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Although Democrats played up that supposed danger during Barrett's confirmation hearing, it seems to be mostly a figment of their imagination. But if the justices dare to nix Obamacare, Bazelon says, "they risk overplaying their hand much as the conservative majority did in the 1930s," when the Court blocked parts of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal agenda. Again, not a word on whether the Affordable Care Act's individual health insurance mandate can still be upheld as a "tax" now that it no longer generates any revenue (it's hard to see how) or on whether the statute can stand without the mandate (it's hard to see why not), which are the actual issues confronting the Court.

Aaron Tang, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, also takes a result-oriented approach in an essay arguing that Democrats should encourage the justices to "moderate their views on important issues" by threatening to enlarge the Court. Tang cites the precedent of FDR's 1937 court packing scheme, which failed in Congress but, he argues, succeeded in taming recalcitrant justices. "Faced with the prospect of serving the rest of his career in the minority of a delegitimized court," he says, "Justice Owen Roberts became more restrained in his antagonism to the New Deal."

Other observers, including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden (until recently, at least), have argued that pressuring justices to apply the Constitution differently is precisely the problem with court packing. As a senator in 1983, Biden called FDR's scheme "a bonehead idea" and "a terrible, terrible mistake" that "put in question for an entire decade the independence of…the Supreme Court."

Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett underlines that risk in his contribution to the Times forum:

The aim of court packing, then and now, is to enlist the court as a politically partisan actor. Once packed, the court will let the partisan majorities in Congress that packed it exercise unconstitutional powers; and it will impose the ideological agenda of one party on states that are controlled by its rival.

But once the norm against court packing is gone, there is no limit on how often it will be used by each party when it controls both Congress and the presidency. If Democrats expand the number of justices in 2021, Republicans will do the same when they have the power.

The rulings of such a court would be rightly be perceived as entirely dependent on the will of the political branches. Once politicized in this way, it is hard to see how the perceived legitimacy the Supreme Court as a court of law could be sustained—or why a court so composed should have power to review the constitutionality of laws.

If the problem with the Supreme Court is that it arrives at conclusions progressives do not like, court packing seems like a pretty good solution—although, as Barnett notes, only in the short term. But if the problem is that the institution is already excessively politicized, that the stakes of each appointment are so high that the Senate's "advice and consent" devolve into nakedly partisan brawls, other reforms might make more sense.

Yale Law School student Melody Wang focuses not on the Court's composition but on the process for choosing the cases it hears. She argues that giving "random appellate panels" the authority to make those decisions "would restrain judicial activism." On its face, this is a content-neutral reform, although the examples of such condemnable activism that Wang cites (involving abortion laws and the constitutionality of mandatory union fees for public employees) both point in a partisan direction.

Northwestern law professor Steven Calabresi, who chairs the Federalist Society's Board of Directors, argues that an 18-year term limit for justices would prevent them from staying on the Court when they are no longer mentally fit and from influencing the choice of their successors through strategic retirement decisions. He suggests that term limits also would turn down the temperature of the selection process.

Under Calabresi's plan of staggered terms, each president would have an opportunity to pick at least two justices (four if he is reelected). "No other major democracy in the world gives the justices on its highest court life tenure," he notes. Calabresi argues that an 18-year limit, which would require a constitutional amendment that he thinks should also fix the Court's size at nine justices, would preserve judicial independence, "end what has become a poisonous process of picking a Supreme Court justice," and "promote the rule of law" by "depoliticiz[ing] the court and judicial selection."

Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield, also copying from international practice, recommends that Congress create a separate court to deal with constitutional questions. "This court would be made up of judges from other federal courts, selected by the president from a slate generated by a bipartisan commission to create legitimacy and balance," he writes. "The judges would serve limited terms, then return to their previous courts. Staggered terms would guarantee each president several appointments."

Whatever your take on these proposals, a good preliminary test is whether their advantages depend on your party or ideology. Former Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer, for example, suggests that adding justices to the Court, which he calls "a political response to a political act," ultimately "protects judicial independence." We probably should be suspicious of reforms that seek to depoliticize the Supreme Court by politicizing it even more.

NEXT: California's Rent Control Ballot Initiative Getting Crushed in New Poll

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. yes, the court needs fixing. it needs to tear down some of the Goldbergian precedents based on other precedents based on other precedents, once they steer hopelessly away from the plain language of the laws and Constitutional clauses they purport to interpret.

    1. See my suggestion below of citizen judge duty, akin to jury duty. For sure that’d tend to simplify the law.

      1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something asr new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier So i try use.
        Here’s what I do…….EasY EarninG

    2. ^Exactly; It’s humorous the words “apply the Constitution differently” is even spouted. Many liberal ruling didn’t apply the Constitution AT-ALL!!!

    3. That is not the aspect of the court the Democrats think is a problem.

  2. Marbury v. Madison could use another look

    1. Good start….in fact the whole idea of the SC deciding constitutional questions seems wrong..the States should be the decider not a branch of the Federal Govt.

      1. No, it makes sense for appellate courts to decide questions of law, and constitutions are just types of laws.

        1. I mean, there are countries that have separate constitutional courts, but that seems rather kludgy.

          1. I am making over $ 17485 a month working low maintenance online from home. I continued hearing others disclose to me how much cash they can make on the web so I chose to investigate it.TRf I was so honored I unearthed this program and has completely changed my life.last month her check was 14770 simply dealing with the PC for a couple of hours in my available time every week.

            This is my specialty……….. Home Profit System

  3. Odd that the Supreme Court suddenly needs fixing. I never heard anything about fixing the Supreme Court before a month ago. I wonder what happened.

    1. Can you imagine the wails, and cries that he is a dictator, if Trump had floated these ideas six month ago?

      1. “Well, that crusty old goat Ginsburg, keeps on keepin’ on, so fuck it: let’s make the Supreme Court like other Circuits, blow it out to 15 Justices, and keep on truckin. Nothing says we can’t, right?”

        Reason writers would absolutely shit.

  4. When I list the branches of federal government that need fixing, the judiciary is not at the top.

  5. The New York Times should run an op-ed titled “How to Fix The New York Times”.

    1. NYT..Jewish Liberal thinks we should modify the SC to ensure she gets her way…OMG what a surprise..

  6. An example of what is happening is the recent ruling on giving gay and transexual people the rights in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The argument seems to be based on the idea that the authors of the act were not aware of gay people in 1964 – which seems unlikely.
    If a Democrat introduced a bill in Congress granting the rights to gays, it would easily have passed both houses with bipartisan support. Not so sure about the transexual part.
    It is easier to use the autocratic powers of the court to get Progressive things done than to convince voters.

    1. “If a Democrat introduced a bill in Congress granting the rights to gays, it would easily have passed both houses with bipartisan support”

      That very law has been repeatedly introduced, and blocked, recently, much less in 1964.

      Gorsuch’s argument was not based on any intent of the legislature that passed the Act (following Scalia he argues legislative intent is indiscernible and irrelevant), it was based on 1. the text which barred discrimination ‘based on sex’ and 2. a precedent which ruled that firing a woman because she ‘acted like a man’ was discrimination ‘based on sex.’

      1. So George should not have been fired for having sex with the cleaning lady on his desk?

        1. Just so long as they would have fired him for having sex with members of the custodial staff regardless of sex.

          1. sex regardless of sex…I accidentally made a joke

            1. Not funny, however, because now it is the law of the land.

        2. We Libertarians believe that any employee could be fired for any reason at any time.

          Watch unreason sic the bots on me,

    2. No one got rights in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What happened is that some people got special privileges.

      1. Holy wow. Because before 1964, everything was fair and square!

        1. Affirmative action is racist by definition.

          It was entirely proper to forbid government racism, aka Jim Crow segregation. It was entirely improper to abolish freedom of association with mandated racism.

          1. It’s telling that when someone mentions ‘discrimination’ you point to the kind that happened a fraction of our history rather than the vast majority. Wonder why you’re especially sensitive to that fraction, eh?

            1. There’s only one kind of discrimination.

            2. Wonder why you’re especially sensitive to that fraction, eh?

              Because it’s the one that’s still going on?

            3. Its the same kind of discrimination – government mandated – that is opposed.

              Did you think lunch counter laws were necessary because whites didn’t want non-whites to sit in the same parts of the restaurant? No, they existed because tons of restaurants were otherwise effectively de-segregated – by choice – and some people, people with political power, didn’t like that.

            4. It’s telling that you ignore Democrats’ starting a war to preserve slavery, followed by 100+ years of Jim Crow segregation, followed by 60 years of racist affirmative action.

              And then pretend that affirmative action is not racist.

            5. You do realize that 56 years is quite a large “fraction,” don’t you?

        2. No it was not. But you don’t fix that by making it unfair and unsquare – but for different people.

    3. the idea that the authors of the act were not aware of gay people in 1964 – which seems unlikely.

      No, that seems very likely, if by “gay people” is meant a group of people with some characteristic such that such persons could be conceived as objects of discrimination and could be protected against such by law. Practically nobody thought of them that way in 1964; practically speaking, nobody thought of them at all, if they could help it. It was a taboo subject except for risque humor. So for practical purposes it could be said the authors of that legislation were unaware of gays and lesbians.

      If social reformers were asked what to do about homosexuals, they’d’ve discussed the possibility of “treatment”. They’d’ve said they shouldn’t be physically beaten, but that something should be done to/about them in a nice way that would keep children from being exposed to them.

      1. I never heard of homosexuals until I was 14 — 1968, when it was becoming an issue. Not only had I not heard the term, I was unaware of the behavior and of their stereotypic manners. I’d heard the term “queer” as applied to persons, just thought it a synonym for “strange” or “odd”.

      2. The small sample of pubescent children I could observe were identifying as, “non-binary”. The new pubescents are, “gender creative”. Of course they are groomed to inhabit these life choices.

  7. The Supreme Court went to a 6-3 conservative GOP majority when a POTUS that lost the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes nominated at the tail end of very possibly his last year in office a 40 something year old who was confirmed by Senators representing 13,524,906 less persons than those that voted against her. Heck yea, there’s something broken going on*.

    *Whatever issues there are with two wolves voting to eat a sheep, one wolf voting to eat two is worse.

    1. >>6-3 conservative GOP

      5-4 … giving Roberts too much credit

    2. There is no popular vote for president. There is no consideration for the number of citizens per senator. Nothing you said is legitimate in any way shape or form in this constitutional republic.

      You are scraping the bottom of the barrel of argumentation. Maybe you should write for The Atlantic?

      1. You know, what’s the case isn’t always the best. I know this is not how the system currently works, that’s why ABC is now the 6th justice, but the way things currently works might not be the best way they should work.

        1. If they worked the way you want then those of us out here in the ‘rural rump’ who just want to be left alone would be destroyed.

          The system we have is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. You guys want your socialism and fascism – fine. We’re not interested in getting in your way. But you insist on dragging us into it.

          1. It’s true, I don’t think you get to tell a majority of others what to do because you choose to live in a minority area. the horror.

            1. I hope you get everything you are asking for.

            2. “Leave me alone” is “telling other people what to do” only in the sense that you think other people are entitled to mess with you as long as a majority of people vote to mess with you.

              1. I’m glad you think McDonald, Parents Involved, etc., are terrible. Will you expand on that?

                1. It appears you think there is nothing wrong with 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner (and the sheep’s subsequent dismemberment), at least so long as you are one of the wolves. Yeah, I see how the ethics roll here . . .

                2. The US political system is in place to prevent ochlocrats like yourself from trying to present their views as anything other than terrible and non-representative while in office. It doesn’t keep you from making ridiculous assertions and arguments, as is your wont. The ‘queen’ in your name is aptly chosen, given your apparent sociopolitical tendencies and views.

            3. I don’t tell them what to do – other than ‘leave me alone’.

              If the idea that you can’t push me around without restraint is horrifying to you . . .

            4. I’m a day late to this thread, but question for you:

              Assume for a moment that you live in a neighborhood with an HOA.
              You have 2 people in your household and your neighbor has 11, how many votes do you get for HOA president? How about if your neighbor is always pissing you off and using the HOA rules against you spitefully?

            5. Hey, lookl! A lefty who doesn’t actually care about someone they consider a minority!

        2. You’re right! We need to repeal the 17th amendment. Senators are supposed to represent their states not the 2 major political parties.

          1. Absolutely, repeal the 17th amendment. The 17th and 18th amendment (which prohibited alcoholic beverages) were bad ideas promoted by the same set of sanctimonious do-gooders.

            1. The 21st Amendment would like a word…

        3. If I may paraphrase that great thinker, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, ‘That’s “Justice Barret” to you.’

      2. This.

        The popular Vote is a figment of their imagination. It isn’t a thing, and has never been a thing. Yet they use the idea of it as “evidence“ against Trump. It’s a level of retard that’s just too high to contemplate.

    3. OMG I saw this same response in a Youtube feed this afternoon..must be a talking point shared on Twitter…propaganda? Where did you get this..I mean its word for word..

      1. No need to invoke the Lord, I got the figures from a Vox article I read. But, what makes it ‘propaganda’ and what you’re reading not? Are the figures wrong?

        1. Just the idea that they matter.

          1. It doesn’t matter what the will of the governed (as measured by majority rules) is? Heard of this thing called the Declaration of Independence? It’s not a progressive left wing trick btw.

            1. Read the Federalist Papers, which is a far better representation of the intention for the Constitution.

              1. Uh, the Federalist papers were ok with mass slavery, so I’m not sure just pointing to them proves much.

                1. Uh that’s a lie.

                  1. It’s either a sock or some poor misguided soul wandered in here from Facebook.

                    Poor dear doesn’t even know that Alexander Hamilton penned many of the Federalist Papers.

                    1. It works in education, so it would likely be convinced that the untruths it has absorbed are facts. Case in point.

            2. I strongly encourage you to declare independence. You should push your state to separate from the union. Just leave me alone.

            3. Tyranny of the majority is a trick. The Constitution tries to prevent it.

              1. If you clowns like Tyranny of the Majority so much, why did you dump Bork? He also believed in letting the majority rule.

                1. He believed that such tyranny would also apply to the ‘wrong’ majority.

                2. Let’s see…

                  The judge’s authority derives entirely from the fact that he is applying the law and not his personal values. That is why the American public accepts the decisions of its courts, accepts even decisions that nullify the laws a majority of the electorate or their representatives voted for.

                  Robert bork.

                  So youre a liar?

              2. So you’re for Tyranny of the minority? Welcome to most of human history.

                1. How is it tyranny of the minority if the only thing the minority wants is not to be robbed by the majority? “I couldn’t beat up my neighbors and make them do what I want!” Oh, the humanity . . .

            4. It doesn’t matter what the will of the governed (as measured by majority rules) is? Heard of this thing called the Declaration of Independence?

              Heard of this thing called the Constitution? The “will of the governed (as measured by majority rules)” is represented by Congress, which is elected by popular vote. Supreme Court Justices are not elected by popular vote.

              Do you know why that is?

              Just to try make this really crystal clear:

              If the Will of the Popular People should Rule Absolutely, why even have a Supreme Court? Why even have a Bill of Rights?

            5. There is no ‘will of the governed’. Its an illusion. We are not a collective mind.

              1. ^EXACTLY well said…. The slogan of the left has and always will be,

                “Sell your individual soul to the [WE] foundation; because you don’t own you, [WE] own you.”

                Collective mind = The [WE] foundation.

            6. I find myself confused. In what way is the Declaration of Independence relevant here? Quote the relevant text. I have some familiarity with its contents, and none of it supports the majority wielding power over minorities – otherwise no independence would have been declared.

            7. So the straights get to govern the gays? Because that’s the argument you just made…

              1. And I suppose it also means we should get to keep our alleged WHITE SUPREMACY based THEOCRACY!!

                People like this are so fucking stupid.

    4. There is a reason we have Congress – based on the population of each state, and the Senate – equal reps for each state. I learned this in the 4th fucking grade.
      And the electoral college too. So states like South Dakota, which only has 3 electoral votes at least have some say in the representation they have and policy that is not designed just for the coastal elite to continue to run their feudal systems unrestrained.
      At least study some civics and history before posting inane thoughts.

      1. Have you ever considered what you learned in 4th grade might not be defensible? I increasingly think that is a question conservatives don’t consider…

        “for the coastal elite”

        Sigh. By which you mean ‘the will of the majority’ or the actual ‘consent of the governed.’

        1. I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. The Constitution was designed to actively resist the will of the majority. The Framers were rightly very worried about the tendency of majorities to subjugate minorities.

          1. Do you think minorities subjugating majorities is preferable? Show your work please.

            1. He did. He referred to the federalist papers which describe exactly why things like the electoral college was created. That’s the work. You need to show your work why running the country with a simple majority would be “better”.

              1. No, no, show the work that minorities should rule majorities. Cite the Federalist Papers, by all means. And then know that I could care less about them (you do realize that the libertarians of the day were the *anti-Federalists*, right?).

                1. No, no, show the work that minorities should rule majorities.

                  “No, no, don’t continue to try to explain the principle at hand, defend my straw man, instead!”

                  Cite the Federalist Papers, by all means. And then know that I could care less about them (you do realize that the libertarians of the day were the *anti-Federalists*, right?).

                  So, either you realize that this is equivocating on the word “Federalist” and are thus dishonest, or you don’t, and are ignorant.

                  Look into the history of England from about 1640-80 and you’ll start to understand why the authors of the Declaration and the Constitution were concerned about unfettered “Democracy.”

                2. Minorities don’t rule dumbfuck. The slow process of powers granted by the constitution in the form of amendments does.

                3. oh ffs. No one is saying minorities should rule majorities. They’re saying that, in a lot of questions, *no one should rule anyone*. It’s not about one side or another getting its way at all. When the minority refuses to be ruled in some way, they aren’t ruling the majority.

                  And you do realize the Anti-Federalists were even more opposed to majority rule than the Federalists, right? Pretty much no faction at the founding wanted majority rule. The Federalists were the ones asking for the *most* federal power!

                  Your post is a master-class in torpedoing your own argument.

                4. What you’re spouting isn’t Anti-Federalist either.

              2. If they are serious and not a troll, they want to be able to subjugate minorities. Because most leftist are racist as fuck.

            2. You don’t know squat about federalism. There were 13 colonies, each rebelled against Britain, then they united in war against Britain.
              * This is why it is called a rebellion, not a secession.
              * This is why the Senate represents the individual states, not the people in the states, and why the 19th (?) Amendment was an abomination.
              * This is why the Electoral College represents the individual states, not the people in the states.
              * This is why an Electoral College stalemate leaves the election to the House, where they vote by states, not by popular vote.

              1. That’s a nice historical explanation. By history, slavery is an important component of our system….

                So, how about this, try arguing why a minority should rule a majority. Me and two people who think like me, and you and six people who think like you get stranded on an island. We decide we need a government (native attacks or whatever). Argue why my minority should be able to rule your majority. Introduce the neutral principle, not a historical accident.

                1. By history, slavery is an important component of our system….

                  No, it isn’t. Expand your source material beyond Vox and the New York Times.

                  So, how about this, try arguing why a minority should rule a majority. Me and two people who think like me, and you and six people who think like you get stranded on an island. We decide we need a government (native attacks or whatever).

                  “I’m tired of having this argument. Let’s have one where you’re saying something dumb and I get to make fun of you!”

                2. Slaver lasted less than a century under the United States – which is 244 years old.

                  I don’t see it as being an important component when it lasted 84/244 years – ie, around a third of the total lifetime of the US. That’s like saying wetting the bed is an important component of the life of a twenty-something.

                3. Isn’t slavery an example of a majority ruling a minority? That is what you want?

                  1. Shhh, you’re not supposed to point that out.

            3. That’s us libertarians – diligently plotting to take over the world and oppress you by leaving you alone to do what you want.

        2. We’re not a democracy. We’re a constitutional republic. The entire system was designed with brakes and dampeners to keep the worst impulses of pure democracy from giving the culture whiplash.

          I’m not sure where this leftist idea came from that the whole country is being mired down by a few yokels in flyover country because one election didn’t go their way.

          The left has gotten almost everything it wanted: An imperial presidency, a god-like supreme court that can interpret the constitution any way it wants through a process of ‘discovering rights’ buried within. You do realize that “the will of the majority” was often a thing that has historically frustrated progressives to the point of almost violent apoplexy?

        3. Take a good, hard look at Governor Newsom in CA for your ‘will of the majority’
          Now apply that same structure of governance to SD with its 3 Electoral votes.
          Get the picture?
          And I say Coastal Elite from experience having lived on both coasts and a number of other places in this great country. You?

        4. If you get your way, then all the states in the middle of the country will have a very strong incentive to secede from the union. The reason we have the electoral college in the first place is that without it, the northern states wouldn’t have voted to ratify the constitution, since the south could outvote them. Even with the electoral college, Virginia was easily the most influential state between the revolution and the civil war.

          -jcr

          1. Don’t think that only the red STATES will secede…it’s likely all of the red DISTRICTS would go with them, leaving tiny blue islands surrounded by a new, and hostile nation.

        5. Would you tell that to the European Union? Because it’s exactly the same reason why even the smallest countries in the EU get at least 6 MEPs, the number of MEPs is fixed, and the number of MEPs per country above the minimum of 6 is a function of population. It’s because Luxembourg (6 MEP) wants to have at least SOME say in how the EU is run, rather than everything being dictated by Germany (96 MEP). Total MEPs is 705.

          German MEPs represent 860k people per; Luxembourg MEPs represent 98k people per.

          Wikipedia:

          “The apportionment of seats within the European Parliament to each member state of the European Union is set out by the EU treaties. The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state’s population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be “degressively proportional” to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.

          1. When the Parliament was established in the 1950s as the 78-member “Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community” the smaller states (Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) were concerned about being under-represented and hence they were granted more seats than their population would have allowed.

      2. The USSR was run by white Russians in Moscow irregardless of what Ukrainians or Siberians wanted.

        That is not how this democratic constitutional republic works.

        1. I’m assuming you mean “white” as in the ethnic make-up and not the political term? Because the Reds were the ones running the USSR after the revolution.

    5. one wolf voting to eat two is worse.

      Not if you’re the sheep.

      1. Uggh, can I introduce you to…math?

        1. Uggh, can I introduce to the idea that the sheep is dead either way.

        2. Imagine after you got out of school, you and two of your best friends decided to get an apartment together. You were all working at the same place too, at the beginning, all making the same amount of money. So you decided to split everything evenly (rent, groceries, utilities). And you decided that since you were all friends that decisions about the household would be made by a binding vote, majority rule–basically that’s the house constitution.

          All goes well at first, and all the votes are unanimous.

          But after awhile, you get a better job and soon are making 10% more than your buddies. At the same time, their hours have been cut back and so they aren’t taking in as much as they were before. A vote is held, and 2-1 they decide that you should pay 10% more rent, and they will pay 5% less each. At least they recognize that this is a tad unfair to you, they vote to give you the bigger bedroom.

          After awhile, you get a promotion (because you’re a good employee) and are earning twice what your buddies earn. One of your buddies gets fired for not showing up at work on time. Another 2-1 vote is cast deciding that you will have to pay his share of the rent until he gets another job. You’ve already got the nice bedroom, so no concessions come your way. You quickly begin to wonder if that roommate is really serious about getting a job.

          Later, you’ve found an even better job, one that recognizes the value in the degree you got (you took night classes and worked during the day). By now, you’re pretty rich compared to your buddies. They’re both out of work now, it’s a tough economy, you know, but they’ve got 99 weeks of unemployment checks. You shudder when they somehow find out how much you make, knowing a 2-1 vote is coming, and sure enough you are now on the hook for all the rent. Your buddies promise to use their UI checks to pay for their own groceries, though.

          99 weeks later, another 2-1 vote forces you to pay all the rent, all the utilities, buy all the groceries, and to provide $250 each month to each roommate.

          It has occurred to you that the only way out of this situation is to quit your job, and thus restore equality, hoping that now with everyone in the same boat your roommates will be impelled to rejoin the workforce. But by yet another 2-1 vote you are forced to return to work.

          When you point out that this is tantamount to slavery, you’re met with dumb stares and open hands waiting for their check.

    6. Hillary did not win the popular vote. There was no federal popular vote election. There were 50 state popular votes which elected the Electoral Collage which votes for President.

      History might have been different if Hillary had been playing the same game as Trump, which was the one established by the Constitution. But she chose not to play the game at stake. Too bad, so sad.

      That you clowns still whine that Hillary won is finefuckingtastic.

      1. “Hillary did not win the popular vote. There was no federal popular vote election. ”

        with all due respect, this is pedantic. There is a count of all votes for president (popular vote) and Hillary indeed had more. If you are correct in *any sense* it is that, yes, this doesn’t determine who is President. But when you are arguing with someone that says the popular vote *should* matter more than the electoral, this is, well, dumb.

        1. I suggest you look at sports championships — baseball, football, basketball, hockey. I don’t know about soccer. Bicycle races like the Tour de France are an exception.

          If you cannot fathom how there was no federal popular vote, you have shown such an appalling ignorance of reality that you have no business commenting on anything remotely real. Which I guess makes you the perfect Progressive.

          1. I *love* sports. Do you think the winner of more quarters of the Super Bowl should matter more than who scores the most points?

            But you really should ask yourself, what’s the criteria in each contest? So, tell me, what’s the criteria in an election? I submit, a la the Declaration of Independence, that the only legitimate government, one that can tell everyone else what to do, is one that has the consent of the governed. And the best measure of that is majority vote. Let me know your alternative and why (and don’t just point to the Federalist Papers).

            1. Since you seem to enjoy hypotheticals, let’s toss one your way:

              51% of the governed consent to enslave the other 49%.

              In your proposed system, what is the just outcome, and how is it achieved?

              Remember that you have no governing authority whatsoever besides appealing to the Will of the People. Or 51% of them, anyway.

              1. Nice illustration. See ….. History.

            2. No the winner is the one who scores the most within the parameters of the rules of the game.
              Let’s take basketball as an analogy.
              Team A takes 100 shots. Beautiful shots from all over the court. The crowd watches the shots float off the hands of the players on Team A. They cheer. 20 shots go in. At the end of the game all of the shots they took are recorded.
              Team B takes 25 shots. Simple, boring shots. Nobody cheers. 24 go in. The 25 shots are also recorded and compared to the 100 beautiful shots Team A took.
              Who wins?

              1. You confused Queen. The sports enthusiast has no idea of the riddle you just posed. She’s consulting with real sports fans.

            3. The best measure of the consent of the governed is unanimity. No action unless everyone agrees. (Initial conditions – Lockean natural rights equally held by all persons, no laws).

              Now, that’s impractical. I’ll settle for 3/4.

            4. Note that Sec. Clinton ALSO won less than half of the popular vote and only about half the country voted so she represents about 25% of the US population. Her “about 25%” is slightly larger than his “about 25%”, something like 26% to 24%. Hardly a mandate for her either.

              But this completely ignores the fact that people vote or not at least partly according to their perception that their vote will count. How many Republicans who might have voted for Trump in California simply did something else on election day because Clinton’s victory in the state was assured? How many Democrats stayed home in Alabama because they figure Trump had the state locked up?

              The “popular vote” is meaningless UNLESS that it the metric used for the actual election. Too many factors affect it otherwise. It wasn’t.

              Clinton and her team knew exactly how the EC system works. She campaigned accordingly, and STILL lost to an odious rookie whom she outspent by about 4:1.

        2. You do not account for the millions of people who simply don’t vote, say Republicans in California or NYC- why bother? While this might actually be a point for your argument, it casts doubts on using votes for the EC as a stand-in for a theoretical popular vote.

        3. People vote differently when different rules are present and co trolling dumbfuck.

        4. “with all due respect, this is pedantic.”

          No it’s not.

          If the rules called for a popular vote, then Republicans in California an Democrats in West Virginia would not stay home from the polls in droves, since under a real popular vote instead of winner-take-all statewide electoral college votes, their votes might actually count for something. In the current system, they can stay home since their votes will mean exactly zero in the scheme of things.

          In football, you don’t win games by gaining more yards. You have to actually put the points on the board.

          If this were a football game, an analogous case might be: Clinton had 658 yards of total offense while Trump had 629 yards, but Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers (Trump won 5 states that Obama won previously).

          She simply failed to do the things necessary to score.

          The rookie Trump strategically and tactically outplayed the veteran–her, the master politician and most qualified person to ever run for the office,?!

          And he is perhaps the most vilified person (and not without cause) ever to run for the office and before the election Mr. Obama had campaigned more for Democrat Hillary Clinton than any modern sitting president had for his party’s nominee.

          And she still couldn’t muster the win?

          Do you *really* want to console yourself by crying about the fact that she had yards of total offense?

        5. Candidates campaigned in order to win the “points” from each state to get the necessary 270 EC votes. If the election had been based on popular vote they would have campaigned differently.

          People voted in good faith based on the rules in effect. If the election had been based on popular vote, it is quite conceivable that some of the 4M+ Johnson voters would have swung to Trump rather than casting their safe protest votes. Assume that some of Stein’s voters would have swung to Clinton. Safe, because in many states they knew that Trump would carry the state anyway by a large enough margin that any 3rd party votes didn’t hurt anything.

          Candidates and voters played by the rules they they knew were in effect and Clint on lost to Trump. Period.

          Clinton, veteran politician and “the most qualified person ever to run for the office” lost to a rookie disliked by his own party. And she outspent him 4:1 or so, and still lost.

    7. STRAIGHT TO THE POINT ‘Queen’ — No *one* gets INDIVIDUAL justice and liberty by SELLING it down the road to a [WE] majority or a [WE] minority (makes no difference) tyranny.

      1. The very limited democracy the Constitutional Union of Republican States even allows is suppose to be for electing ‘Police Officers’ that upholds that ‘Individual justice and liberty’ policy and respectfully honors that principle in all justice statute law within each State as well as the Union of States created specifically for a very strong national defense against tyranny.

    8. The campaigns and elections were based on the rules of the Electoral College. Everyone planned their strategy for campaigning based on garnering EC votes. Voters in locked-in states made their Election Day decisions to perhaps stay home knowing their candidate had basically already won (or lost) their state.

      Campaigns make strategic and tactical decisions based on the rules in place. For example, the Obama campaign expended resources in an ultimately successful bid to win one of Nebraska’s electoral votes in 2008. They would not have made the effort except for the allocation method used there. Additionally, voter turnout could shift in response to where battlegrounds might be with new rules.

      Based on the final score of a football game played under the current rules you can’t say who’d have won if 2 points were also awarded based on each first down gained, because team strategies would change based on the different rules in effect at the time of the game. If fouls in a basketball game resulted in 2 points being deducted from your team score rather than allowing the other team the chance to shoot 1+1 or 2 free throws, think the game would be played differently?

      If we elected the President based on elections allocated by Congressional district one vote per district plus 2 statewide votes, think the campaigns and votes would be different? Trump “won” under those rules, since he carried 230 congressional districts while Clinton won only 205. “But, but…that’s not how we do it!” The same is true of saying “popular vote”. We don’t have a “popular vote”, so saying Clinton (or Gore) won the “popular vote” is not true.

      It is true that when aggregating the votes across all states, that they had pluralities. But that’s like saying Clinton had 658 yards of total offense (she had 68.5M votes) and Trump had 629 yards of total offense (62.9M votes), and saying she should have won. But the fact is, that despite moving the ball up and down the field somewhat better than Trump, she turned the ball over 5 times (lost 5 state that Obama carried twice) and failed to score points when it counted. Someone crying about total yards off offense is readily countered with “Scoreboard!”.

      If you want to play “what if” for ex post facto results, imagine “what if” we had had instant run-off, where the people who voted for Gary Johnson (4+M) and Jill Stein (1+M) and the 800k “other” voters had selected a 2nd-choice vote? How many Libertarians and Greens would have selected Trump and Clinton as their second choice? How many of those L and G votes were “protest” votes in “safe” states. Personally, I have voted Libertarian for years in Georgia confident that my L votes would never crack the Republican lock and accidentally elect a Democrat for Senate or President.

  8. We did fix the court. And we plan to fix it further. Trump’s second term hopefully will have two more justices making this 8-1.

    I hope and want to pound liberalism, progressivism, and left wing ideology into the ground, permanently and forever. Salt that ground so that it never grows back.

    1. That would make me chuckle.

    2. I hope and pray the day after Trump is inaugurated he sends a proposed bill to Congress asking for 6 more justices on the Supreme Court. That’s what the Democrats want, right? I think Trump should be magnanimous in victory and give them what they want.

      1. Will he appoint a commission first to look into it?

        1. ^lol… The glaring difference between the GOP and DNC is from my perspective the GOP still has some level of principles. Don’t steal, don’t stuff the court is partisan “agenda activists judges”, etc, etc, etc,… Certainly not perfect but better as I see it.

  9. You should remember Republicans gained their stacked advantage through the exercise of raw power. You should mention that Congress is the proper constitutional body to check the judiciary. You might also remember the Democrats, i.e. the aggrieved party, have won the popular vote but been denied representation so many times. You could even throw in some Bush v. Gore as an example of Republicans using the court in a controversial way to win even more power over the courts.

    Republicans rely on antidemocratic schemes for their power. Theyll tell you straight up they don’t like democracy. We’re not talking apples to apples. If there was ever a justification for exercising Congressional oversight and reform, it is these circumstances. The rule should be court expansion is legitimate when done in moderation with the specific intent of realigning the composition of the courts to match the popular vote over time. It can be a new rule. It’s a fair enough rule and fairer than the current system of determining who sits on the bench.

    1. You could even throw in some Bush v. Gore as an example of Republicans using the court in a controversial way to win even more power over the courts.

      Bush isn’t the one to take it to SCOTUS. Gore was. Bush didn’t try to use the courts at all, Gore did. And failed.

      1. Moreover, SCOTUS agreed 7-2 on the substantive legal issues in Bush v. Gore. That is, a solid majority agreed that Gore’s position was legally untenable. The 5-4 split was only directed to the remedy applied.

      2. Bush was the petitioner for writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court, where Gore had won.

        1. There was more than one case.

        2. Your citation fell off.

          Democrats petitioned to have the recounts continued into January 2001.

          Republicans petitioned to have the continuous recounts stopped.

    2. Fuck you godsdamned “popular vote” morons. This is a republic. Get over it, or move somewhere else.

      1. Fuck you, these minority rule types. Most of human history was like that, if you like.

        1. I hope you enjoy the civil war you’re working so hard to bring about.

        2. The preferred progressive solution: 9 Enlightened Nazgul running the country with the benevolent hand of wisdom.

          You keep harping on ‘minority rule’ yet you provide no evidence for that being the case. Trump won the electoral college. You ignore things like the separation of powers, other branches of government, the legislative pen and body that controls the country’s purse strings etc. You really seem to believe that the election of a president defines who “runs the country”. All that tells me is how ignorant you are in how the country and government is structured.

          1. “The preferred progressive solution: 9 Enlightened Nazgul running the country with the benevolent hand of wisdom.”

            Ugh, aren’t you the one arguing *against* court packing? I realize youre just parroting talk radio and fox talking points of the moment, but maybe try to understand what they mean? I mean, maybe just for the little while before your side tells you to say differently?

            1. You didn’t get your way, now you’re going to cry, stomp, and hold your breath until we grant you the totalitarian power to impose your hivemind will on us.
              Well… I encourage you to keep holding your breath until you drop dead and stop threatening our freedom.

              1. Eff off ‘Nardz’ leave the poor girl alone. Hint: being mean to her won’t make her want to fuck you, in fact quite the opposite probably. I’ll bet she wants nothing more than to cut your balls off with a butcher knife, and guess what? You probably deserve it.
                Stop bullying Amalthea. She is smart, she is strong, she is beautiful, and she doesn’t need some macho man smart ass trying to tear her and every woman in his life down. Grow the eff up ‘Nardz’, no one asked your opinion and no one here wants you here anyways.

                1. More than likely the poor girl wants to cut off her own balls.

                2. You really are a sad white-knighting poltroon, aren’t you?

            2. Queen Amalthea,

              Don’t listen to these uncultured backwoods cousin-effers. They’re just mad because you are right and they are wrong. Inbred mongoloids tend to get mad when they’re confused. It’s not their fault, they just don’t know any better; All they do all day is work on their pickup trucks, drink mountain dew, scratch their buttholes and watch Faux news. Oh, and have sex with their cousins.
              They don’t realize that after Biden wins, change is coming whether they like it or not… And honey, the future is bright, it is green, it is gay, queer, loving and beautiful. Only one more week of Trump… God I am so happy I’m almost in tears.

              1. Your gonna be in tears alright. When Trump wins reelection for the same reason he won in 2016.

              2. She has yet to be ‘right,’ but keep up the ad hominem attacks, they make your trolling almost effective.

              3. “Only one more week of Trump… God I am so happy I’m almost in tears.”

                Well, then you’re stupid. Trump is president for about 3 more months, even if he loses the election. If Kegan gets hit by a bus the day after election day, Trump and McConnell can get another SCOTUS replacement done before they leave office.

            3. Thank you for not responding to my points.

        3. Wait, first you said most of history was the tyranny of the minority and now you’re saying that it was minority rules?

        4. You’re conflating the absence of majority rule with minority rule. Try harder.

    3. Theyll tell you straight up they don’t like democracy.

      So do the Democrats. Let’s remember which party support slavery – the Democratic Party. Which party opposed the Civil Rights Act – the Democratic Party. And on and on and on.

      1. You are both half and a century and a half behind the curve here…

        1. Seems like you are half and a nazi grammar behind the 8-ball there.

        2. Kamala Harris was doing pretty good throwing minorities into prison for drug use.

          Joe Biden has been a lawn order type of guy for 50 years.

          So is Hillary Clinton.

          Oh, and which party had a Klan member in its ranks for years as recently as 2010? That’s right – the Democratic Party.

        3. Queen Amalthea,
          I am sooo sorry everyone here is being like this to you!!!!!! WTF it’s crazy, I’ve read most of this thread, and I cannot believe the things people are saying to you.
          First off, I agree with basically everything you’ve written. Don’t get discouraged, you are not crazy, it is this place and these crazy incels that are crazy.
          Second, if you ever need someone to talk to I am here, you can just reply to this message and I’ll reply back to you. I can’t believe they would talk to a woman this way. The first day I showed up in these forums, the entire comment section basically was calling me a ‘fag’ and ‘faggot’ and shouting ‘go home queer!’ and other things I won’t repeat. This is truly one of the most spiteful and hateful places I’ve ever seen on the internet, I literally had to take 2 mental health days at work over some of the threats I received here. I’m doing better now, I’m new and improved and have thicker skin than ever.
          So if you need someone to talk to you I am always here for you. You are a queen, and don’t you EVER let a man tell you what to do. Work it girl.

          1. I gotta admit, you’re good. Sort of a Ru Paul version of OBL. Good luck seducing the queen.

            1. It’s like the lovechild of sarcasmic and eunuch (aka cmw)

        4. Poor democrats. They really believe that affirmative action, housing projects, and prison industrial complex are not racism wrapped in democrat party slavery ideology.

          The democrat party created the KKK to combat black American gains in rights after the democrat loss in the civil war.

          1. The KKK became unpopular, so democrats convinced black Americans that democrats suddenly love black Americans more than the GOP that was literally formed to end slavery.

            1. LBJ was right, he got those niggers to vote democrat for almost 100 years.

              Or maybe not.

              1. Oh…. My… god…. So… Cringy…..
                Really can’t believe I just read that. Unless your listening to Kendrick and rap et al, it’s really not okay to say that word. People like you don’t understand the harm and power that word has. Assuming you’re not a Russian bot which honestly seems very likely.

                1. It’s a direct quote from LBJ, you cretin.

    4. “Bush v. Gore as an example of Republicans using the court in a controversial way to win even more power over the courts.”

      When the Florida papers analyzed the hanging chads the way Gore wanted to do it, W won by a larger margin.

    5. “Theyll tell you straight up they don’t like democracy.” The founders had similar qualms- which is why we don’t have a democracy. Do you even history? Do you know what happens to democracies? There is not a functioning democracy on the planet. France? A Republic. Britain? A Constitutional Parlimentarian Monarchy. There is not a democracy on the planet, because democracy is nothing but mob rules. Go talk to the French- they’ll explain.

    6. Someone needs to actually read the Bush v Gore Supreme Court decision. It doesn’t say what you think it does.

  10. Project Veritas has some footage of an illegal vote harvesting and buying operation.

    https://www.projectveritas.com/news/texas-ballot-chaser-pressures-voter-to-change-vote-from-cornyn-to-hegar/

    My opinion on requiring ID for voting has been fluctuating over the last few years but I’d have to say that by now, while I don’t like the idea of mandating ID, I can’t see any other option to keep elections safe except through ID (and requiring in-person voting – even if that means needing to bring voting precinct apparati around to nursing homes and disenfranchises deployed servicemembers).

    Voter fraud is real – always has been – but I can’t continue to say that it makes up some negligible percentage of the vote and so could be ignored.

    1. “roject Veritas is an American right-wing activist group founded by James O’Keefe in 2010.[1][2][3][4] The group uses undercover techniques to reveal supposed liberal bias and corruption[1] and is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups.[5][2][6][7][8][9][10]”

      Jeebus dude, don’t be a dupe willingly…

      1. Ah, I see – Wikipedia trumps all.

        Or, you know, you could just go watch the video.

        1. The video from a group famous for selective editing of them?

          1. All videos made by everyone are selectively edited. That’s what *editing* is. Michael Moore’s videos are selectively edited and what he chooses to not show is as informative as what he does

            1. I’m not arguing anything based on Moore’s videos. You’re doing the equivalent. I’m saying, don’t be duped, dude.

          2. Citation on the selective edits since they release all archival footage.

    2. I am for voter ID because the people screeching the loudest in opposition to it are 99% of the time the same people enabling fraud. That’s how you know its needed.

      1. Also, they can never give concrete examples of people harmed by voter ID laws, but every case of fraud erodes our rights and trust in due process. Way more harm is caused by fraudulent elections than by making fraud more difficult to pull off.

      2. One person’s ‘enabling fraud’ is another person’s ‘making it easy to register the consent of the governed.’

        I mean, you’re a libertarian, right? So do you think the government should be able to require all kinds of things on the governed to register their consent to validate the former? That doesn’t sound very libertarian to me, it sounds like what government counsel would argue…

        1. One person’s ‘enabling fraud’ is another person’s ‘making it easy to register the consent of the governed.’

          1. There is no ‘consent of the governed’. Doesn’t exist. Its as imaginary as the ‘will of the people’.

          2. As with anything, there are tradeoffs. And making it too easy to ‘register the consent of the governed’ leads to worse outcomes from the ‘enabling fraud’ part. Same as we limit what cops can do because an unchecked police force is worse than a handful of unsolved murders.

          1. :here is no ‘consent of the governed’. Doesn’t exist. ”
            so you hate the declaration of independence. YMMV, I’m a fan.

            1. Reduced to non-sequiturs now?

        2. So then we’re back in agreement, requiring an ID and background check to carry a firearm is racist.

          1. I’ve often advocated that the procedure for filing for welfare benefits should be the same as those required for getting a carry permit: provide proof of legal age, and legal residency and citizenship, at least one picture id, get fingerprinted, have wants & warrants and a background check performed, get picture taken again for the carry permit (or welfare card). Oh, and lying on the form is a felony.

            At least the resulting card could be made valid for voting purposes.

        3. If we’re going to have a government, then yes, actually, maintaining the validity of the electoral system is a legitimate exercise.

          That you are so inexorably opposed to the idea of ensuring that only people who are legitimately entitled to vote do so says volumes.

          1. That you are so inexorably opposed to the idea of ensuring that only people who are legitimately entitled to exercise rights do so says volumes.

            1. So you do believe that no ID should be necessary to purchase a firearm?

            2. I want everyone who is legally entitled to vote, to vote if they so choose.

              However, I want to be sure that they vote once and only once. That they are voting in the district in which they currently are legally residing in. That they are who they say they are (so we can know that they are legally entitiled to vote and are in the right district.).

        4. “should be able to require all kinds of things”

          Nope, just ID.

          So less than, for example, you would want to require people to exercise their right to self defense.

          1. I love that you are such a Fox News drone that you assume since I disagree with you on the government making ‘papers, please’ requirements on its citizens I must be against self defense. Keep doing what Sean tells ya, guy.

            1. Fox News? Really? Why do we get stuck with the bargain basement trolls with 10+ year old comebacks?

              1. Look at the web numbers for this site: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reason.com#section_traffic

                Note the decline over the last 90 days.

                Would you waste your top forum-sliding and trolling talent here?

              2. Meh. Once the good commentators left to (you know where), Reason has lost enough clicks that the trolls go elsewhere, like disqus.

              3. Poor shriek is gonna be mad. That’s his schtick.

        5. “One person’s ‘enabling fraud’ is another person’s ‘making it easy to register the consent of the governed.’”

          Yes, and that’s the problem.
          You’re tyrants and an existential threat to free peoples.
          Please start the war – we need to rid ourselves of this cancer.

        6. ‘making it easy to register the consent of the governed.’

          Even for those who aren’t citizens…or are dead…or are agents of a foreign government. Gotta let them all vote so we don’t actually miss someone, right?

    3. You need an id to drink, drive, smoke, get prescription medications, and get government benefits. The poor 100% have government issued IDs, because without them you can barely function in a modern society. And if you don’t have one from your drivers license you can get one issued for identification purposes for $10 bucks. I know, because I had to get one in highschool.

  11. The Democrats have about a 75% chance of taking both the White House and the Senate. The reason the Democrats are threatening to pack the Supreme Court now are the same reasons they threatened to pack the Supreme Court during the FDR administration–to intimidate the court itself into ruling their way on the cases that come before them. During the FDR administration, the Court did defer to the Democrats. If the Supreme Court doesn’t defer this time, expect them to pack it. Why wouldn’t they?

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration plans to introduce both the Green New Deal and unleash an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before, and they need the Supreme Court to back them up on whatever challenges come before the Court to defend the awful laws they plan to pass over the next two years that destroy the economy and violate our constitutional rights.

    The reason the New York Times is writing pieces like this is to pave the way for packing the Supreme Court. At some point, we’re doing ourselves a great harm by dignifying their rationalizations with answers. There’s a time to argue against authoritarianism and socialism, and there’s a time to simply denounce it.

    Orwell saw totalitarianism as a boot stomping on a human face forever. There wasn’t any need to address the pro-boot stomping rationalizations of the totalitarians. Should Nineteen Eighty-Four be criticized for not carefully considering the rationalizations of totalitarianism? It’s almost like he denounced the whole system without taking both sides into consideration. How dare he?

    The purpose of Nineteen Eighty-Four was to expose totalitarianism for what it was–to debunk the official narrative and the lies. And that’s where we are with the Democrats and their threats to “reform” the Supreme Court. They’re planning to stomp on the faces of libertarians and capitalists forever–and there’s no good reason to argue that they shouldn’t stomp on our faces. Just expose their evil. Debunk their evil narrative.

    Not much else we can do. Voting against all Democrats in November makes sense, and if they win and implement their evil plans against our rights, our economy, and the Republic, we should do whatever we can to assist the Republicans in making the Democrats pay at the ballot box for it in 2022 and 2024. They plan to use the antitrust cases against social media to make it as difficult as possible for Republicans to criticize them in the public square, but we need to do what we can.

    I shudder to think what the right wing may do once they regain power in the aftermath of what the progressives are planning to do for the next four years, but making the Democrats pay for violating our rights, crushing the economy, and effectively destroying the Republic is probably more important. When the framers wrote that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is “necessary to the security of a free state”, they weren’t joking. They knew exactly what they were talking about.

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    1. “unleash an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before”

      Citation?

      “Joe Biden is a crook.”

      I especially hate how he strives to hide his financials and hires his kids.

      1. I broke the assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before down earlier today–with links to Biden’s campaign website–right here:

        https://reason.com/2020/10/27/11-trillion-reasons-to-fear-joe-bidens-presidency/#comment-8545502

        I’m not doing it twice in one day.

        If you’re completely ignorant of Biden’s campaign promises in regards to our gun rights, that’s on you. Go educate yourself. What else don’t you know about what Biden is promising to do?

        P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

        1. What there bring us behind, say the era of the Sullivan laws?

          1. Are you talking about this?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

            Not sure I understand what you’re saying, but if you’re trying to suggest that the list of things Biden is promising to do to violate our gun rights is somehow less than what the Sullivan Act did, the best interpretation is that you either you don’t know what the Sullivan act did, don’t know that it was limited to the state of New York, or didn’t bother to read the list of things that Biden is promising to do.

            The uncharitable assumption is that you’re not smart enough to understand that Biden’s list of gun rights violations is a greater threat to our gun rights than the Sullivan Act.

            1. You’re wasting your time. The poster with a name that only a white liberal would think is a black name is probably whatever troll got trounced earlier. I forget who it was.

            2. Ken, it’s a progressive. College-educated, smug, and has a shallow grasp, if any, of the topics it engages on, from what I’ve observed. It also tends to not understand fully the terms and instances it cites as proofs -this is where I draw my smug from, as it also shifts goalposts, moves to ridiculous attacks when proven wrong. It’s unable to admit mistakes, which makes me suspect youth, but intellectual immaturity can last throughout one’s life and is a hallmark of progressivism.

      2. Oh, and it doesn’t surprise me if you’re completely unaware of all the evidence that Joe Biden is a crook–considering that most of the news media and practically all of social media are both actively suppressing the story.

        “A repair-shop order from April 2019 contains Hunter’s name and what appears to be his signature. The shop owner supplied a subpoena showing the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December 2019. And the Biden campaign hasn’t said the emails are phony.

        . . . .

        According to the emails, both Bidens were in line in 2017 to benefit from a deal with CEFC. One email appears to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair/Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC.” It also refers to financial payments in terms of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?”

        Fox News says it has confirmed the veracity of the email with one of its recipients and that sources say the “big guy” is Joe Biden. An August 2017 email from “Robert Biden” (Hunter’s legal first name) crows that the original deal was for $10 million a year in fees, but that it had since become “much more interesting to me and my family” because it included a share of “the equity and profits.”

        —-Wall Street Journal

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bidens-and-china-business-11603236651

        Two questions for the Bidens:

        1) Are the emails authentic?

        2) Do you dispute the contents of the emails?

        Neither of the Bidens have answered either of those questions, but the authenticity of the emails appears to be solid and there is no reason to question that the contents are being misrepresented.

        Without even a denial from the Bidens about the authenticity and the contents of those emails, it is reasonable to conclude that Joe Biden is a crook.

        P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

        1. Question: did the Bidens teach the Clintons, did the Clintons teach the Bidens, or did they just swap notes?

    2. “There’s a time to argue against authoritarianism and socialism, and there’s a time to simply denounce it.”

      Exactly my attitude towards the trolls here, though I do enjoy reading your writing.

    3. 75% or nothing is nothing.

      Early returns are in and its not looking good for Joe Biden.

  12. Minority of voters confirm Justice to protect them from the whims of the majority.

    Isn’t that the whole fucking point of the bill of rights?

    1. The bill of rights, like all amendments, was passed by a supermajority.

      1. And?

        1. They’re super-majoritarian, not anti-majoritarian.

          1. Fine – when Congress starts passing laws with a supermajority then we can revisit this.

            1. ^This; The firewall used to keep tyrant minds from gaining tyrant powers. The very reason ‘court packing’ exists. The very reason “fundamentally changing America” is on the table of discussion which essentially is the ERASING of those requirements to bring down MORE of the firewall against tyranny.

          2. What is this supposed to justify?

          3. A minority of blue states and roberts consider Obamacare constitutional. Even though there is no federal power to require Americans to buy any product or service.

            Lefties fundamentally hate the constitution because it limits their socialist ways.

          4. So if a super-majority decided to reinstate legal slavery (striking the 14th, 15th, 16th Amendments) that’s just the will of the people and just fine?

            1. That’s what the left actually believes (but won’t say), but only if it’s the whites being enslaved this time…but not the good, science believing, all-inclusive whites like them…they get a pass.

  13. “Fixing”

    *insert Hillary-esque cackle*

    1. Good grief, whatever fears you had, the bad Hillary isn’t going to hurt you anymore…Though I would like to borrow your DeLorean.

      1. The memory of her cackle will continue to damage our collective psyches long after she takes the dirt nap. The military has probably tried to harness its power for enemy torture but they couldn’t find any researchers who would listen to it long enough to study the effects

        1. The FBI was using Hillary’s opposition research to get wiretaps on the Trump campaign during the last presidential election; it wasn’t that long ago, and Joe Biden was the Vice President at the time.

          And, yes, when Hillary lays around all day in her bra and panties, drinking herself to death and watching old episodes of The West Wing, I’m sure her cackles are just as frightening to adults as they are to children.

          1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

            1. Damn. I’ve had a really, really, really, bad day, and you still made me laugh. Thank you, I really needed it.

  14. You say the selection is increasingly partisan and rancorous, but isn’t it basically all on the Democratic side? I mean, yeah, the Senate refused to vote on Garland, but have Republicans ever attacked judges like Democrats have? Even unqualified partisan hacks like Kagan were handled very lightly.

    1. This.
      – Bork
      – Thomas
      – Estrada
      – Kavanaugh
      – Barrett

      Name a single Dem nominee who was treated as badly as any of these.

  15. Once politicized in this way, it is hard to see how the perceived legitimacy the Supreme Court as a court of law could be sustained

    No, real easy — because, who else you gonna go to to decide your case?

  16. It’d be fun, though, to see how the Supes’d be constituted after several rounds of packing: a chamber of hundreds of judges. You’d be unlikely to know many of their names. But they’d all make lots of money, because you can’t reduce their emoluments, and you’re not gonna discriminate against the new ones.

  17. How about, similarly to jury duty, we institute judge duty? Pick people at random. For sure that’d simplify the law, because average people aren’t going to make it more complicated than they themselves would like have their cases judged by. Maybe after a generation like that, we’d have no more need for lawyers, because everybody would understand the law well enough to argue their own cases.

  18. Reason strangely silent on the Tucker Carlson interview tonight. Probably waiting to see what the approved spin is, if they even mention it.

    Too bad, they could have had this story basically all to themselves for the last week.

  19. If you ain’t got Mojo Nixon then your court could use some fixin’.

  20. The problem with Calabresi’s idea of term limits is that it doesn’t actually fix the problem of strategic resignation. It actually could make it even more prevalent as it would just require 1 such resignation to allow a 2-term president to appoint a bare majority of 5 justices to the court. Same for untimely deaths

    Also, it would likely increase the desire for the Senate to play games and hold up a president’s 4th appointment, to allow the succeeding president to get an extra one

  21. The people of this country need fixing. That’s the actual iceberg you kept hinting at, but didn’t identify. Ask yourself why so many people are results oriented. Ask yourself why they don’t care about who they hurt, or why they think the ends justify the means. Ask yourself why they are so emotionally invested that they don’t even consider that their own boneheaded policies will hurt the very cause they’re trying to address. Finally, ask yourself why they don’t see the humanity or national brotherhood of the very people they’re hurting.

    These are uncomfortable questions to ask because they will start you down the rabbit hole of Communist infiltration, neo-Marxist education, and domestic terrorism, but we started asking these questions 70 years ago. McCarthy was vindicated long after he died and the reality that most people don’t realize that as a matter of fact is scary. The Soviet Union may not exist, but the seeds they planted after WWII have grown into strong trees that are now producing seeds of their own. Most of the writers here are still waking up to it, but libertarianism will inevitably be forced to embrace nationalism. A free society that allows itself to commit suicide is not free. All the snot-nosed intellectuals will freak out at this hypocrisy, but hypocrisy stops mattering real quick when you’re the one taking a bullet to the head. Trump is far too late with his attack on critical race theory, but this event marks the first counterattack in the culture war. The 21st century will be defined by whether or not we win in reunifying the nation, creating a common national identity, and rejecting narratives that necessitate the destruction of America. I only hope that we can pursue lighter solutions and keep this culture war as cold as possible. If we don’t act now, it could escalate to the point of needing actual fascism to reinstate our system of governance.

    1. Trump’s ends are “give me that sweet, sweet adoration fox,” and his means are “infect as many people with covid as possible and/or freeze them to death as they wait for my rally.”

      You’ll forgive people if they don’t agree that the Tim McVeigh method is the way forward to protect us from “bad means.”

      1. Thanks for ignoring everything I wrote. Also, quotations marks are to be used for things someone actually said, not strawmen quotes and out of context paraphrases imagined in your schizo mind.

  22. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://rna.bocsci.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.