ILikePie5

We occupied Syria and Iraq.  We'd invade Panama, albeit peacefully ideally.  We invaded Texas and that did wonders to their economy.

You said "decentralization". I don't see how the existence or non-existence of the senate has any impact on decentralization.

A citizen in North Dakota has roughly the same voting power in the house as a citizen in California. Also, California's house delegation should have more impact because there is a greater number of citizens in California. I don't really have any sense of fidelity or loyalty to any state, and I don't think most people do either. They're mostly lines on maps and a lot of red tape when you move to a different one.

Not really. Decentralization was accomplished by sharing powers between the states and the federal government.

It is not true that citizens in larger states have more voting power in the house. Citizens have roughly equal voting power in the house because representation is based on population.

There wasn't anything inherently good about it. Citizens in smaller states should have equal voting power as citizens in larger states. One man, one vote. That is fair.

More generally I view the senate as frustrating the will of the people

complete ban except womens life/serious health risk

what are the rules of the trump supporter circle jerk that we have in this forum? 

Not this time though.

Then again, Biden is better than Trump.

And before any Dems start complaining about how the small states make it impossible for democrats to win the senate (having never heard of Vermont, Delaware, Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Hawaii)...there was a democratic senate majority for years and there will be one again, most likely as soon as January 2021. All arguments to the contrary are just excuses to rig the system to ensure that instead of having a fair playing field that Dems cannot lose again, by adding deep blue “states” such as DC and packing the court every time they suffer the consequences of losing an election. 

Instant runoff voting is the solution.

Chris admirably showed that university faculty are overwhelmingly liberal. That's not a surprise nor is it something I care about.

It's not really an accusation and it's more by definition at this point. Look at how many times you've @'d at GP just to cackle together over hysterical conservative talking points just in this one thread.

And why do you think academia is a groupthink cesspool?

Stating that a conservative think tank thinks he's not moderate is rather vacuous. Perhaps something more specific?

This really doesn't mean much right? Conservatives may vote on the side of liberal policies and vise versa. Garland is noted for having judicial restraint which is more characteristic of conservative judges. So again I ask, what is a definitive sign of a more moderate judge and why are you definitively stating that Garland is not one?

We must be on different wavelengths or something. The context is the people should get a say on presidential election years.

The Biden rule wasn't a rule until Mitch made the precedent.

I think I can let this one slide, given that it stems entirely from Mitch's hypocrisy.

It may have been a good idea at the time, but times have changed. Populations and communities have shifted across state borders, and people don't really identify with their states as much as they did back then, except maybe Texans seem to have a Texas thing going on. Something kindof annoying is that it's very difficult to change the constitution comparatively. (more reading: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/05/amending-the-constitution-is-much-too-hard-blame-the-founders.html ) Oh well, what can ya do though.

The will of the dead people in action. That's what's really going on here.

FDR tried it, until he had a bunch of backlash. Hopefully it could be blocked somehow, but if they had big enough majorities, I'm sure it could be done within the constitution. 

The people voted for Hillary, and the Senate is even more undemocratic. This is not the will of the people. This is the will of the people being frustrated by American shitocracy.

It's the very definition of today's cancel culture academia.

I literally was forced to pretend to be a mouth breathing leftist to score Dean's Honor Roll every year while earning my degree. And that was back when cancel culture was just in its infancy.

Perhaps demonstrate so. At the moment all I see you posting uninformed opinions that you can't justify and you whining about biased academia. Which is great when circle jerking with other republicans, but it's useless in every other case.

Until it's shown otherwise?

How have democrats been failing to follow the rule, when they haven't had the chance ever since the precedent was first made?

No, by justifying his actions by claiming the American people should have a say, and then ignoring his own justifications when it becomes convenient. Do you have an example where Schumer has done this?

If the people want judges, then they vote for a president and a senate that will work with the president.

Like they did in 2014 and 2016,

Nothing more to discuss. It's the will of the people of America in action. The world doesn't revolve around the left. It revolves around elections

Which have

Consequences.

You apparently have a brain, so theoretically you should be able to critically analyse news pieces and literature. Perhaps try it instead of whining at me.

Sorry I should've been more clear. I think people in general should follow standards they themselves set. If Mitch has set the standard of Biden's rule, then he should be bound by it. Others shouldn't necessarily also be dragged into following it, and in this case with the Democrats that's probably ok. They were willing to go with a compromise pick. The same probably cannot be said with the republicans.

That your original point is wrong. He is not just "following the Biden rule". He's doing his own thing within the bounds of the law that best benefits his party.

For example?

Their reasonings are certainly more convincing than the hot air you put out.

Not really. Can and should are somewhat different. This congress has the power certainly but from a consistency standpoint, I think the precedent set by Mitch in 2016 should be followed.

The original point was that using the Biden rule is pretextual and that Mitch is a hypocrite.

Do you see how calling the Democrats hypocrites and asserting that the republicans have the power to seat a judge have nothing to do with this point?

Can you explain? I am not old enough to be in any college.

did you read the article? moderating the law causes uncertainty and civil unrest.

People need to know for sure that the government is going to protect them.

How? It is more conservative than liberal to me.

https://www.kassounilaw.com/2016/05/judicial-nominee/

If so, and Biden wins both House and Senate, he will just add another two seats to SCOTUS and have another liberal majority for another few decades. Yay.......

Merrick Garland being a moderate is a view expressed by many versed in legalese and is hence my conclusion. If you think this is not the case, perhaps you should explain why instead of making a very obvious and predictable dodge.

No one is arguing that the GOP doesn't have the power. But again, this is not the point.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats are also hypocrites so still not the point?

Amy is fine.

Pretty much anyone the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society says is qualified.

Lol

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” 

-Ruth Bader Ginsberg July 10 , 2016. New York Times

Even CNN is reporting that the seat will be filled before January.

In the end there are no "moral justifications" for political actions.

The Democrat party took a gamble with Obamacare and lost the Senate. 

What are the characteristics of a moderate then and why does Garland not fulfill these characteristics?

To be clear, the point I made is the invoking the Biden rule in defence of Mitch's hypocritical actions is pretextual. None of what you've said appears to have addressed this.

I don't see that Mitch has the votes because of a few GoP senators being potentially unwilling. He's probably got the votes though. Mitch's stance is clearly hypocritical, but it's not like anybody really believed him the first time. It's just so out in the open now, but when it comes to SCOTUS nominations the reputation damage is probably a small price to pay for the power of a life-long SCOTUS seat.

You're missing some context I think.

Firstly, "if a vacancy with the same party, fill it in election year" has been arbitrarily tacked on later to justify Mitch's actions. That bit is not a part of the "Biden rule" and is the flimsy pretext.

Secondly, the context of the rule when first suggested by Biden was to allow the people to have a say in the choice. This is the justification used by Mitch in blocking Merrick Garland. 

Thirdly, the suggestion made by Biden at the time was, failing the second point, a compromise pick should be made either with the consultation of the senate or the selection of a moderate.

Given the first point, Mitch is not actually invoking the Biden rule in this case. He's just doing what he wants and is legally able really.

Given the second point, clearly Mitch is a hypocrite as he does not intend to follow the justification of the Biden rule, nor his own justification made at the time for blocking Garland.

Given the third point, arguably Mitch never followed the Biden rule in the first place, because from what I understand, Garland was and is a moderate, and was actually a Republican suggestion in the first place.

Also I'd point out that the Biden rule is not actually a rule. It was a suggestion at the time and never codified or put into practice until Mitch invoked it to justify blocking Garland. Given that he obviously doesn't care about the context behind the rule clearly means that invoking it is pretextual, both in the first instance of invoking it and even moreso in the second instance.

Let's try not to justify Mitch's actions under such a flimsy pretext. It is sufficient to say that while hypocritical, Mitch is legally serving his party's best interests.

Lol, court isnt getting packed.

Honestly if the public gets upset about a conservative court, it will be the first time in over 70 years that the people actually cared about what the SCOTUS does.

That's a good thing no matter who wins the election.

Or they can do like Biden and not get anything done for 40 years and see how that works out.

well Trump has 3 1/2 months to appoint a replacement. Get cracking.

I don't think there's any question trumpists will surrender all prior moral objections to appointing justices from four years ago and demand an appointment before January.  What if Trump manages to bring the election outcome before the court (a la 2000)?