stop feeding the troll

he has been trolling jsp for many years now

it's my bad. i feel sorry for it

To be fair though, this power should reside with the "people's chamber", i.e. the House. In the purely theoretical and most extreme scenario possible, Republicans could still hold the Senate while standing at 10% nationally against the Democrats at 90%...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 20 2020 06:23pm

Oh god no, that would be the founders worst nightmare lol. The senate is supposed to be (has failed for the past ~60 years) the slower chamber, which is why deliberating over nominations is their job and not the rowdy house.

Well, the founders did not foresee an environment where the two parties are increasingly sorted along urban/rural lines and the most populous state has more than 60 times as many inhabitants as the least populous one. 250 years of uneven population growth have skewed the Senate to a point where it will become a problem for democracy in the intermediate future.

According to an article from today ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/ ), we're already at the point where the median state is 6.6% more Republican than the nation overall. By the end of the decade, we might have a situation where Democrats need to win the national popular vote in the presidential race and the House by around 10% just to be merely competitive in the Senate. Good luck getting anywhere close to that without "the most incompetent, corrupt and polarizing" president in history on the ballot...

If the judiciary is supposed to be a pillar of democracy, it has to be at least somewhat reflective of the will of the people. And for this goal, judicial nominations having to go through the Senate with its massive and still increasing Republican tilt will become a problem sooner or later.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 20 2020 06:36pm

Hurr durr librul media

Who is that last girl? Her face is perfect