Should a president who receives less

[Crazyhole]

Than 50% of the popular vote be allowed to nominate SCOTUS justices? Somebody alluded to how a fraction of the public shouldnt be able to dictate such a large part of public policy in another thread. Should there be a limitation on what a president can do if he doesn't win a majority of the vote? I'll admit that it seems weird that a person can get elected by 1/6th of the population and become so powerful with far-reaching decisions.

 

[fried-chicken]

Than 50% of the popular vote be allowed to nominate SCOTUS justices? Somebody alluded to how a fraction of the public shouldnt be able to dictate such a large part of public policy in another thread. Should there be a limitation on what a president can do if he doesn't win a majority of the vote? I'll admit that it seems weird that a person can get elected by 1/6th of the population and become so powerful with far-reaching decisions.

Should a president who wins 51% of the popular vote be allowed to carry out his constitutionally designed duties and nominate a supreme court judge in his term, or should he wait for the next president who gets 46% and arbitrarily "let the people decide" with no constitutional backing even though they already did decide 3 years prior and decided again by voting for the other candidate by more than 3 million votes?

Is that your question?

 

[sk8knight]

Than 50% of the popular vote be allowed to nominate SCOTUS justices? Somebody alluded to how a fraction of the public shouldnt be able to dictate such a large part of public policy in another thread. Should there be a limitation on what a president can do if he doesn't win a majority of the vote? I'll admit that it seems weird that a person can get elected by 1/6th of the population and become so powerful with far-reaching decisions.

The Senate could always reject the nomination. Also, I think it's a sign that the Supreme Court has become too powerful when we are turning the executive and legislative branches over based upon potential Supreme Court nominations. Maybe a little less judicial activism and a little more legislative action and we would all be fine.

 

[Crazyhole]

Should a president who wins 51% of the popular vote be allowed to carry out his constitutionally designed duties and nominate a supreme court judge in his term, or should he wait for the next president who gets 46% and arbitrarily "let the people decide" with no constitutional backing even though they already did decide 3 years prior and decided again by voting for the other candidate by more than 3 million votes?

Is that your question?

I was thinking more specifically about the situation with Ginsburg, but it extends to everyone that both Clinton and trump have nominated. Clinton nominated 2 scotus judges even though he never received 50% of the vote, but his influence has extended another 20 years thanks to nominating Ginsburg. Trump received a higher percentage than bill did, but still less than 50%, and may be in a position to appoint 4 scotus judges that could outlast him by 25 years. Few would argue that Ginsburgs legacy is more powerful than Clinton's even though her appointment was predicated on a guy who got 43% of the vote. The same may end up being said about trump and Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, and possibly another 2 judges. It's just kind of funny how a minority vote can lead to a majority in 1/3rd of the federal government

 

[firm_bizzle]

Just to throw in another thing to think about. Senators representing 44% of the population confirmed the last 2 SC justices.

POTUS elected with 46% puts 22% of the SC justices in with Senators representing 44% of the population. Keep giving the people what they want!

 

[firm_bizzle]

I was thinking more specifically about the situation with Ginsburg, but it extends to everyone that both Clinton and trump have nominated. Clinton nominated 2 scotus judges even though he never received 50% of the vote, but his influence has extended another 20 years thanks to nominating Ginsburg. Trump received a higher percentage than bill did, but still less than 50%, and may be in a position to appoint 4 scotus judges that could outlast him by 25 years. Few would argue that Ginsburgs legacy is more powerful than Clinton's even though her appointment was predicated on a guy who got 43% of the vote. The same may end up being said about trump and Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, and possibly another 2 judges. It's just kind of funny how a minority vote can lead to a majority in 1/3rd of the federal government

I think the 60 vote requirement at least requires senators representing the majority of America. Clinton may have only received 43% of the vote but 1.) He received the most votes 2.) His choices were confirmed by a number of senators representing a majority of Americans.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think the 60 vote requirement at least requires senators representing the majority of America. Clinton may have only received 43% of the vote but 1.) He received the most votes 2.) His choices were confirmed by a number of senators representing a majority of Americans.

60 senators can theoretically only represent 26% of the country

 

[sk8knight]

We are not a democracy built on populism and centered on the will of big cities. This is for a lot of good reasons. Unless you all want to live in a country where the leaders are All populists who fire up the masses, then can we please stop with this? Especially in this day and age where we’re divided by the rhetoric of our leadership.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think the 60 vote requirement at least requires senators representing the majority of America. Clinton may have only received 43% of the vote but 1.) He received the most votes 2.) His choices were confirmed by a number of senators representing a majority of Americans.

Sounds great in theory, but in practice it isn't possible anymore. Consider that 2 supreme court justices that trump nominated have garnered a total of 4 votes from 3 democrats, all of which come from red states who were up for reelection. If we stick with the 60 vote threshold, we may have to wait a dozen years or more before 1 party has enough senators to fill open seats, at which time they would stack the court.

 

[sk8knight]

Sounds great in theory, but in practice it isn't possible anymore. Consider that 2 supreme court justices that trump nominated have garnered a total of 4 votes from 3 democrats, all of which come from red states who were up for reelection. If we stick with the 60 vote threshold, we may have to wait a dozen years or more before 1 party has enough senators to fill open seats, at which time they would stack the court.

This is a good point. In Clinton’s time, the confirmation was largely a formality and based upon whether the nominee was qualified. Now they are examining political ideology. So the votes then become party line votes. It’s not the way the process was supposed to work.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is a good point. In Clinton’s time, the confirmation was largely a formality and based upon whether the nominee was qualified. Now they are examining political ideology. So the votes then become party line votes. It’s not the way the process was supposed to work.

Gorsuch is the perfect example of it. Nobody questioned whether or not he was qualified, they protested the vote based on Garland first, and then on whether he would side with the "little guy". Never was a question raised about whether he was qualified and yet the democrats refused to vote for him unless they were facing political ramifications. While I didn't like McConnells tactic in regards to Garland, he knew that republicans wouldn't vote on party lines and it turned out that he was correct about letting the public decide. As we all know, the Cavanaugh deal was a total political sham and he only received 1 vote from a democrat. The precedent has been set, and Republicans will respond in kind in the future, so unless democrats get a super majority in the senate they will never get a nominee confirmed.

It's kind of crazy to think that less than 30 years ago RBG got more than 90 votes. I'm sure that republican senators had major problems with her ideology but they voted on whether she was qualified. Actually if you look back over the last 70 years, democrats have been much less likely to vote for republican nominees and their protestations were always based on political ideology or personal reasons.

 

[Cubs79]

Gorsuch is the perfect example of it. Nobody questioned whether or not he was qualified, they protested the vote based on Garland first, and then on whether he would side with the "little guy". Never was a question raised about whether he was qualified and yet the democrats refused to vote for him unless they were facing political ramifications. While I didn't like McConnells tactic in regards to Garland, he knew that republicans wouldn't vote on party lines and it turned out that he was correct about letting the public decide. As we all know, the Cavanaugh deal was a total political sham and he only received 1 vote from a democrat. The precedent has been set, and Republicans will respond in kind in the future, so unless democrats get a super majority in the senate they will never get a nominee confirmed.

It's kind of crazy to think that less than 30 years ago RBG got more than 90 votes. I'm sure that republican senators had major problems with her ideology but they voted on whether she was qualified. Actually if you look back over the last 70 years, democrats have been much less likely to vote for republican nominees and their protestations were always based on political ideology or personal reasons.

Sonya Sotomayor was also perfectly qualified, and only received 9 out of a possible 40 Republican votes. Elena Kagan, also perfectly qualified, receive 5 out of a possible 41 Republican votes. And then of course Garland, as you acknowledge, wasnt even given a confirmation hearing. So yes, Republicans will most certainly vote along party lines and play politics with our judges. What you are saying doesnt add up.

Justice Kennedy got all 97 votes in 1988, an election year, and was appointed by Reagan, so much like Ginsburg, Republican nominee during that general time frame also received bipartisan support. In fact Reagan appointed 4 justices, Robert Bork was the only one not confirmed easily, and that was because of questions about his stance on civil rights and voting rights. The other 4 he nominated, were confirmed easily with bipartisan support. Unlike Garland, Kennedy was given a nomination hearing and vote despite it being an election year.

Since LBJ, Democrats have only had 4 spots to fill, 2 by Clinton, two by Obama. Both of Clintons passed easily, none of Obama's had bipartisan support, and 1 wasnt even given a hearing. So you are claiming Democrats set this precident but in the last 50 years Republicans have only supported 2 Democratic supreme court nominees. Obama's 3 nominees got a total of 14 Republican votes. Those 3 combined got less Republican votes than John Roberts got of Democratic votes. Your narrative simply isnt accurate.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

The better question is: should we have life time appointments?

The answer is no.

 

[UCFBS]

Than 50% of the popular vote be allowed to nominate SCOTUS justices? Somebody alluded to how a fraction of the public shouldnt be able to dictate such a large part of public policy in another thread. Should there be a limitation on what a president can do if he doesn't win a majority of the vote? I'll admit that it seems weird that a person can get elected by 1/6th of the population and become so powerful with far-reaching decisions.

The SCOTUS was purposely designed to keep the American public from approving and nominating justices. The Judicial Branch is supposed to be meritocratic, not popular, as they weld the most power, but not the ability to create laws. The Legislative Branch is supposed to be popularist, and has the greatest ability to create laws.

Ironically the allegedly 'conservative' SCOTUS is moving to limit the powers of the Executive, which is a long time in coming and I'm glad to see.

 

[firm_bizzle]

A nice article that sums up this discussion.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...te-president-represent-minority-views-2019-12

 

[UCFBS]

A nice article that sums up this discussion.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...te-president-represent-minority-views-2019-12

The 'Progressive' agenda isn't exactly 'majority views' either.

• Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
  Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.
  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...joities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
  
  "According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

We Libertarians have been trying to warn the Progressives that just because a majority of Americans disagree with Trump, doesn't mean they support the 'Progressive' agenda ... far from it!

In fact, 'Progressives' ignoring the century and a half old Liberal outlet The Atlantic, are a perfect example of the problem. Progressives keep killing off Liberals.