Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Yes, one bad election cycle.

Had Clinton won then it wouldn't have been that bad, they could have held serve and kept a good amount of power.

Not only this, poll after poll shows that democratic policies and ideas are popular with over 50% of the nation, the idea that they should drop these for less favorable ideas is funny to me.

Meanwhile, the GOP was left for dead years ago, went more right to where they are now, very very right of center, and excited their base. This is just what is going to happen.

Also, the American system does support 3 parties, the founders didn't even like the idea of parties at all and they never stated that there should be two opposing parties and no more.

 

Good indication of this nominee stance...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-rehnquist-20180711-story.html

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, gave a revealing speech last fall in which he lauded former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for having dissented in Roe vs. Wade and for rejecting the notion of “a wall of separation between church and state.”

He also praised the late chief justice’s unsuccessful effort to throw out the so-called “exclusionary rule,” which forbids police from using illegally obtained evidence.

All three of areas of law — abortion, religion and police searches — are likely to be in flux if Kavanaugh is confirmed and joins the high court this fall.

...

 

You mean to say when Kavanaugh is confirmed and joins the high court.

 

Ah ok. lol

 

It isn't that the founders imposed two opposing parties. They decided to use a first past the post, winner take all system. That inevitably leads to two opposing parties because the introduction of a third party almost invariably draws votes disproportionally from one of the existing parties, cementing victory for the other party. Imagine the country was 60% dem and 40% rep. Then a new progressive party enters, drawing 34% of the vote, 30% from the dems and 4% from the reps. Then the new outcome is 36% rep, 34% prog, 30% dem, and the reps win with only 36% of the vote in a country that the dems would otherwise lead by 20 points. Things look even worse when there is no 20 point lead to start from. It is a question of game theory, not of a two party mandate from the founding fathers.

 

Time to pack the S. Ct. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there should only be 9 judges.
The Framers did not intend that 5 unelected guys could overturn laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president. They never envisioned that 40 year old folks could routinely live and work into their 80's.

The billionaires have exploited a defect in our old flawed Constitution to institutionalize their rule. .

 

Agreed. Trump needs to get four more in there and end these infringements on our rights to arms and against unreasonable searches and seizures. The idea that something in this modern digital age is no longer "yours" because a third party takes custody and therefore doesn't require a search warrant is outrageous. Starting to like the way you think glynch

 

LOL yeah they did you moron, that's exactly how they set the system up and they did so intentionally.

As to them not envisioning people living into their 80's, the main author of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, lived into his 80's.....so I'm pretty sure he could envision that happening.

As did Ben Franklin, hell John Adams made it to 90, James Madison made it into his 80's, Samuel Adams made it into his 80's.....

The only reason why life expectancy was so low back then was the high infant mortality rate bringing the average down.

 

Horrible candidate.

 

To suggest that the entire USSC of 1974 was mistaken is about as far from judicial modesty and respect for precedent as you can get.

If I wanted to use a word, I might use "activist" to describe that kind of sentiment.