June 25, 2022
New argument from the left. Justices appointed to SCOTUS by presidents who won the Electoral College but not the popular vote are illegitimate.
By extension, they are saying any president who is Constitutionall
I guess it is immaterial that presidents only nominate, the Senate seats them.
Proving once again, they will tear down any institution they do not own.
Civics education in this country is horrible, at that by design. Few understand how our system works, but they all have opinions. The fact is we don't HAVE a popular vote for President. What we have is a vote in the given states to choose a slate of electors to send to Washington to vote for us. Those electors are free to vote as they please (except in states where there are laws forcing them to cst their vote for whom they are pledged.) Shoot; there is no mandate to even have a popular vote. South Carolina still had the state legislature choose the electors as late as 1860. While every state now has a popular vote for that there is no federal mandate.
And there is nothing to force any precinct to count votes. What this means is the popular vote is never a complete picture. Every precinct will count votes, but once the issue is settled in their state they can choose to keep counting - or not. So in the last couple of elections California has counted, counted, counted to run up the popular vote tally, and nobody will challenge what the precincts produce because it doesn't materially affect the outcome of the election. BUT it certainly affects the political debate. The Democrats are using this "popular vote" myth to demand eliminating the College of Electors and thus further move us to pure democracy, something the Founding Fathers feared and loathed.
As Plato pointed out, democracy quickly and invariably deteriorates into chaos, anarchy, and the rise of a tyrant.
So, if they are now saying a Justice must be appointed by the winner of the popular vote, then why not just elect the Justices and be done with it? I mean, if democracy is so all-fired wonderful, why shouldn't we democratize the Courts? Fro that matter, why have the Courts at all? Let the People decide every issue! Take a pleibescite.
It's interesting they are arguing the overturning of Roe is some sort of "eliminating" of a "right". But they want rights to be decided b y democratic action. Hypocrisy is ripe here.
If rights transcend the collective will (as Rousseau and every leftist since believes they do not) then they are not up for democratic meddling. Our Founders believed they came from "Nature and Nature's God" and not from men. That is the whole reason we have an independent judiciary.
The Left only accepts an independent judiciary when they are attacking those rights they were put in place to protect.
That was why judges were not elected (as they are in many states) to the Federal bench in the first place. Politics was supposed to stay out of it.
Maybe we should have a national popular vote on Senators and Congressmen? I'd like to see Pelosi or Di Fi have to win over voters in Alabama.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 25, 2022 01:13 PM (pdDZ2)
Posted by: Bill H at June 25, 2022 11:49 PM (Q7br2)
Somehow I don't think they'll be amenable to that idea.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 26, 2022 08:57 AM (U9fSZ)
All we have is vote counts in precincts to establish the official vote certified by the given state's Secretary of State.
New York regularly stuffs the ballot boxes after the national election is decided to make it appear the Democrats are stronger than the rest of the country's vote would make it appear.
The whole point of a "national vote" is to allow the Democrats to steal elections. Nothing more.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 26, 2022 09:01 AM (U9fSZ)
Posted by: Kanpur Matka at September 22, 2022 04:19 AM (zm4ix)
37 queries taking 0.2525 seconds, 156 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.