Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS hostile to administration in recess appointments case (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I may be in the minority here (5+ / 0-)

    but I sure wish we could go back to the idea that this is a part time public service, the "good old days" when these folks had "real" jobs instead of their job being to raise the money to get elected again.

    •  But now we have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream Puff

      a population orders of magnitude larger, intercontinental ballistic missiles, international corporations, a planet-threatening human-made environmental crisis... Politics is professional now, and it's folly to try to make it otherwise. I mean, look at the Texas legislature.

      Having some legislative advisory body composed of a random draw of citizens would be a fine thing, of course. Perhaps that's what we could replace the grossly unrepresentative Senate with (also, nonpartisan redistricting commissions).

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 06:05:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a Republic (0+ / 0-)

        It was designed with a certain amount of state sovereignty.

        Your notion of the Senate being "grossly unrepresentative" only applies when viewing the US nationally.

        States rule.. not popular vote nationwide.  And, that won't change anytime soon.

      •  Can't change the Senate (0+ / 0-)

        It's even unclear that a new Constitutional Convention could change the way states are represented in the Senate. If you read the Constitution the guarantee that the small states won't lose their equal representation in the Senate is included with language unlike anything else. No changes can be made without their consent. It's baked deep in the cake.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 09:04:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hypothetically (0+ / 0-)

          since spending bills have to originate in the House, a Large State cabal could only pass bills that financially penalize small states (short of violating the XIV amendment), and use that as leverage to get the small states to agree to Senate reform.

          Of course, such discriminatory funding bills would be killed in the current Senate, but it would deny small-state senators their cheap pet projects too.  It might be possible to forge a compromise by which, say, the largest states could add up to 3 more Senators based on census data.

          I have no illusions as to how likely this scenario is however.

          First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

          by Cream Puff on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 07:36:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cream Puff - the Senate isn't changing (0+ / 0-)

            It will be two Senators per state forever. The crafting of the upper chamber, which gave more power to the small states, was the compromise for the House being allocated by population. That was the deal and if not for that deal we wouldn't have the USA. It isn't changing.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:56:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never said it was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I was only exploring a hypothetical by which small states could be arm-twisted into a constitutional amendment.

              I'm aware of the history.

              First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

              by Cream Puff on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:24:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  As others said (0+ / 0-)

        The Senate wasn't even really designed to represent the people. It's supposed to represent the states. It's the body where each state has equal power no matter it's size. I would absolutely oppose any change to that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site