Let's Amend the U.S Constitution.

[San Lumen]

The current constitution is just fine and dandy for our republic, the tweaks I'd make, is:
Repeal the 12th Amendment.
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Why would you repeal the 12th and 17th amendment?

[Geneviev]

Trump's appointees? The fact that we always talk about conservative and liberal justices? That's not what SCOTUS should be.

Maybe not the will of the people, but the law over politics.

The president should be able to nominate whoever he and someday she wants. It’s up to the Senate to decide if they should serve.

You keep saying that, but why? What makes the president the right person to nominate justices?

[Arkinesia]

Because the executive is going to appoint extremely partisan justices, and so the law and the will of the people are both ignored.

You have a source they are all extremely partisan? A judges job isn’t to worry about what the will of the people is.

Since Biden ran Senate Judiciary back in the 80s and 90s, judicial nomination hearings have had a distinctly political tenor to them that they didn't have before. Look, I don't like Thomas or Bork, but there was an aggressive political bent to the questions asked of these judges that just wasn't the way things used to be done.

Frankly, if we were talking about this fifty years ago, I would not have changed the judicial nomination process, even in a total rewrite of the Constitution, because prior to that, judicial nomination processes were focused on the law. And frankly, I think we have to move away from it because of the tendency of Republican presidents (especially Bush and Trump) to nominate wild-eyed activist hacks.

[Sundiata]

The current constitution is just fine and dandy for our republic, the tweaks I'd make, is:
Repeal the 12th Amendment.
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Why shouldn't the public elect senators?

[Resilient Acceleration]

No and why shouldn’t the executive be nominating judges?

Because the executive is going to appoint extremely partisan justices, and so the law and the will of the people are both ignored.

Compromise? The president can nominate 3, the Congress can nominate 3, the judicial system itself would nominate 3 (I don't know how would that work though. Here we separate the constitutional court from the supreme court [who is a normal court but on a national level], and the supreme court nominate 3 judges.) All of them would still need to be approved by Congress. Of course, this means term limits.

[San Lumen]

The president should be able to nominate whoever he and someday she wants. It’s up to the Senate to decide if they should serve.

You keep saying that, but why? What makes the president the right person to nominate justices?

They are the executive. If congress is doing it I can’t imagine they would appoint people who share the Presidents views

[Geneviev]

Because the executive is going to appoint extremely partisan justices, and so the law and the will of the people are both ignored.

Compromise? The president can nominate 3, the Congress can nominate 3, the judicial system itself would nominate 3 (I don't know how would that work though. Here we separate the constitutional court from the supreme court [who is a normal court but on a national level], and the supreme court nominate 3 judges.) All of them would still need to be approved by Congress. Of course, this means term limits.

Even that would be better than what we have now.

You keep saying that, but why? What makes the president the right person to nominate justices?

They are the executive. If congress is doing it I can’t imagine they would appoint people who share the Presidents views

Why should justices share the president's views?

[The Reformed American Republic]

The current constitution is just fine and dandy for our republic, the tweaks I'd make, is:
Repeal the 12th Amendment.
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Why shouldn't the public elect senators?

Probably because it would solidify Republican control in the senate.

[San Lumen]

Compromise? The president can nominate 3, the Congress can nominate 3, the judicial system itself would nominate 3 (I don't know how would that work though. Here we separate the constitutional court from the supreme court [who is a normal court but on a national level], and the supreme court nominate 3 judges.) All of them would still need to be approved by Congress. Of course, this means term limits.

Even that would be better than what we have now.

They are the executive. If congress is doing it I can’t imagine they would appoint people who share the Presidents views

Why should justices share the president's views?

Let’s say one party holds power in congress for a number of years like the democrats did from 1953 to 1994. You’d wind up wit a very one sided judiciary. How could a president from the other party expect to get anything done?

[Geneviev]

Even that would be better than what we have now.


Why should justices share the president's views?

Let’s say one party holds power in congress for a number of years like the democrats did from 1953 to 1994. You’d wind up wit a very one sided judiciary. How could a president from the other party expect to get anything done?

You're assuming that justices are always partisan. They don't have to be.

[San Lumen]

Let’s say one party holds power in congress for a number of years like the democrats did from 1953 to 1994. You’d wind up wit a very one sided judiciary. How could a president from the other party expect to get anything done?

You're assuming that justices are always partisan. They don't have to be.

I don’t think judges are always partisan.

[Cekoviu]

repeal the first and second amendments, as they do nothing of note. additionally, amend it to require that only one party be allowed

Excuse me? One political party?

did i stutter?

Excuse me? One political party?

Cekoviu is probably not being serious.

i am serious. the Communist Party of America-Marxist-Leninist should be the only legal party.

[San Lumen]

Excuse me? One political party?

did i stutter?

Cekoviu is probably not being serious.

i am serious. the Communist Party of America-Marxist-Leninist should be the only legal party.

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

[Cekoviu]

did i stutter?

i am serious. the Communist Party of America-Marxist-Leninist should be the only legal party.

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

who says i think the US should be a democracy?
but either way, internal party democracy is absolutely a thing that exists

[Geneviev]

You're assuming that justices are always partisan. They don't have to be.

I don’t think judges are always partisan.

But everything you're saying assumes the premise that justices are partisan. If they were just judges, experts in Constitutional law, they don't have to "share the President's views". That is partisan, and that is what I'm trying to solve.

[Torisakia]

At the very least, I would amend the damn voting system. The way it is now might have worked back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, but it sure as fuck doesn't work now.

[Punished UMN]

I would get rid of the electoral college

Nope, nope, nopety nope.

The electoral college allows all voices to be heard. Otherwise politicians would do nothing but cater to New York, California, and Florida, and everyone else is chopped liver. With the electoral college, the major population centers have a bigger influence, but not an all-encompassing one.

My voice isn't heard because of the electoral college though.

[Grinning Dragon]

The current constitution is just fine and dandy for our republic, the tweaks I'd make, is:
Repeal the 12th Amendment.
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Why would you repeal the 12th and 17th amendment?

The 12th. Mostly shits n giggles, and making the two opposing parties work together, would be interesting to see a president nominate a justice and since the vice president is the president of the senate how it would boil down to a tie break.

17th Amendment. The senate is suppose to be the State's house. They way it is now, the senate is nothing more than an upper chamber House of Reps.

[Punished UMN]

did i stutter?

i am serious. the Communist Party of America-Marxist-Leninist should be the only legal party.

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

You're so close, Lumen.

[San Lumen]

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

who says i think the US should be a democracy?
but either way, internal party democracy is absolutely a thing that exists

And what if someone isn’t a communist? They should have no one who represents them?

[Genivaria]

Excuse me? One political party?

did i stutter?

Cekoviu is probably not being serious.

i am serious. the Communist Party of America-Marxist-Leninist should be the only legal party.

Yeah because one-party dictatorships don't have a fucking horrible track record.

[Punished UMN]

who says i think the US should be a democracy?
but either way, internal party democracy is absolutely a thing that exists

And what if someone isn’t a communist? They should have no one who represents them?

The Communist Party will represent them.

[Genivaria]

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

who says i think the US should be a democracy?
but either way, internal party democracy is absolutely a thing that exists

Internal party nepotism and corruption maybe, since you apparently think think the PRC model is actually one worth copying.

[San Lumen]

Why would you repeal the 12th and 17th amendment?

The 12th. Mostly shits n giggles, and making the two opposing parties work together, would be interesting to see a president nominate a justice and since the vice president is the president of the senate how it would boil down to a tie break.

17th Amendment. The senate is suppose to be the State's house. They way it is now, the senate is nothing more than an upper chamber House of Reps.

The original system worked when we were a multi party system. It would never work now .

The 17th amendment was created to due to deadlock in state legislatures and to stop companies like railroads and oil companies from literally buying senators.

[Sundiata]

No. That’s not a democracy if only one party can hold power.

who says i think the US should be a democracy?
but either way, internal party democracy is absolutely a thing that exists

Lenin and Marxist-Leninists do not advocate democracy. While you could interpret Marx from a Libertarian lense, Vladimir Lenin was no left-libertarian. Lenin was a left-authoritarian like his antecedents Stalin, Pot, and Mao.

This is an extreme point of view, Cekoviu.