General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(102,693 posts)

44. The paper imagines a Supreme Court completely unlike recent ones

Sun May 8, 2022, 11:06 AM

May 2022

From a political theory as well as a public perception standpoint, it would
be odd for nine unelected justices to strike down a congressional statute
designed to enhance democratic representation, including fair representation
of people of color, based on an interpretation of the original text of a 200-
year-old document written of white men, by white men, and, at least in large
part, for white men (many of them slaveholders)

No, it wouldn't be "odd"; it would be what everyone expects them to do. Especially for the present one, but quite probably for all Supreme Courts throughout history.

The author reckons that the "equal protection of the laws" promised to all citizens by the 14th Amendment overrides the explicit language of the Constitution that 2 Senators will come from each state (and that the states' right to representation can't be overridden even by amendment - "no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" ).

This is a bit of silliness by an author trying to get noticed. It ignores the reality of the USA, and is of no practical use to anyone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IS ADDING MORE SENATORS A SOLUTION WORTH CONSIDERING? [View all] in2herbs May 2022 OP

How so without a Constitutional Amendment? Polybius May 2022 #1

Is a Constitutional Amendment required to split a State? PufPuf23 May 2022 #14

Under this scenario, no state(s) is added and no Constitutional amendment is in2herbs May 2022 #18

Statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia would add more Senators. n/t TygrBright May 2022 #2

Is P. R. on board with this? Of course, I'd support the idea wholeheartedly. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2022 #5

Polling seems to indicate a pretty even split. AnyFunctioningAdult May 2022 #41

Yeah, not sure then bout PR...DC fo sho tho. I say ram it thru then & federalize abortion rights. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2022 #42

Who knows what we can do long-term, but we better get out vote in Nov and 2024. Hoyt May 2022 #3

That is where we have to start...without winning the midterm, nothing can be done. Demsrule86 May 2022 #8

People say this GOTV as if its the solution. The states are so gerrymandered that in2herbs May 2022 #19

The laws aren't going to change between now and November. GOTV. Hoyt May 2022 #26

The composition of the Senate is given in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. former9thward May 2022 #4

The article and pdf cites reasons why this is not cast in stone. nt in2herbs May 2022 #20

Yes, and the article is wrong. former9thward May 2022 #40

Requires 38 states and 2/3 of the House and Senate to ratify such an amendment. roamer65 May 2022 #6

So do nothing?? With majority Ds in the senate this couldl be passed just like any in2herbs May 2022 #22

No. But increasing the number of house reps is Orangepeel May 2022 #7

The article spends a lot of words sarisataka May 2022 #9

Exactly Novara May 2022 #16

Of course I can imagine how much we could get done with a clear Senate majority, but in2herbs May 2022 #23

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Senate. Jedi Guy May 2022 #34

How do you gerrymand a state? hardluck May 2022 #35

The whole premise of gerrymandering collapses on the fact that the Senate MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #43

All of these things require support from people that want to take away rights JI7 May 2022 #10

It would be easier to reset the number of Representatives because that's governed by a law jmowreader May 2022 #11

Good idea -- approach the issue via House of Reps. nt in2herbs May 2022 #24

The red states might go for it, too jmowreader May 2022 #46

Not necessarily. mwooldri May 2022 #12

this is a bizarre fantasy. it basically imagines a very left-wing supreme court radically unblock May 2022 #13

You'd have to be more specific in your reasoning for there to be a response. nt in2herbs May 2022 #29

The paper imagines a Supreme Court completely unlike recent ones muriel_volestrangler May 2022 #44

Thank you. Better explanation than mine. unblock May 2022 #47

It is interesting that California has about 40 million people and only two Senators... kentuck May 2022 #15

California-2 Senators sarisataka May 2022 #17

Why not two states of California - North California and South California? kentuck May 2022 #21

The Dakotas were admitted as two states sarisataka May 2022 #27

I'm not in favor of that but even if it was done I don't see the increase equaling in2herbs May 2022 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author LiberatedUSA May 2022 #30

It's obviously not. And the Atlantic article put for a solution, a solution that does not in2herbs May 2022 #25

... Crepuscular May 2022 #37

Just to be clear, slavery had a lot to do with that structure unblock May 2022 #48

If republicans... LiberatedUSA May 2022 #31

Senators would be added but the voters would be the deciders as to whether they would in2herbs May 2022 #32

The article makes the argument sarisataka May 2022 #36

We haven't made a new state since I was a kid in 1959. Emile May 2022 #33

multiple Dems are against adding more states and/or also adding more SCOTUS justices so none of this Celerity May 2022 #38

Why? Emile May 2022 #39

because they're institutionalists for the most part, and we'd have to do a filibuster carveout Celerity May 2022 #45