1 minute ago, Bill said:

Yeah, but a chamber of 435 people representing 330,000,000 people is a little out of whack to me.  Plus with so few you get a higher percentage of bozos.

The senate at 100 makes sense, because they are not representing 330,000,000 people, but rather 50 states.

 

I ran the math the other day when I made the post, doing a few scenarios.  Let's just say then that you capped the ratio at 1:250k, that gives the house 1320 members.  A lot more than there are now, but certainly not unmanageable.  Also, with 435 reps, Harris needs to get 47% of the EVs in tossup states to be elected, but with 1320, she would need 43%.  (42% with 1:100k, 41% with 1:30k, but the house would have 11k members lol).  WY would go from 3 to 5 EVs, PA would go from 19 to 54 EVs, and CA would go from 54 to 160 EVs.

Plus, with more reps, each district becomes less politically valuable, so you would probably see less gerrymandering.

Broadly I fully agree with you. I do however wonder about what kind of morons we'd get with a sample size of 1320 vs 435, and the effects of tripling the size of the house logistically when I comes to votes (not to mention office space and all that fun crap)

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Broadly I fully agree with you. I do however wonder about what kind of morons we'd get with a sample size of 1320 vs 435, and the effects of tripling the size of the house logistically when I comes to votes (not to mention office space and all that fun crap)

Well, I mean, for a different office we had a sample size of 1, and a complete and total moron had it for four years.

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Well, I mean, for a different office we had a sample size of 1, and a complete and total moron had it for four years.

That is true. But seeing as we can't come close to finding 435 competent lawmakers, finding 1200 seems impossible lol.

 

11 hours ago, Procus said:

16 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits sex discrimination. How about them apples. 

Ok counselor, why don't you reach out to the Justices who wrote the Roe v Wade opinion because even they didn't use the "sex discrimination" clause of the 14th amendment to justify their ruling.

19 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits sex discrimination. How about them apples. 

This SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th Amendment is to be taken more or less with a grain of salt.

Just now, Procus said:

Ok counselor, why don't you reach out to the Justices who wrote the Roe v Wade opinion because even they didn't use the "sex discrimination" clause of the 14th amendment to justify their ruling.

restricting the right to terminate pregnancies," Justice blackmun wrote, ··the
State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, 
suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care."¹⁵ And 
rather than "compensate women for their services," Blackmun wrote, the government "assumes that 
they owe this duty as a matter of course."¹⁶  Blackmun observed that "[t]his assumption-that women 
can simply be forced to accept the 'natural' status and incidents of motherhood­ appears to rest 
upon a conception of women's role that has triggered the pro­ tection of the Equal Protection 
Clause."¹⁷
 

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5554&context=faculty_scholarship

Too true.

Jeez it's only September. The levels of MAGA butt hurt over the next few months are going to be off the charts. If we could harness it, it could power the country for decades. 

54 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

 

Uhm, why isn't more said about the fact that EVERY time I see an excerpt of a Trump rally they are hawking some bogus money scheme tied to him on the split screen?

29 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

They are literally laughing at Trump's obsession over it, just like we all are at home.

58 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

there are almost certainly posters here who think this sounds like a good idea. 

 

44 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

This SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th Amendment is to be taken more or less with a grain of salt.

no it hasn't

Just now, VanHammersly said:

 

Yah, this man broke them:

 

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Yah, this man broke them:

 

 

46 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

restricting the right to terminate pregnancies," Justice blackmun wrote, ··the
State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, 
suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care."¹⁵ And 
rather than "compensate women for their services," Blackmun wrote, the government "assumes that 
they owe this duty as a matter of course."¹⁶  Blackmun observed that "[t]his assumption-that women 
can simply be forced to accept the 'natural' status and incidents of motherhood­ appears to rest 
upon a conception of women's role that has triggered the pro­ tection of the Equal Protection 
Clause."¹⁷
 

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5554&context=faculty_scholarship

The Equal Protection Clause is not the "sex discrimination" clause.  There is no such clause.

Roe was decided based upon an invented "right of privacy" in the 14th amendment.  It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those who thought who was poorly reasoned.

27 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

9 minutes ago, Procus said:

The Equal Protection Clause is not the "sex discrimination" clause.  There is no such clause.

Roe was decided based upon an invented "right of privacy" in the 14th amendment.  It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those who thought who was poorly reasoned.

Duh,

It should have been decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Sex is a protected class. It's a far better argument. 

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Duh,

It should have been decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Sex is a protected class. It's a far better argument. 

That's what Ginsburg said.  Still dubious interpretation - but better than an implied (but non-existent) right of privacy in the 14h amendment.

11 minutes ago, Procus said:

It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned. 

Trump talking point. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Americans are guaranteed a fundamental right to privacy in the constitution. I know you fascists want big daddy government to crawl up our bowels and control every aspect of our lives, but it isn't what the country was founded on. Please move to Russia or Iran where you can live under the kind of totalitarian regime you desperately want. 

42 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

They are literally laughing at Trump's obsession over it, just like we all are at home.

Sure, if that's what you want to call it when a very serious journalist asks the hard-hitting questions.