Reply
Fri 20 May, 2005 09:43 am
The number of member of the House of Representative of the US government is determined by population. States with greater populations have greater numbers of votes, California having many more than Wyoming, but in the Senate, the two States have two votes each.
So I wondered, given the current Constitutional crisis over the filibuster, if it were possible that the Republicans Majority was really a minority. If you take the twenty-six least populated States, you end up with a Senate Majority (52) but representing less than 18% of the total population.
That's fun, but not the reality, I thought.
I went looking for a comparison between the number of people with Republican Senators and the number with Democrats. Couldn't find one, probably because the Senate doesn't usually get itself in the kind of a mess Frist is making.
So I sat this morning and added all the numbers up.
What I did was make two columns, one for Democrats and one for Republicans. If a State had one Senator from each party, Minnesota for example, I split the count half for each. I used the census figures from the year 2000.
Here's what I got:
Republican Senators 135,432,383 folks
Democratic Senators 139,997,807 folks
You got an Independent floating around in there and DC folks get nobody, but the difference is that the minority Democrats represent States having 4 million citizens more the Republican Senators. 4,565,423 to be somewhat exact or about the entire population of Colorado.
It's really meaningless until you start to think about why the Founders made the Senate the place to cool things down, to deliberate, to advise.
Frist has found the flaw in the checks and balances system and he and his Republican Minority-Majority intend to exploit it, rather that to see it as the Founders did.
Joe(so much for preserving and protecting the Constitution)Nation
The founding fathers never put in language to filibuster judicial nominees.
The rules to allow the filibuster were changed by the Senate and now the Senate is investigating wether to change the rules back to what they originally were.
Agreed that the Sneate is the place to have a strong or equal minority voice. However, what the Republicans want to do is only return to the rules that were in place.
I agree with the proposal. There is no more important legacy for any President than their Judicial appointments. Each and every Preseident should have the opportunity to have their appointments voted on by the Senate.
I'm sure you felt the same way about the 60+ nominees that the Republicans blocked during the Clinton Era by not even allowing them to come to the floor for a vote?
The fact of the matter is this. There are established rules for CHANGING the rules of the Senate. The Repulicans are trying to get around these established rules by claiming that the Senate is acting in an unconstitutional manner. But this is basically saying that the Senate has been acting in an unconstitutional manner for its entire existance. Which is plainly not true.
This is nothing more than a power grab, and a showdown for Supreme Court nominees. Don't expect the Dems to back down.
Cycloptichorn
In fact, each and EVERY one of these judges already HAS had an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and they ALL lost. So now they re-nominate them and try to change the rules in order to get them confirmed. Not exactly sporting.
Cycloptichorn
That population difference in representation in the Senate amounts to about 2 percent of the population of the country as a whole. Given the unrepresenative way in which the Senate is chosen I do not think that is too bad a disparity.
My favorite part of this whole discussion has been when one of the proponents of ending the filibuster says "Now we only oppose the nomination filibuster, the legislative one we think is okay." Until when?
Next week? This is a power shift of immense proportions, the public is going to be ill used by it and the US Constitution will start to show little cracks.
Can you have a Republic without compromise?
Joe(part of the American system is that the President doesn't always get his way.)Nation
I wish they'd just get on with it. Let the Dem's filibuster if they wish to. It will end eventually.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I'm sure you felt the same way about the 60+ nominees that the Republicans blocked during the Clinton Era by not even allowing them to come to the floor for a vote?
The fact of the matter is this. There are established rules for CHANGING the rules of the Senate. The Repulicans are trying to get around these established rules by claiming that the Senate is acting in an unconstitutional manner. But this is basically saying that the Senate has been acting in an unconstitutional manner for its entire existance. Which is plainly not true.
This is nothing more than a power grab, and a showdown for Supreme Court nominees. Don't expect the Dems to back down.
Cycloptichorn
The FACT is that in MY OPINION, as previously stated, each and EVERY President deserves to have their appointments voted on by the Senate. I feel that way today and felt that way Yesterday.
The republicans are doing nothing "unconstitutional" in trying to change the rules back to the way they were. The Senate has the ability to change it's rules and has NOT been acting "unconstitutionally" during this period when the RULES allowed Judicial appointments to be filibustered.
Quote:The FACT is that in MY OPINION, as previously stated, each and EVERY President deserves to have their appointments voted on by the Senate. I feel that way today and felt that way Yesterday.
That's interesting. And you think that the President deserves to have their (sic) appointments voted on because he's the President? or what? Because you'd like to further subvert the the Representatives of the People from forming their own opinions and making their own judgements?
Some people, mostly in Red States, think the President is a kind of king. You don't, do you?
Would you rather not have to go through the appointment process at all, I mean, wouldn't it be easier if we just let the President put whomever he wanted into the Courts? Although that doesn't sound like the American way, sounds more like Putin's recent moves in his country.
I'm not saying that you are in favor of the New American Authoritarian Government, but each and every President deserves..... sure sounds like it.
Joe(Do we at least get to choose the color of our children's uniforms?)Nation
Cycloptichorn wrote:The fact of the matter is this. There are established rules for CHANGING the rules of the Senate. The Repulicans are trying to get around these established rules by claiming that the Senate is acting in an unconstitutional manner. But this is basically saying that the Senate has been acting in an unconstitutional manner for its entire existance. Which is plainly not true.
No, no, no. The Rules of the Senate are a "living, breathing document"! They have to be interpreted!
(Sorry, it's just a bit funny to see this statement coming in defense of the left on the issue since there are equeally clear rules about changing the Constitution itself but every time that is brought up the left coughs up this "living, breathing document" spew.
Carry on! )
People who win elections deserve to have their policies put in place unless the policies amount to persecution. That's one of the benefits of winning elections.
woiyo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I'm sure you felt the same way about the 60+ nominees that the Republicans blocked during the Clinton Era by not even allowing them to come to the floor for a vote?
The fact of the matter is this. There are established rules for CHANGING the rules of the Senate. The Repulicans are trying to get around these established rules by claiming that the Senate is acting in an unconstitutional manner. But this is basically saying that the Senate has been acting in an unconstitutional manner for its entire existance. Which is plainly not true.
This is nothing more than a power grab, and a showdown for Supreme Court nominees. Don't expect the Dems to back down.
Cycloptichorn
The FACT is that in MY OPINION, as previously stated, each and EVERY President deserves to have their appointments voted on by the Senate. I feel that way today and felt that way Yesterday.
The republicans are doing nothing "unconstitutional" in trying to change the rules back to the way they were. The Senate has the ability to change it's rules and has NOT been acting "unconstitutionally" during this period when the RULES allowed Judicial appointments to be filibustered.
Back to the way they were? What do you think they were? Before the cloture was instituted there was NO WAY to end debate unless 100% of Senators agreed. The cloture vote of 67 ended that by making it 67% in 1917. Then it was changed to 60. Now the GOP wants to be able to cut off debate with only 50%. This is NOT going back to the way it was. That is elminating the historical idea completely.
fishin' wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:The fact of the matter is this. There are established rules for CHANGING the rules of the Senate. The Repulicans are trying to get around these established rules by claiming that the Senate is acting in an unconstitutional manner. But this is basically saying that the Senate has been acting in an unconstitutional manner for its entire existance. Which is plainly not true.
No, no, no. The Rules of the Senate are a "living, breathing document"! They have to be interpreted!
(Sorry, it's just a bit funny to see this statement coming in defense of the left on the issue since there are equeally clear rules about changing the Constitution itself but every time that is brought up the left coughs up this "living, breathing document" spew.
Carry on! )
You might have a point if this was an interpretation of Senate rules. It's not. It is an interpretation of the Constitution.
is it unseasonably warm in DC this year or has the senate morphed into another House of Reps Circus?
How very odd, Fishin' . . . i've never seen anyone "cough up" any "spew" about a "living breathing document." I'll not deny that this is so, but it would be more credible if you can provide an example of that happening.
For the record, i do not oppose the use of filibuster, nor do i oppose changes in floor procedure in the Senate. After all, the constitution does specifically stipulate: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
So, i don't have a dog in this fight, i just find it interesting reading.
I do however, consider your statement farcical . . . unless you can demonstrate that those whom you oppose politically habitually "spew" nonsense about a "living, breathing document."
It's mostly me, Setanta. I punched a few buttons over on a "The Constitution says Everybody gets to carry Heat" thread a few days ago. I used that phrase. I like it.
What I'd like to remind everyone is that what is at stake here:
we are talking about how we make lifetime appointments in this country. We are not appointing a County Commissioner to serve out an unfinished term, we are placing a person in a position of power that will affect generations. It seems wise to want to have more than just a simple majority of votes to confirm such a long term commitment, thus the filibuster unless a candidate can inspire the votes of the Great Majority.
Joe(I always wonder at folks who like things too easy.)Nation
You're a very bad man, Joe . . . i am severely disappointed in you . . .
For the record, i wouldn't scrap the Senate if i had the power, and my life depended upon it. It is a bulwark against majoritarian tyranny. That said, the devices which protect us from minoritarian tyranny don't seem to function too well these days . . .
McGentrix wrote:I wish they'd just get on with it. Let the Dem's filibuster if they wish to. It will end eventually.
Agreed. (How about that?)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace