There have been five presidents who assumed the office after having lost the popular vote. Between them, they nominated 12 justices who ended up serving on the Supreme Court. On Saturday, with President Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh poised to pass the Senate, the number will climb to 13.
So allowing a legally-elected US president to legally select a Supreme Court candidate and to legally push for that candidate's legal approval means that THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN? Obviously, thinks Phil, who clearly detests the idea of allowing geographical expressions like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming as well as the people who live there for reasons known only to whatever deity Phil worships to have any voice whatsoever in national affairs.
Kavanaugh, though, has a distinct honor: He will be the first justice nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat on the bench with support from senators representing less than half of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of the country.
That's an odd opinion to have about places that grow Phil's food and make it possible for him to drive his car. But Phil has his reasons.
Obviously, Trump got almost 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Clinton got about 48 percent of the votes cast for president. Trump got about 46 percent.
So neither got a majority of votes cast? It's actually worse than that.
But that by itself doesn’t tell the whole story. Nearly half of U.S. residents over the age of 18 didn’t vote. Of the entire over-18 population, Trump got only about 25 percent of the possible votes. Clinton got about 26 percent.
I don't think that tells the story Phil thinks it tells. Then Phil hauls out his piece of resistance. Polls, peace and blessings be upon them.
Again, Trump is not alone in failing to win the popular vote. President George W. Bush is the other recent president to have that same fate. And, like Trump, Bush was also fairly unpopular when he made his Supreme Court nominations. Trump, according to an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released this week, has the approval of only 41 percent of American adults. (That’s about where Bush was in late 2005 when he made his picks.)
But Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee, is himself not very popular. Only a bit more than a third of the country views him favorably, according to that Marist poll. That’s certainly in part because of the allegations of sexual assault that were leveled against him last month. A majority of women disapprove of him.
What’s more, that same poll found most Americans didn’t want to see him confirmed. More than half, 52 percent, said the Senate should not advance him to the Supreme Court.
So what? So this. Government by polling data would be a definite improvement over our current situation because shut the hell up.
The first is the common complaint that polling is hopelessly flawed and inaccurate, a complaint that is generally offered only about polls that the reader doesn’t like. Anyway, it’s not true.
Insert "President Hillary Clinton" joke here. And don't even think about bringing up that US Constitution/law of the land garbage.
The second is that America is a republic, don’t you know, and this is how the system was built to work. To which the curt response is that, yes, as someone who writes about politics for a living, I am aware of the Senate and the electoral college. It is worth noting, though, that this structure can at times conflict with the precept that all men are created equal.
What can we do about it? As before, the obvious answer is to go to work and amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, that would involve guys like Phil being forced to interact with people he despises and convince those idiots that he's right.
So that's clearly a non-starter. All Phil's got left is public bitching in the pages of the Washington PostWhatever Stupid Crap Advances The Agenda or at a DC bar while a Nationals game played on the TV in the background or something.
I guess there is one other possibility. Do US Senators from geographical expressions we're forced to call states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming refuse to vote the way the left instructs them to? The fix is obvious; reduce the number of US senators who can frustrate the progressive agenda.
How do you do that? Easy. US states are nothing more than lines that the US government arbitrarily drew on a map. And what do we need 50 states for anyway? It's a different time now. Who needs farmers when we have easy access to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's?
Lines that are arbitrarily drawn can be arbitrarily erased and arbitrarily redrawn.
Why not combine geographical expressions we're forced to call states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming into one big state? Iokanebraskotaming. Make Omaha the new state's capital. Reasonably big town, centrally-located, a minor-league baseball team, readily-available booze.
Two birds, one stone. Those people will still have congressional representation, just a whole lot less of it. Thus, their ability to adversely affect the march of progressivism will be greatly reduced and much more of a reflection of their proper role given the national population.
I mean, all those places are basically interchangeable, aren't they?
I don't think that tells the story Phil thinks it tells. Then Phil hauls out his piece of resistance. Polls, peace and blessings be upon them.
Again, Trump is not alone in failing to win the popular vote. President George W. Bush is the other recent president to have that same fate. And, like Trump, Bush was also fairly unpopular when he made his Supreme Court nominations. Trump, according to an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released this week, has the approval of only 41 percent of American adults. (That’s about where Bush was in late 2005 when he made his picks.)
But Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee, is himself not very popular. Only a bit more than a third of the country views him favorably, according to that Marist poll. That’s certainly in part because of the allegations of sexual assault that were leveled against him last month. A majority of women disapprove of him.
What’s more, that same poll found most Americans didn’t want to see him confirmed. More than half, 52 percent, said the Senate should not advance him to the Supreme Court.
So what? So this. Government by polling data would be a definite improvement over our current situation because shut the hell up.
The first is the common complaint that polling is hopelessly flawed and inaccurate, a complaint that is generally offered only about polls that the reader doesn’t like. Anyway, it’s not true.
Insert "President Hillary Clinton" joke here. And don't even think about bringing up that US Constitution/law of the land garbage.
The second is that America is a republic, don’t you know, and this is how the system was built to work. To which the curt response is that, yes, as someone who writes about politics for a living, I am aware of the Senate and the electoral college. It is worth noting, though, that this structure can at times conflict with the precept that all men are created equal.
What can we do about it? As before, the obvious answer is to go to work and amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, that would involve guys like Phil being forced to interact with people he despises and convince those idiots that he's right.
So that's clearly a non-starter. All Phil's got left is public bitching in the pages of the Washington Post
I guess there is one other possibility. Do US Senators from geographical expressions we're forced to call states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming refuse to vote the way the left instructs them to? The fix is obvious; reduce the number of US senators who can frustrate the progressive agenda.
How do you do that? Easy. US states are nothing more than lines that the US government arbitrarily drew on a map. And what do we need 50 states for anyway? It's a different time now. Who needs farmers when we have easy access to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's?
Lines that are arbitrarily drawn can be arbitrarily erased and arbitrarily redrawn.
Why not combine geographical expressions we're forced to call states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming into one big state? Iokanebraskotaming. Make Omaha the new state's capital. Reasonably big town, centrally-located, a minor-league baseball team, readily-available booze.
Two birds, one stone. Those people will still have congressional representation, just a whole lot less of it. Thus, their ability to adversely affect the march of progressivism will be greatly reduced and much more of a reflection of their proper role given the national population.
I mean, all those places are basically interchangeable, aren't they?
1 comment:
Yup, that's the line. The guy "forgot" to mention the other recent president who never got a majority of the popular vote: Hillary's husband. But he was legitimate, of course, because he was a Democrat.
Post a Comment