Here’s the kind of thing I had in mind:
It’s a valid argument to debate how far along the continuum that might move us, toward ‘putting people’s rights up for a vote,’ but I would argue that it does move us in that direction.
I may misunderstand your post.
Are you arguing that eliminating the electoral college in some way pushes us towards voting away peoples rights?
If so I don’t see how. A right can be voted away just as easily under the current convoluted system than under direct democracy, possibly even more easily.
I think my thinking was really skewed by the last administration. Even knowing that his approval numbers were historically (at least rather) low, he had a certain power over a certain segment of society that – as many of us have opined – could be far more effective by somebody more evil and far more competent (eg, DeSantis or Hawley).
I think Trump found his lane, and in it his audience. I think he just hammered on that audience without seeking to grow it. Somebody else might be able to grow it. Buffers and guardrails would become ever more important in that scenario.
So let’s say that something much closer to Direct Democracy is somehow implemented. My thinking was the effect that a demagogue – particularly on the heels of the revised complexion of the SCOTUS – could have on direct voters might be enormous.
What buffers and guardrails would exist.
I was thinking back to an article I skimmed quite a while ago. Sections 3 and 4 probably moved me most (may not be able to quote within Fair Use limits).
I’m also reminded of West Virginia v. EPA, recently decided by the Supremes. I was struck by a legal scholar who remarked that the Court implied that Congress must now hold themselves out as the body with the expertise to craft specific policy prescriptions for the environment. It took the power out of the hands of the subject matter experts.
The way I’m thinking about it is akin to that Churchill quote. Trump proved just how damned easily a frighteningly large segment of the population could be manipulated by relatively crude methods. Many of the institutions held, if barely. What would those institutions even look like in a direct democracy ?
To what extent would we be even more reliant on “the average voter” to understand the critical issues of our time. How much more easily could they be manipulated if all the lobbying money and efforts were redirected from DC to Main Street ?
Maybe this is painfully obvious, but any “impact of …” argument seems highly dependent on the definition of direct democracy. I think I’ll look at that article again and see what it shakes loose for me I’m not sure my argument is fully formed 
I think I sort of get what you are saying, and agree that a pure direct democracy where every legislative or policy decision was put up for a direct democratic vote would be a disaster. My general opinion is in those states that have it laws passed by referendum are generally worse than those passed legislatively.
But the choice between the current implementation of the electoral college versus direct election of the president by popular vote seems entirely orthogonal to this. Both result in a representative form of government determined by a popular vote. Its just a difference in how those votes are weighted, with one version being 1 person one vote, and the other being a complicated system that results in only the votes of a few swing states mattering.
Getting back to the thread topic, the only way in which popular vote represented a more direct democracy than the electoral college is if the one supports the “independent state legislature theory” with the belief that state legislators are better positioned to decide who should be president that individual citizens.
Precisely the same buffers and guardrails that exist now.
The limitations on the powers of the President of the United States exist in the limits the Constitution places on the office. They have nothing at all to do with how the President is elected. It is likelier an evil, treasonous or unstable person will be elected under the CURRENT system than would be the case in a popular vote.
I wouldn’t agree with the decision, but I also wouldn’t run around the internet screaming about how "unconstitutional!!!’ it was.
If you don’t think that such a decision would be unconstitutional, then why would you not agree with it?
The Supreme Court’s ultimate raison d’etre is to decide cases in accordance with their interpretation of the Constitution, of which they are the final arbiter because they’re the highest court. If you’re not willing to say that you think their interpretation of the Constitution in a particular case is wrong—i.e., that the Court’s position is unconstitutional—then what grounds do you have for disagreeing with it, other than your personal whim?
Your pedantic literalism about refusing to accept the word “unconstitutional” as applicable to a decision of the Supreme Court is painting you into a corner where you have no valid grounds for disagreeing with any decision of the Supreme Court except that you personally don’t happen to like it.
If you refuse to accept that a Supreme Court decision can validly be called “unconstitutional” by people who disagree with its reasoning, you are tacitly asserting that there’s only one correct interpretation of the Constitution and it’s always what the Supreme Court said most recently.
How you manage to reconcile that position with the fact that the Court sometimes reverses its own decisions I don’t know, although I’ve asked you about it before (in post #187).
TBF even if it pains me, a decision can be unwise yet constitutional, or perfectly constitutional and I must abide by it, but that doesn’t mean I must like or enjoy it.
By definition, what SCOTUS says is constitutional is constitutional. If they uphold laws censoring the public, confiscating guns, quartering troops in your home, and arresting and detaining you without due process, those laws would be constitutional.
OTOH, it you disagree with SCOTUS, the grounds upon which you would be disagreeing with them is whether or not the laws they uphold are constitutional.
Sure. But simply declaring categorically that it’s wrong to call any Supreme Court decision “unconstitutional”, on the mindlessly tautological grounds that “what SCOTUS says is constitutional is constitutional”, is just a silly “gotcha” to impede debate.
As k9bfriender notes, when somebody calls a SCOTUS decision “unconstitutional”, it means that they are disagreeing with SCOTUS’s (current) interpretation of the Constitution. Which is a legitimate position to hold.
Especially in instances when 3 or 4 of the members of the Supreme Court also hold that opinion.
More to the point, I think: It’s never valid to argue that a law is right, just, proper, or even good public policy by simply re-asserting that it is, in fact, the law.
Whatever legal validity a law may have, it can never be invalid per se to argue that the law is a bad one, and to work in whatever ways one can to change the law.
IMO, there’s a more productive way to go about such discussions. For example, this thread in GD in re: the Dobbs case:
That’s a worthwhile thread, where people can post their agreements and disagreements with the ruling.
Compare that to the thread about Kennedy v Bremerton , where posters were repeatedly insisting that Mr. Kennedy’s actions violated the Establishment Clause, when the Court specifically ruled that the Establish Clause was not violated. Expressions of opinions and disagreements are productive in a (GD/PE) thread, declarations of opinions as if they were facts, are not.
Again, you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept (which I know several posters including some actual lawyers have pointed out) that a statement like “The Supreme Court’s ruling was unconstitutional” is an argument. It’s not in any way denying the facts of the situation.
Sure, it’s not particularly useful for debating purposes just to make that argument and not give any details of the constitutional interpretation from which one’s deriving that argument. If somebody thinks that Mr. Kennedy’s actions violated the Establishment Clause, they have not adequately supported their position by merely making that statement.
But it’s also not useful just to contradict such arguments with mindless repetitions of tautological statements about how the Court ruled. If somebody thinks that Mr. Kennedy’s actions violated the Establishment Clause, you are not adequately rebutting their position by merely reiterating that the Court ruled otherwise.
You can never prove that a law is right simply by re-asserting that it is the law.
No, I didn’t just say “nuh uhh”. I quoted the relevant passages where the Justices explained their reasoning in detail.
And in a discussion about the Constitution, the Justices’ considered reasoning carries more weight than, say, an editorial in The Daily Planet, or someone’s blog post about what the writer thinks Constitution should say.
I think that’s the point. This isn’t a discussion about the Constitution. It is a discussion about public policy, Constitutional law, morality, and misogyny.
The Constitution doesn’t really get into medicine, women, children, or any of the other issues that are highly relevant here.
If you want to talk about the relationship between Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution, by all means start a thread, but I don’t think anyone disagrees that the decisions made by the Supreme Court majorities about the Constitution are binding. Or whatever you are arguing.
and they in turn pointed out why these passages didn’t actually correspond to reality.
How much weight does the opinion of the dissenting justices carry, in your opinion?
No, now the thing in American politics is that the minority should be able to take away the rights of other minorities, or even of the majority.