Problem with that is most media these days is not broadcast. Unless the FCC wants to try to insert their mandate into WiFi and cellular communications (because those are radio waves).
Yes, that is true, but it’s a start.
Pray tell, what are these “many things” that could overturn it?
I’m sure you realize that regardless of Senate rules, they are not required to consent at all. Not saying you, but some people seem to think that a President is somehow entitled to seat justices of his choice.
I, at least, hope to live another 40 to 50 years.
Things that could overturn it in that time:
- A constitutional amendment.
- A liberal court revisits a new law made to test the case and flips it (as noted the original was 5-4).
- Some law that triangulates the ruling to find a similar effect, but is found to be constitutional.
Over that time period, there is a small possibility that Republicans will begin to be less delusional and reflexively malicious. This would make a liberal court or the constitutional amendment more likely. And it’s certainly reasonable for the Dems to pack the court by at least two seats, considering McConnell ignored precedent and stole a seat.
Lincoln used to tell a story. He’d ask people how many legs a mule would have if you called its tail a leg. People would say that if you called its tail a leg, a mule would have five legs. And Lincoln would say no, a mule would only have four legs because you can call a tail anything you want but that doesn’t make it a leg.
Money is not speech. And it didn’t become speech just because five judges decided it suited them to call it that.
As for unions, I aware of the history of Buckley and Citizens United and I know how big corporations like to use unions as their front on these decisions. But I’m also aware of the reality that corporations outdonate unions by a factor of around twenty to one. So this is an issue of favoring corporate power not union power.
But I wouldn’t care even if it was about union power and unions were outdonating corporations. I object in principle to the idea of buying elections and I object to the government making bribery legal.
Indeed it is. If you cant support your candidate with $$, then sending him 'thoughts and prayers" means someone with richer backers gets elected.
Or only multi-millionaires can serve in congress.
The Senate could make rules requiring a public vote, and within so many days. Yes, the senate can vote NO, but the Constitution says nothing about the Senate Majority leader- all by himself- deciding to say no. In fact the Senate Majority leader isnt even mentioned in the Constitution.
I don’t know enough to debate whether we could force a candidate to share his/her taxes via law, but the PARTIES could make it one of their conditions for Party support. Neither Dems or Reps did so, both probably fearing angering candidates who might run third party and skim off their voters. It is, however, the easiest way to guarantee it.
I want to see some changes to the pardon power, but not have it stripped too much. I don’t know changes could be just a law or if it’d have to be an amendment. But I think the limits should be clear and reasonable: no one you’re related to, no one whose crimes are related to work for you, no one who has paid you. And maybe have a non-partisan vetting committee for gray areas and exceptions. Like maybe your sister wants to work some place she needs a security clearance but had a stupid misdemeanor conviction 35 years ago and has never been in trouble since. That doesn’t bother me if it were vetted.
I think the House needs to be expanded, as I think it’s been quite a long time since the number of members have increased while our population has increased.
SCOTUS needs some reform. I envision something like each 4-year term you get 2 appointees, appointees who must be cleared through a non-partisan panel. ACB is not qualified, for example, imo because of lack of judicial experience. If a justice dies or retires and you did your two already? Oh well. Every president would get a say in the court, but not TOO much of a say. And term limits. As I think it’s bullshit stuffing some 40-something person so they’re on the court for 40 years, it would hopefully allow a return to experienced people with a lengthy history of performance to be nominated again. I think 18 or 22 years would be a good limit (going for something not a multiple of 4 to lessen future chaos). Or maybe every two years there is an nominee with a term of 20 years. Something reasonable and fair to everyone.
Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to hold hearings, let alone a vote.
RE: Supreme court - In (I think) executive orders Clancy came up with a set of “objective” parameters from which a pool of candidates could be drawn - eg: X years experience as a judge in a lower court, less than X number of cases overturned by a higher court etc etc. I see no particular obstacle to drawing up a list of somewhat “objective” standards for a list of potential nominees.
And certainly - any nominee MUST get an up or down vote within a set time period.
Re: Stopping someone like Trump
two areas should be worked on - the first would be coming up with some sort of set of “truth in broadcasting” standards so that lies cannot be spewed constantly.
This should go hand in hand with stronger slander / libel laws - which work on some sort of “sliding scale” - the more resources and the greater the audience you have, the more stringent the standards to “tell the truth” (or provide evidence for your assertions) - for the sake of the argument, (and using easy to identify examples) - you want to allege that Obama was born in Kenya, then show us the evidence, shut up or get fined / sued into oblivion.
And yes - we all get it, America is “special” because of “free speech” - but free speech has never included the ability to deliberately tell lies and plenty of countries have “media standards” without stifling free speech or the free flow of opinion
Yes, actually, it does. Unless one is under oath, or similar.
well…should it?
No, it shouldn’t.
Do you feel that if you keep repeating this, it will become more convincing?
If you think money is speech, then present an argument in support of that position. Don’t just keep declaring that it’s so.
I question that. That section of the Constitution says judges shall be appointed not may be appointed. This seems to say that there must be an active process going on when there’s a vacancy and neither the President nor the Senate can nullify the judicial branch by simply letting seats go unfilled.
Isn’t libel / slander already a crime?
Doesn’t that already abridge free speech?
why should a deliberate lie be protected?
Appointed and confirmed are two separate things.
President Obama appointed Judge Garland, but he was not confirmed by the Senate. There was no Constitutional violation.
To be honest, most of the suggestions here are either unworkable or will have little impact.
The only way for US politics to return to sanity is for the Democratic party to become a big-tent party that can win consecutive elections with a broad mandate. The only way this will happen is for it to actively seek and run more Manchin-style moderates in red and purple states and to moderate some its positions on hot-button issues like immigration and abortion. Nothing radical, maybe go back to where they were in 2006-8.
None of this is likely to happen. Indeed the whole momentum of the Democratic party is to push leftwards adopting new,unpopular ideas like reparations and defund the police. In that case, expect to see the Republicans mount a comeback. Maybe not immediately since they will have a few rocky years managing Trump and his supporters, but perhaps in 4-6 years.
Yes, but it’s limited depending on who the target is, and it requires actual damages, provable in court. It’s a high bar.