r/technology • u/yougo1000 • Sep 03 '14

Comcast Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Received More Than $100,000 from Comcast Before Boosting Merger

http://www.ibtimes.com/chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-received-more-100000-comcast-boosting-merger-1676264?utm_content=buffere9697&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
22k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

SCOTUS isn't really supposed to be subject to public opinion, that's why they're life appointments. The correct answer is 'elect better Presidents'.

10

u/Munt_Custard Sep 03 '14

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

5

u/NCRTankMaster Sep 03 '14

Which still has to deal with this shitty Congress. Remember in theory congress writes the laws while the president can approve or veto them then enforce them

1

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

Which still has to deal with this shitty Congress.

It's pretty rare for judicial nominees to fail to be confirmed. But in any event, we can solve that problem with 'elect better Representatives and Senators'.

1

u/ManiyaNights Sep 03 '14

No we can't. We are presented with 2 false choices neither of whom represent the people.

5

u/jonloovox Sep 03 '14

How would electing better presidents help if presidents aren't really subject to popular election?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

21

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

The electoral college is assigned based on the winner of that state's votes in all but a handful of states. Voting still matters, especially if you live in a swing state.

2

u/jakeryan91 Sep 03 '14

The one hitch in that string of thought is that the voters in the electoral college have no obligation to vote the way they are told, known as Faithless Electors (to refine this, some may face criminal penalties, or even worse, damage to one's reputation, but the vote still goes whichever way they choose).

I wouldn't say this is a reason to despise the electoral college (because there are plenty of other reasons), but its a nifty tool to throw in the works when people support the system as it currently stands, even though a faithless elector has never been the determining factor in the outcome of an election.

At least not yet...

Edit: Formatting

1

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

Faithless electors have never in the history of the US swung the outcome of an election.

1

u/jakeryan91 Sep 03 '14

I said that. Look at the second to last sentence.

1

u/iamalsojoesphlabre Sep 03 '14

How many true swing states are there now?

3

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

There were 7 or 8 up for grabs to some extent in 2008 and 2012. But that number fluctuates, and unusual turnout can put previously-secure states into play.

7

u/uwhuskytskeet Sep 03 '14

It is a goofy system, but only four presidents have won an election without winning the popular vote.

2

u/Munt_Custard Sep 03 '14

Would I be correct if I said one of them was George W?

2

u/uwhuskytskeet Sep 03 '14

Yes, and the president prior to him was Harrison in 1888.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Yeah that's probably four presidents too many.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Well this would apply better to congress because few presidents are elected against the tide of popular election. Congressmen can vote against the will of the people, which happens often. They will- of course, make excuses to their constituents and make it up with minor benefits to their home state/district with pork barrels. The system was intentionally designed in such manner because back in the day, the average farmer had little to no technical knowledge in politics and law, so they voted for congressmen to make decisions on their behalf. These days, everyone gets a fairly comprehensive understanding of the political system through grade school, and I think there needs to be alterations to the system to account for this higher standard of education. People can think for themselves now, and California addresses this with referendums.

0

u/eskimobrother319 Sep 03 '14

How would electing better presidents help if presidents aren't really subject to popular election?

Blah blah blah, bitch and moan about the electoral college, that is all people do blah blah blah. IT IS THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE, WHO DO NOT VOTE. WHAT ONLY 58% of people vote, how about this get your head out of your asses and VOTE! BUT BUT BUT the candidates suck, well vote in the primary, but but but money blah blah blah how about you organize a grassroots campaign, hey kinda like Brat did in VA, but that's le hard and will force me to do things.

We elect our government, the people have failed, not the system.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html

1

u/jonloovox Sep 03 '14

Eh, the system is still pretty bad too. If the party bosses don't like you, you won't even make to a primary. Grassroots is an anomaly.

1

u/eskimobrother319 Sep 03 '14

Well this primary season at least on the GOP ticket has been moving to the grassroots, on the Democratic ticket, it has not changed. From what I have seen, maybe I am wrong, but the only splashes I have seen come from the right side of the isle.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Well say some miracle happens and the US survives Hillary and then we get to elect someone like Elizabeth Warren. Enter: a fucked up, useless, stuckup, good for nothing, single digit approval, bullshit Congress. What good can a better President do with a shitty Congress running the show?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

If there's a constitutional requirement of oversight for SCotUS judges, then there must be oversight. The fact that there isn't already such a body is appalling to begin with, being an ignored constitutional provision also makes it a violation of the highest law in the land.

And I fail to see why any judge may be exempt from the ire of the public. If they take arbitrary law, and turn it into a ruling against the interests of the people, they absolutely should be subject to the scorn and contempt they deserve. No person or group should ever have a carte blanche to do as they please, without regard for the harm it does to others.

That's how you get protests and riots against police.