In theory, the court's ruling on whether Trump engaged in insurrection should be a non-partisan decision that goes to whether he is qualified to be on the ballot. Given the increasing partisan polarization of the country and (I would argue) the federal and state judiciary, I think that a ruling that is so important to the country, and so inherently political, should be heard and ruled on by the many justices, and preferably those chosen by their peers to be least partisan. For example, there are 870 federal judges, and 179 on the appellate courts. I would love to see those judges' peers vote on who is least partisan to hear cases, and then have a larger amount of judges (say, 30) hear the case, rather than the partisans on the Supreme Court. I know there is no process to create this, but Congress has the power to affect the judiciary in this way, and it would help insulate political rulings from partisanship. It is not perfect, but it would be a marked improvement.
Hello Professor Foley and Fellow Common Ground Democracy Subscribers,
This is an interesting way to view the possible disqualification of Trump. I truly appreciate your commitment to majority rule . I believe your glasses somehow have 50.1% displayed at all times, like the way a newer vehicle might display the speedometer on the front windshield. Lol!
In 2016, I thought that John Kasich could have been that majority preferred candidate. For a little while, I even wrote an alternative history storyline with John Kasich as president to share with my friends that supported Trump. It sure would be nice, if a majority preferred candidate could win. I believe that if John Kasich would have won the presidency, the political temperature of the country would be on a totally different trajectory.
So many of my Republican friends were often so furious with President Obama, even with minor statements like when he said Traveon Martin could have been what his son would have looked like. Kasich would have allowed for Republicans to cool off and have a few wins to feel proud of, maybe. Instead, they were emboldened by Trump's rhetoric to rage even more against the left.
Kasich would have been, at most, a mild nuisance to left-leaning voters. Certainly, Kasich's rhetoric would have not irritated or enraged the left the way Trump's did during and after his presidency.
I agree with your assessment that Haley would be the majority preferred candidate in 2024. I think her response in the first GOP debate this cycle on abortion sought a middle ground area between pro-choice and pro-life proponents.
The round robin matchup between Trump, Biden and Haley is known as "Condorcet voting." For more on this style of voting, readers can check out Foley's book, Presidential Elections and Majority Rule: The Rise, Demise, and Potential Restoration of the Jeffersonian Electoral College, in Chapter 7: A Recommitment to Majority Rule, under the section titled, Instant Runoff Voting.
Thanks for educating us and giving us your expert opinions, Professor Foley!
In theory, the court's ruling on whether Trump engaged in insurrection should be a non-partisan decision that goes to whether he is qualified to be on the ballot. Given the increasing partisan polarization of the country and (I would argue) the federal and state judiciary, I think that a ruling that is so important to the country, and so inherently political, should be heard and ruled on by the many justices, and preferably those chosen by their peers to be least partisan. For example, there are 870 federal judges, and 179 on the appellate courts. I would love to see those judges' peers vote on who is least partisan to hear cases, and then have a larger amount of judges (say, 30) hear the case, rather than the partisans on the Supreme Court. I know there is no process to create this, but Congress has the power to affect the judiciary in this way, and it would help insulate political rulings from partisanship. It is not perfect, but it would be a marked improvement.
Hello Professor Foley and Fellow Common Ground Democracy Subscribers,
This is an interesting way to view the possible disqualification of Trump. I truly appreciate your commitment to majority rule . I believe your glasses somehow have 50.1% displayed at all times, like the way a newer vehicle might display the speedometer on the front windshield. Lol!
In 2016, I thought that John Kasich could have been that majority preferred candidate. For a little while, I even wrote an alternative history storyline with John Kasich as president to share with my friends that supported Trump. It sure would be nice, if a majority preferred candidate could win. I believe that if John Kasich would have won the presidency, the political temperature of the country would be on a totally different trajectory.
So many of my Republican friends were often so furious with President Obama, even with minor statements like when he said Traveon Martin could have been what his son would have looked like. Kasich would have allowed for Republicans to cool off and have a few wins to feel proud of, maybe. Instead, they were emboldened by Trump's rhetoric to rage even more against the left.
Kasich would have been, at most, a mild nuisance to left-leaning voters. Certainly, Kasich's rhetoric would have not irritated or enraged the left the way Trump's did during and after his presidency.
I agree with your assessment that Haley would be the majority preferred candidate in 2024. I think her response in the first GOP debate this cycle on abortion sought a middle ground area between pro-choice and pro-life proponents.
The round robin matchup between Trump, Biden and Haley is known as "Condorcet voting." For more on this style of voting, readers can check out Foley's book, Presidential Elections and Majority Rule: The Rise, Demise, and Potential Restoration of the Jeffersonian Electoral College, in Chapter 7: A Recommitment to Majority Rule, under the section titled, Instant Runoff Voting.
Thanks for educating us and giving us your expert opinions, Professor Foley!
Sincerely,
Joe Wilson