You state the Supreme Court would never decide an election based on political leanings
I did not say that. I have said, numerous times, that the Court is, at least theoretically, not a political, partisan body, unlike Congress which is inherently a political body and unfortunately has become hyper partisan, much to the naive disappointment of the Framers.
That is the opposite of what happened... Only one Justice chosen to be on the 1877 Commission was noted ahead of time to be impartial...yet he recused himself from participating. In the end, there were 3 Republican-leaning Justices and 2 Democrat-leaning Justices (who all voted their leanings).
It is true that Davis was originally chosen to be the quote "impartial" 5th Justice. Even though Davis could have served on the Commission, despite the contingent election victory winning the Senate seat he'd later take, he didn't... sucks for the Dems, but hey, the Commission was THEIR idea. After all, they disagreed with Hayes and the Republicans who argued that the President of the Senate (who at the time, was not the VP due to,vacancy) had sole adjudication authority, and pushed the plan for the Commission in hopes that they could at worst get the Election thrown to the House where they held a majority of Reps and state delegations. But remind me again about how impartial, and fairminded the Congressional cesspool is...
Just because Bradley was appointed by a Republican doesn't mean that he wasn't impartial, in fact that can be said of all the participating Justices. All that matters, is whether or not their decisions were CORRECT. And Bradley's opinions on the laws and facts of the case were indeed, CORRECT. Moreover, after the Democrat shits ran Bradley through the mud in the aftermath, Davis himself AGREED with Bradley. So this argument that "had the 'more impartial' Davis served, then Tilden would have been 'rightfully' declared winner" argument is unfunded and frankly utterly nonsensical.
Sure, as I've conceded before, it is easier to corrupt 1 person than it is 200. And as I've retorted before, it's far easier to get rid of 1 corrupt judge than it is 200 corrupt Congressmen. How is leaving an inherently judicial matter up to a nonjudicial body, full of mostly incompetent, legally illiterate, easily corruptable "legislators" (read: puppets of lobbyists and special interests) moving towards a more "perfect" system? Quite the opposite... it rather moves closer to a more easily exploitable, partisan fuelled shitshow.
And to reiterate, while this debate over what we both think is better improvements is stimulating, it still ignores the central argument that you continue to assert without actually evidencing, e.g. the claim that Congress is vested by the Constitution with adjudication authority over Electoral disputes. As I've pointed out time and again, with my own analysis and even more in-depth analysis from established historians, lawyers and constitutional experts, the Constitution at best is unclear regarding who exactly is vested with said authority. The 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly enumerate the power to anyone. So we must look elsewhere for guidance on dealing with such judicial matters. And Article III is EXPLICITLY clear as to that answer:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
If you don't think it wise, then argue for an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. But these assertions that the Constitution says something it doesn't, or that the problem can simply be changed via statute even though Congress isn't authorized with the legislative power to do so, are disingenuous and getting boring.
You state the Supreme Court would never decide an election based on political leanings
I did not say that. I have said, numerous times, that the Court is, at least theoretically, not a political, partisan body, unlike Congress which is inherently a political body and unfortunately has become hyper partisan, much to the naive disappointment of the Framers.
That is the opposite of what happened... Only one Justice chosen to be on the 1877 Commission was noted ahead of time to be impartial...yet he recused himself from participating. In the end, there were 3 Republican-leaning Justices and 2 Democrat-leaning Justices (who all voted their leanings).
It is true that Davis was originally chosen to be the quote "impartial" 5th Justice. Even though Davis could have served on the Commission, despite the contingent election victory winning the Senate seat he'd later take, he didn't... sucks for the Dems, but hey, the Commission was THEIR idea. After all, they disagreed with Hayes and the Republicans who argued that the President of the Senate (who at the time, was not the VP due to,vacancy) had sole adjudication authority, and pushed the plan for the Commission in hopes that they could at worst get the Election thrown to the House where they held a majority of Reps and state delegations. But remind me again about how impartial, and fairminded the Congressional cesspool is...
Just because Bradley was appointed by a Republican doesn't mean that he wasn't impartial, in fact that can be said of all the participating Justices. All that matters, is whether or not their decisions were CORRECT. And Bradley's opinions on the laws and facts of the case were indeed, CORRECT. Moreover, after the Democrat shits ran Bradley through the mud in the aftermath, Davis himself AGREED with Bradley. So this argument that "had the 'more impartial' Davis served, then Tilden would have been 'rightfully' been declared winner" argument is unfunded and frankly utterly nonsensical.
Sure, as I've conceded before, it is easier to corrupt 1 person than it is 200. And as I've retorted before, it's far easier to get rid of 1 corrupt judge than it is 200 corrupt Congressmen. How is leaving an inherently judicial matter up to a nonjudicial body, full of mostly incompetent, legally illiterate, easily corruptable "legislatures" (read: puppets of lobbyists and special interests) moving towards a more "perfect" system? Quite the opposite... it rather moves closer to a more easily exploitable, partisan fuelled shitshow.
And to reiterate, while this debate over what we both think is better improvements is stimulating, it still ignores the central argument that you continue to assert without actually evidencing, e.g. the claim that Congress is vested by the Constitution with adjudication authority over Electoral disputes. As I've pointed out time and again, with my own analysis and even more in-depth analysis from established historians, lawyers and constitutional experts, the Constitution at best is unclear regarding who exactly is vested with said authority. The 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly enumerate the power to anyone. So we must look elsewhere for guidance on dealing with such judicial matters. And Article III is EXPLICITLY clear as to that answer:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
If you don't think it wise, then argue for an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. But these assertions that the Constitution says something it doesn't, or that the problem can simply be changed via statute even though Congress isn't authorized with the legislative power to do so, are disingenuous and getting boring.
You state the Supreme Court would never decide an election based on political leanings
I did not say that. I have said, numerous times, that the Court is, at least theoretically, not a political, partisan body, unlike Congress which is inherently a political body and unfortunately has become hyper partisan, much to the naive disappointment of the Framers.
That is the opposite of what happened... Only one Justice chosen to be on the 1877 Commission was noted ahead of time to be impartial...yet he recused himself from participating. In the end, there were 3 Republican-leaning Justices and 2 Democrat-leaning Justices (who all voted their leanings).
It is true that Davis was originally chosen to be the quote "impartial" 5th Justice. Even though Davis could have served on the Commission, despite the contingent election victory winning the Senate seat he'd later take, he didn't... sucks for the Dems, but hey, the Commission was THEIR idea. After all, they disagreed with Hayes and the Republicans who argued that the President of the Senate (who at the time, was not the VP due to,vacancy) had sole adjudication authority, and pushed the plan for the Commission in hopes that they could at worst get the Election thrown to the House where they held a majority of Reps and state delegations. But remind me again about how impartial, and fairminded the Congressional cesspool is...
Just because Bradley was appointed by a Republican doesn't mean that he wasn't impartial, in fact that can be said of all the participating Justices. All the matters, is whether or not their decisions were CORRECT. And Bradley's opinions on the laws and facts of the case were indeed, CORRECT. Moreover, after the Democrat shits ran Bradley through the mud in the aftermath, Davis himself AGREED with Bradley. So this argument that "had the 'more impartial' Davis served, then Tilden would have been 'rightfully' been declared winner" argument is unfunded and frankly utterly nonsensical.
Sure, as I've conceded before, it is easier to corrupt 1 person than it is 200. And as I've retorted before, it's far easier to get rid of 1 corrupt judge than it is 200 corrupt Congressmen. How is leaving an inherently judicial matter up to a nonjudicial body, full of mostly incompetent, legally illiterate, easily corruptable "legislatures" (read: puppets of lobbyists and special interests) moving towards a more "perfect" system? Quite the opposite... it rather moves closer to a more easily exploitable, partisan fuelled shitshow.
And to reiterate, while this debate over what we both think is better improvements is stimulating, it still ignores the central argument that you continue to assert without actually evidencing, e.g. the claim that Congress is vested by the Constitution with adjudication authority over Electoral disputes. As I've pointed out time and again, with my own analysis and even more in-depth analysis from established historians, lawyers and constitutional experts, the Constitution at best is unclear regarding who exactly is vested with said authority. The 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly enumerate the power to anyone. So we must look elsewhere for guidance on dealing with such judicial matters. And Article III is EXPLICITLY clear as to that answer:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
If you don't think it wise, then argue for an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. But these assertions that the Constitution says something it doesn't, or that the problem can simply be changed via statute even though Congress isn't authorized with the legislative power to do so, are disingenuous and getting boring.