Why does the SCOTUS prefer Democrats and Republicans over third parties?

[Oliver]

Why not the same opportunities for all US parties?
Or wouldn't that be a matter of the supreme court to decide?

In that light I might suspect that the selection process of the SCOTUS justices may well be a source of third party discrimination, no?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you're actually asking why do Republican and Democratic presidents prefer Democrats and Republicans over independents in making their Supreme Court nominations.

If you ask it that way, I think the answer is obvious.

ETA: Discrimination? Getting to nominate justices is one of the results of winning the office of POTUS.

 

[Oliver]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

 

[elbe]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

What? How do third parties not have equal rights? Because they don't have enough support to control any branch of the government?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

I'm still not sure what you mean. The president can nominate anyone he or she wants to. That selection is subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. This is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to amend the constitution.

ETA: Political parties don't nominate justices or hold primaries or any such a thing. They equally have no rights whatsoever in the process. Parties are involved in Senate elections and in presidential elections. Traditionally, though, the right to choose a justice is sort of a spoil of winning the presidential election, and the Senate doesn't usually object to appointments based on partisan politics (but on issues of competency, qualifications, and sometimes character).

 

[Cleon]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

SCOTUS decides what is constitutional and what isn't. Political parties, not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution at all, rarely come up in that framework.

What I think you don't understand is that elections are not controlled by the Federal government, but by State governments. Much of the legal "discrimination" against third parties happens within that context; for example, the ridiculous ballot access laws requiring third parties to jump through a convoluted series of hoops just to get a line on the ballot.

I happen to agree with you, and it puzzles me why more people aren't concerned at the way the Republicrats have established a monopoly over the political process.

Unfortunately, that just makes it nigh impossible to change - certainly at the Federal level.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not the same opportunities for all US parties?

All parties do have the same opportunities. Most parties just simply don't have the numbers to take advantage of those opportunities.

Or wouldn't that be a matter of the supreme court to decide?

You will need to be a lot more specific in your question. But the constitution never mentions political parties, so in general, the supreme court has little to say about them.

In that light I might suspect that the selection process of the SCOTUS justices may well be a source of third party discrimination, no?

The closest that Justices have to an official party affiliation is the party affiliation of whoever nominated them. But that's it. Their individual party affiliation is irrelevant, it's generally not even publicly known, and it can even change over time. So the only party discrimination going on is from the fact that democrats and republicans keep winning the presidency.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

That is a bizarre question, third parties exist and are welcome. So what are you trying to ask?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

SCOTUS decides what is constitutional and what isn't. Political parties, not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution at all, rarely come up in that framework.

What I think you don't understand is that elections are not controlled by the Federal government, but by State governments. Much of the legal "discrimination" against third parties happens within that context; for example, the ridiculous ballot access laws requiring third parties to jump through a convoluted series of hoops just to get a line on the ballot.

I happen to agree with you, and it puzzles me why more people aren't concerned at the way the Republicrats have established a monopoly over the political process.

Unfortunately, that just makes it nigh impossible to change - certainly at the Federal level.

To be clear, though, your objection is to the influence of political parties over elections, not the nomination of Supreme Court justices, right?

I think the issue of the de facto two party system is really a different issue.

On that issue, my opinion is that it's simply the result of the fact that our two parties are actually (at least at the national level) coalitions. Third parties are only seen as taking votes away from one of the 2 big parties, and often end up subsumed into one of the two big parties.

Third parties don't have to jump through any hoops that the big two don't have to. Frankly, I'm not sure what the option to that is. It would be wasteful to significantly lower requirements to get on ballots. Also, if we ended up with a great many candidates on ballots, we'd run the risk of having high office holders winning elections without even a majority. (It really is possible that two candidates with similar platforms split the winning vote such that the candidate with the least popular platform wins.)

 

[Cleon]

To be clear, though, your objection is to the influence of political parties over elections, not the nomination of Supreme Court justices, right?

Yeah, and in the post I was responding to, I got the impression that this was what Oliver was primarily concerned about. (No offense, Oliver, but sometimes your English gets a little convoluted.)

Third parties don't have to jump through any hoops that the big two don't have to.

That's simply untrue, and I don't know how this myth keeps propagating. In most states, if your party was on the ballot in the prior election, and/or received a certain percentage of votes, it automatically keeps its ballot line for the next election. A party that isn't already on the ballot has to go get an obscene number of signatures, often with geographical stipulations (so many people from each county, etc). Even if you manage to scrape together the resources to go out and collect said signatures, you generally have to get 1.5 - 2x the number the law requires, because one of the two parties will challenge them in court and try to get as many thrown out as possible.

 

[Oliver]

Well, I guess the underlying questions are:

Why can't there one set of nation-wide election rules and laws, rather than every State or county making up rules as they please?

Why aren't there laws that prevent a single sided media coverage ignoring third parties?

Why is it that Presidents can appoint Judges to the SCOTUS making it rather impossible
for third-party judges to get involved?

Why aren't the third party nominees included in the general election debates?

 

[Cleon]

Well, I guess the underlying questions are:

Why can't there one set of nation-wide election rules and laws, rather than every State or county making up rules as they please?

Constitution doesn't provide for it.

Why aren't there laws that prevent a single sided media coverage ignoring third parties?

Freedom of the press.

Why is it that Presidents can appoint Judges to the SCOTUS making it rather impossible
for third-party judges to get involved?

SCOTUS is legally nonpartisan. None of the justices are actually "Republicans" or "Democrats."

Why aren't the third party nominees included in the general election debates?

Because those debates are negotiated between four parties:

1. The Democratic Candidate's engine
2. The Republican Candidate's engine
3. The host (LWV, a college, etc)
4. The media covering it.

Two of those parties obviously don't want a third party candidate involved; the host doesn't give a ****; and the media only gives a **** if it makes for good TV (see: Ross Perot).

 

[elbe]

Why is it that Presidents can appoint Judges to the SCOTUS making it rather impossible
for third-party judges to get involved?

It's part of how our system of checks and balances work. The only real power the other branches have over the judiciary is through the selection process. How would you suggest they be selected, public vote? That seems undesirable.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's part of how our system of checks and balances work. The only real power the other branches have over the judiciary is through the selection process. How would you suggest they be selected, public vote? That seems undesirable.

and also wouldnt solve Oliver's problem with our system, if SC justices were elected in a general election we still would not have third parties on the bench

 

[Chaos]

That is a bizarre question, third parties exist and are welcome. So what are you trying to ask?

He is asking why Saint Ron of Paul, despite consistently getting around 1% of the vote, has never been elected President so far.

 

[Oliver]

and also wouldnt solve Oliver's problem with our system, if SC justices were elected in a general election we still would not have third parties on the bench

That seems to be correct. What seems pretty weird to me is the fact that
third parties don't seem to have any chance to get any bigger influence, although - if I remember correctly - 20% to 30% of voters are independents.

Yet, they don't get the same amount of representation in the legislative system. Thus the system seems to be pretty flawed - maybe deliberately.

Sorry, but I don't see the check and balances when it comes to third party opportunities in the system.

 

[elbe]

That seems to be correct. What seems pretty weird to me is the fact that
third parties don't seem to have any chance to get any bigger influence, although - if I remember correctly - 20% to 30% of voters are independents.

Independents aren't necessarily third party supporters, they may just waver in the gap between the big two. Frequently the third parties are niche parties, often viewed as fringe, that aren't going to have a particularly large voting base. For all the faults of our two party system, the current third parties just aren't big enough to really get much pull in on the federal level.

 

[Oliver]

He is asking why Saint Ron of Paul, despite consistently getting around 1% of the vote, has never been elected President so far.

Uh, not really since he's running on a "first party"-ticket.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That seems to be correct. What seems pretty weird to me is the fact that
third parties don't seem to have any chance to get any bigger influence, although - if I remember correctly - 20% to 30% of voters are independents.

Yet, they don't get the same amount of representation in the legislative system. Thus the system seems to be pretty flawed - maybe deliberately.

Sorry, but I don't see the check and balances when it comes to third party opportunities in the system.

the 2 party system is a byproduct of the "winner take all" election system

imagine an election with 3 candidates, a democrat, a republican, and a liberal third party, the vote might come out like this

Dem: 30%
Rep: 40%
3rd: 30%

the republican wins, even though 60% of the vote went to liberal candidates. in this scenario the 3rd party candidate and his supporters would be better off voting for the democrat



the 20-30% independent voters is probably a bit inflated, since contrary to what you said in another thread there is no requirement to register with a party to vote in a general election.

primary elections (which are what is going on now in the US) are different, they determine which candidate a party will field in the general election in november, which is why some of them are closed to people who arent members of that party

 

[Oliver]

Independents aren't necessarily third party supporters, they may just waver in the gap between the big two. Frequently the third parties are niche parties, often viewed as fringe, that aren't going to have a particularly large voting base. For all the faults of our two party system, the current third parties just aren't big enough to really get much pull in on the federal level.

But that leads back to the lack of coverage of third parties. And there are some big ones like the Constitution-, Green-, and Libertarian Party. Don't they deserve to be involved in the election process much more? Because if the 2 Parties and the majority of the Media pretty much run the election, how in the world could third parties ever get traction in any way?

Well, unless the Democrats and Republicans somehow manage to screw it up badly.