US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

SmokeyDan said:

In a perfect world, you're right, a persons race, and other personal details shouldn't be considered. But since we consider them when minorities are concerned, they should be considered to make sure the majority has a voice as well.

Click to expand...

Should? They have "should" in Canada?

Everyone qualified is considered. It takes a lifetime to get the experience to even rate a look.

All the Federal Judges are in constant review for the Court by someone interested.

Unlike politics it takes decades to do the initial WORK.

The word, "should" does not even exist in the Constitution in the modern sense. In this, it means "does."

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 3

But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall 8

What you don't understand, dan, is that States vote for President, not People. And the States have the Right to Vote. And in the States, it was long decided the Electors may poll the populace to help decide their vote in the Electoral College, the 12th Amendment.

12 Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.

-----------------
But, voting in the USA is about the Congress. That is where work gets done or doesn't.