I won’t call the McConnells and Grahams in this situation whores because I have nothing against the real ones, so I’ll just call them spineless hypocrites who deserve to be, at least professionally speaking, crushed like a brown recluse spider. ( I picked those because I was bitten by one, so I’m not too fond of them)
I already sent Marco an email and am anxiously awaiting his response. Oops he already basically said Fuck You publically, so I guess that will save him writing it in an email.
Where the Senate is concerned Dems have no real power. Moderation has nothing to do with it. They may have been too spineless in the past on too many issues, but this isn't one of them. (And they're getting spinier.)
Give a Dems a majority in the Senate and then judge them. Until then blame the voters and the cheating Repubs.
If they take the Senate and team together they might be able to add 2 members to the court. It makes sense. There have been nine members forever and the population (and lawsuits) have grown enormously. The Constitution created the Supreme Court, but Congress controls how many members there are.
Eventually we are going to need someone to replace Nancy Pelosi. I think Spike would do a great job. And while Spike is English, James Marsters is a northern California boy.
And just imagine how he could whip the Dems into order.
For six of his eight years President Obama had to deal with a Repub Senate that was entirely unwilling to compromise or cooperate. For the other two years he had Dems who were not reliable. Joe Lieberman, anyone?
But why is the growth in either population or lawsuits an argument for SCOTUS expansion?
All the Justices all hear every case (unless recusing) and they have complete control over whether to grant cert and over their docket. Since they control the caseload and they don't divide it, the number of cases is irrelevant to the number of jurists. "Overcrowded docket" is a good argument for some expansion of the lower courts where they divide the caseload, but it doesn't work for SCOTUS.
And how exactly does population factor in? I can see where one could argue that SCOTUS should have a sufficient number of Justices to reflect that reasonable jurists can disagree and argue different but equally supportable interpretations of the law and hash that all out for us etc. etc. But what is that number? Why is nine not enough? Why is seven not enough? Is 35 too many? This is a reasonable argument but difficult to quantify in a number.
So how to quantify? Maybe the number of Justices should reflect the number of Circuits and you fill vacancies by originating Circuit. Okay, but then why have a SCOTUS? Why not just see what the majority of the Circuits have ruled and do that? If you appoint them by Circuit then that's probably just what a SCOTUS would do anyway. Are we going to try to restrict the seats by population? That effectively excludes an enormous amount of the population from any input on SCOTUS, ever. Nobody's going to go for a proposal where at least one SCOTUS seat must in perpetuity be held by a Southern Californian. Local representation is what the House of Representatives is for. So how do we connect "a reasonable number of jurists" to population?
I got nothin' where I see any real possibility of a SCOTUS expansion. I can't even construct a good argument for it. I wish I could. The obvious one is "because Donald Trump fucked everything up," but that's not a winning argument either in terms of getting an Act through Congress now or in terms of long-term precedent.
Did you write McConnell in 2016 to tell him that? 'Cause that was his whole argument, that the people should have a voice in who picks the next SCOTUS nominee.
I won’t call the McConnells and Grahams in this situation whores because I have nothing against the real ones, so I’ll just call them spineless hypocrites who deserve to be, at least professionally speaking, crushed like a brown recluse spider. ( I picked those because I was bitten by one, so I’m not too fond of them)
You forgot the letter r after the g.
I already sent Marco an email and am anxiously awaiting his response. Oops he already basically said Fuck You publically, so I guess that will save him writing it in an email.
Surprise, one of the women allegedly on Trump's new short list might not be ethical. (Lagoa)https://slate.com/news-and-...
This is a good point...strategic, if evil.
Spike is not nearly as evil as Republicans. He only drinks blood; they drink souls.
And bathe in money.
Where the Senate is concerned Dems have no real power. Moderation has nothing to do with it. They may have been too spineless in the past on too many issues, but this isn't one of them. (And they're getting spinier.)
Give a Dems a majority in the Senate and then judge them. Until then blame the voters and the cheating Repubs.
Indirectly we do because we elect the people who nominate and confirm them. Lately we the people have been doing a lousy job.
If they take the Senate and team together they might be able to add 2 members to the court. It makes sense. There have been nine members forever and the population (and lawsuits) have grown enormously. The Constitution created the Supreme Court, but Congress controls how many members there are.
Eventually we are going to need someone to replace Nancy Pelosi. I think Spike would do a great job. And while Spike is English, James Marsters is a northern California boy.
And just imagine how he could whip the Dems into order.
Not if the Dems take the Senate it isn't.
For six of his eight years President Obama had to deal with a Repub Senate that was entirely unwilling to compromise or cooperate. For the other two years he had Dems who were not reliable. Joe Lieberman, anyone?
where's he been? he's so damn good.
But why is the growth in either population or lawsuits an argument for SCOTUS expansion?
All the Justices all hear every case (unless recusing) and they have complete control over whether to grant cert and over their docket. Since they control the caseload and they don't divide it, the number of cases is irrelevant to the number of jurists. "Overcrowded docket" is a good argument for some expansion of the lower courts where they divide the caseload, but it doesn't work for SCOTUS.
And how exactly does population factor in? I can see where one could argue that SCOTUS should have a sufficient number of Justices to reflect that reasonable jurists can disagree and argue different but equally supportable interpretations of the law and hash that all out for us etc. etc. But what is that number? Why is nine not enough? Why is seven not enough? Is 35 too many? This is a reasonable argument but difficult to quantify in a number.
So how to quantify? Maybe the number of Justices should reflect the number of Circuits and you fill vacancies by originating Circuit. Okay, but then why have a SCOTUS? Why not just see what the majority of the Circuits have ruled and do that? If you appoint them by Circuit then that's probably just what a SCOTUS would do anyway. Are we going to try to restrict the seats by population? That effectively excludes an enormous amount of the population from any input on SCOTUS, ever. Nobody's going to go for a proposal where at least one SCOTUS seat must in perpetuity be held by a Southern Californian. Local representation is what the House of Representatives is for. So how do we connect "a reasonable number of jurists" to population?
I got nothin' where I see any real possibility of a SCOTUS expansion. I can't even construct a good argument for it. I wish I could. The obvious one is "because Donald Trump fucked everything up," but that's not a winning argument either in terms of getting an Act through Congress now or in terms of long-term precedent.
Her brow has furrowed to an unprecedented extent.
Did you write McConnell in 2016 to tell him that? 'Cause that was his whole argument, that the people should have a voice in who picks the next SCOTUS nominee.