“All of the members of the Leopards Eating Peoples’ Faces Party strongly condemn the unfounded and bigoted suggestion that THIS PARTICULAR leopard would ever even DREAM of consuming your face!”
Periodic reminder that one of the reasons Hitler wasn't executed for treason against the state after the Beer Hall Putsch was that holdover Wilhelmine-era jurisprudence (who had contempt for the Weimar Republic they supposedly served) was lenient.
If only there was an opposition party that could opposed a SCOTUS nominee as being unfit (as in biased) and/or unqualified.
But no; the best we get is ad hominem attacks. In Covid Barrett's case, she's documented as being pretty determined to render certain decisions no matter the case.
Then she will get along just fine with the rest of the conservative crew. She said yesterday that she will "interpret the law as written." Which is what Roberts also said he'd do--and which is what leads us to such fantasyland renderings as "despite Congress's express statements written into the Affordable Care Act, what Congress REALLY meant was something completely different!" And who could forget the most amazing "because the Voting Rights Act has been effective in protecting people's voting rights, there is no longer any reason for the Voting Right Act to exist!"
I look forward to an endless parade of judicial charades.
It's the usual SCOTUS Kabuki in which the nominee's plainly stated beliefs regarding the law CANNOT BE QUESTIONED or even raised during the confirmation hearing. To do so would be unalloyed bigotry.
Biden says he’s “not a fan” of packing the courts. I can only hope he is 1) referring to the packing of the past four years and 2) open to being persuaded by the specter of all his legislation being overturned that Democrats have no choice but to add progressive judges at all levels.
The courts should be greatly expanded, not just to redress the conservative perversion of them by court-packing, but also because they haven’t been expanded since roughly the Carter era, despite huge population growth since then.
Yes, and, the current 435 cap was set by law, which can be changed. In fact, the first proposed amendment to the Constitution was not free speech and the right to wail forever about how no one follows your religion, it was a means of establishing the size of the House. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment. The way it was worded has left it open to some interpretation, but by the sane take, it would put today's House at ~1300 members.
Funnily, we could still ratify it. It was proposed without an expiration date, and 11 states voted yes back in 1789-ish, so it is still listed as "pending." We just need 27 more states. And luckily, a few of the ones that would probably vote it down (Kentucky, S. Carolina) already voted it up.
This is an important point, which I have read elsewhere. In addition to the blatant partisa, right wing bias that supports blatantly anti-democratic practices (looking at you 5th Circuit), the expanded population but also the big increase in litigation at the federal level requires federal courts expansion.
We really, really need to have a chat about WHY JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE SO FUCKING YOUNG. We talk a lot about why they shouldn't be so old, but the "Young enough to influence decisions fifty years into the future" thing is utterly fucked up. We want them to have some experience in law, and also maybe some life experience. There's a reason the president can't be a twenty five year old. Tyhe only possible up side to such young judges is the ability to ratfuck people who aren't even born yet. There's no other argument for it. We don't know enough about them at this age, and they mostly don't know enough about themselves or anything else. I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just that we want them to have some life experience and some experience in the law. Is that really too much to ask?
Indeed. Term limits for judges would help address this too. Want to nominate a 30-year-old Heritage Society homunculus? Knock yourself out, but their term expires in 12 years (or whatever).
I’m not sure judicial terms require that. There’s also the option to rotate judges off the Supreme Court and back to Circuit Courts while retaining their lifetime appointments, if that’s necessary.
While the Constitution does not say no Judicial term limits, the statements in Article III have always been interpreted that way. Rotation is not covered either explicitly or implicitly so may be possible
Partly. But I also think it is reasonable to choose judges who have some experience, aren't fresh out of law school, have something of a public record, that sort of thing. It's mostly that I want to give people lots of chances to prove who they are, and I know that's not a good thing, and would like a good look at who someone is. I don't need fifty years of red flags, but maybe a few years' worth? Especially since apparently everything *but* actual previous rulings are considered inappropriate fields of inquiry.
Bravo, Roy.
“All of the members of the Leopards Eating Peoples’ Faces Party strongly condemn the unfounded and bigoted suggestion that THIS PARTICULAR leopard would ever even DREAM of consuming your face!”
Periodic reminder that one of the reasons Hitler wasn't executed for treason against the state after the Beer Hall Putsch was that holdover Wilhelmine-era jurisprudence (who had contempt for the Weimar Republic they supposedly served) was lenient.
Also, Bavaria was pretty conservative
If only there was an opposition party that could opposed a SCOTUS nominee as being unfit (as in biased) and/or unqualified.
But no; the best we get is ad hominem attacks. In Covid Barrett's case, she's documented as being pretty determined to render certain decisions no matter the case.
Then she will get along just fine with the rest of the conservative crew. She said yesterday that she will "interpret the law as written." Which is what Roberts also said he'd do--and which is what leads us to such fantasyland renderings as "despite Congress's express statements written into the Affordable Care Act, what Congress REALLY meant was something completely different!" And who could forget the most amazing "because the Voting Rights Act has been effective in protecting people's voting rights, there is no longer any reason for the Voting Right Act to exist!"
I look forward to an endless parade of judicial charades.
Hope someone asks her to reconcile Shelby County with Constitutional Originalism.
The Democratic committee members are doing what they can, which is damned little. The fix is in.
It's the usual SCOTUS Kabuki in which the nominee's plainly stated beliefs regarding the law CANNOT BE QUESTIONED or even raised during the confirmation hearing. To do so would be unalloyed bigotry.
What can and MUST be discussed:
She has 7 children!
She's a working mom!
She sometimes bakes (or at least buys) cookies!
She has 7 children!
Many people like her!
She has 7 children!
And, finally, she has 7 children!
Some dudes think she is cute in that Tracy Flick way
Um, ewww?
Also, she has those Michelle Bachmann CRaZeeE EyEzzzz!
Stop talking about OUR FAIR GOVERNOR that way! Rodeo Barbie/Pretty Kitty deserves our respect!
I think she’s sort of cute. Also sexless and repugnant. Then again, I still think Sarah Palin is hot, so what do I know?
Biden says he’s “not a fan” of packing the courts. I can only hope he is 1) referring to the packing of the past four years and 2) open to being persuaded by the specter of all his legislation being overturned that Democrats have no choice but to add progressive judges at all levels.
The courts should be greatly expanded, not just to redress the conservative perversion of them by court-packing, but also because they haven’t been expanded since roughly the Carter era, despite huge population growth since then.
Also, House of Representatives. Guys, there's a LOT of people here, no thanks to Trump spreading covid around like Mardi Gras beads.
I read that House members represent something like 20x as many constituents as they did originally.
well the Republicans only really represent those that voted for them
Which is why it’s bad that House districts have turned into larger, less-representative districts resembling Senate seats
The average House district today is larger than any state in 1790 except Virginia if you count the slaves
Well, the RICH people who voted for them.
The Rs don’t really represent the base so much as they represent their special interests.
The HOR was last expanded in 1920, I believe, when the population was less than 1/3rd of what it is today.
Yes, and, the current 435 cap was set by law, which can be changed. In fact, the first proposed amendment to the Constitution was not free speech and the right to wail forever about how no one follows your religion, it was a means of establishing the size of the House. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment. The way it was worded has left it open to some interpretation, but by the sane take, it would put today's House at ~1300 members.
Funnily, we could still ratify it. It was proposed without an expiration date, and 11 states voted yes back in 1789-ish, so it is still listed as "pending." We just need 27 more states. And luckily, a few of the ones that would probably vote it down (Kentucky, S. Carolina) already voted it up.
The 27th Amendment was approved 202 years after it was proposed
This is an important point, which I have read elsewhere. In addition to the blatant partisa, right wing bias that supports blatantly anti-democratic practices (looking at you 5th Circuit), the expanded population but also the big increase in litigation at the federal level requires federal courts expansion.
"But stare decisis, ipso facto, nolo contendere, ibid. We trust we have made ourselves clear." Totally.
What's with all the questions? I was chosen by Donald Trump. DONALD FUCKING TRUMP! I mean, Jesus, bless His Holy Name, what more do you need to know?
"Goody Godlywench" LOL
My mind went to ol' Mr. Goodwrench (https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/why-gms-scrapping-mr-goodwrench-103781/), then thought, "Oh God. Mrs. Wombwrench."
We really, really need to have a chat about WHY JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE SO FUCKING YOUNG. We talk a lot about why they shouldn't be so old, but the "Young enough to influence decisions fifty years into the future" thing is utterly fucked up. We want them to have some experience in law, and also maybe some life experience. There's a reason the president can't be a twenty five year old. Tyhe only possible up side to such young judges is the ability to ratfuck people who aren't even born yet. There's no other argument for it. We don't know enough about them at this age, and they mostly don't know enough about themselves or anything else. I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just that we want them to have some life experience and some experience in the law. Is that really too much to ask?
Indeed. Term limits for judges would help address this too. Want to nominate a 30-year-old Heritage Society homunculus? Knock yourself out, but their term expires in 12 years (or whatever).
That would require a Constitutional Amendment, though
I’m not sure judicial terms require that. There’s also the option to rotate judges off the Supreme Court and back to Circuit Courts while retaining their lifetime appointments, if that’s necessary.
While the Constitution does not say no Judicial term limits, the statements in Article III have always been interpreted that way. Rotation is not covered either explicitly or implicitly so may be possible
I'm sure the court would impartially interpret their terms to be lifetime ones, too
You’re asking really why there aren’t term limits for judges, specially SCOTUS justices, no?
Partly. But I also think it is reasonable to choose judges who have some experience, aren't fresh out of law school, have something of a public record, that sort of thing. It's mostly that I want to give people lots of chances to prove who they are, and I know that's not a good thing, and would like a good look at who someone is. I don't need fifty years of red flags, but maybe a few years' worth? Especially since apparently everything *but* actual previous rulings are considered inappropriate fields of inquiry.