March for Our Lives, which was launched six years ago after yet another U.S. mass shooting, announced its first-ever political endorsement on Wednesday, backing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris’ bid for the White House.
Reading the transcript, he spent a lot of time talking about his accomplishments. Not sure if he’s just stuck in campaign mode or trying to salve his ego from the harsh critique he’s faced the last few months. Either way, not a great look for someone trying to look like they’re “graciously” stepping aside. And he mentioned Harris a grand total of once. Way to unite “your” party, Joe.
I get what you’re trying to point out, but I actually didn’t mind it. People have downplayed a lot of what Biden has gotten done with the house and senate that was handed to him, and it was nice to hear some of the work the Executive branch has accomplished laid out.
There’s way more focus on the bullshit of the SCOTUS and Legislative branches because that’s where all the doom and gloom are, and we know that’s what sells.
There are ways to do that without focusing on himself almost exclusively. At the very least attribute it to the administration to help out Kamala. As is, he comes off like a jilted ex trying to make us regret dumping him.
No, he’s teeing it up for Harris to campaign on those accomplishments and helping draw a sharp distinction between her and Commander Cuckoo Bananas. And he didn’t mention her because he at least knows you can’t campaign with a presidential speech.
That’s a lot if I’s instead of We’s for a tee-up. And is that rule like an FEC regulated thing or just a “good decorum” thing? Cause he already endorsed Harris, and said so again at least the once in this speech, thankfully.
Um…ok? And what? You’re gonna guard dog him for the rest of time because you conditioned yourself to lash out at criticism of him? He’s not a candidate anymore. You can let go.
At the very least move on to Kamala. Joe should too, which was my point if you take a second to notice.
For those with the intelligence to understand how politics works, Joe just set up all of the ducks for Kamala to shoot during her campaign while not mentioning her enough to give the POS GOP any ammo to fire at her by using his speech in sound bites.
Add 2 seats to the bench, and then add 13 total judges. 11 of 22 judges are selected at random to determine the case. The non voting judge opinion becomes part of the case law, as well as an intercollegiate constitutional scholar opinion
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there’s no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party’s favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It’s not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They’ll just wait their turn.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there’s a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That’s an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you’re less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual’s brand of crazy when there’s only a ~1 in 3 chance they’ll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That’s a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn’t solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it’d help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you’ve gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
Honest question: Could all of the other stuff you’ve suggested happen without getting into amendment territory? I honestly don’t know almost anything about where all these SC things are defined in law, but changing the way the entire SC operates sounds pretty extreme when compared with simply adding term limits. It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t also stray into some constitutional territory.
Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren’t aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.
And even if you feel that isn’t worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you’re expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn’t too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.
If you triple instead of double that you could have a three judge panel (like federal districts do) that could rule on smaller cases that come out of that circuit. Then, if needed, they could call a full 9 - 11 judge panel if it’s a larger topic. This would also allow them to hear many more cases than they currently do, which has been a problem for decades.
Capitalist forces make it really fuckin’ hard for regular people to do the right thing. Coca Cola buys up local water tables from indigenous communities all over the world and sells it back to them in a plastic bottle full of sugar. Monsanto patents a genetically modified soybean plant that works really well with their latest Roundup pesticide, forcing farmers to choose between having a monoculture that that can have decent yields due to all the poisons killing off local insect populations or risk cross pollination and getting sued for patent infringement. Countless other scenarios happen all the time thanks to corporations having the ability to override our way of doing things sustainably.
The best part is that some people said the vouchers had been canceled.
On Wednesday, some of the people who posted about the gift card said that when they went to redeem the offer, they got an error message saying the voucher had been canceled. When TechCrunch checked the voucher, the Uber Eats page provided an error message that said the gift card “has been canceled by the issuing party and is no longer valid.”
And just how so might I ask we use this effectively when we had a team of 6 people working on this? Cut a bigmac 6 ways, 2 oz of soda and 12 fries per person?
This was pretty expected and will go nowhere useful for them. They’re literally just wasting time and money. Not only is there not a leg to stand on legally speaking, even if some Trump-sucking judge agreed to this, then the money could just be dumped into a Super PAC, and we all know how good they are at staying “independent.”
If we haven’t by now I don’t see that happening. And Harris wants to disarm the population… although maybe that will actually spark a revolution who knows…
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.