So flustered in his talking points can't slow his roll to post accurately?
They can't stop for a second changing and weaving their way through their bullshit piled on the ground to add another pile of bullshit
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...me-court-vote/
given the lack of any “long-standing tradition” but anticipating the possibility of an election-year vacancy, McConnell fabricated a different history to justify treating a Trump nominee differently from Obama’s. He argued that “[y]ou have to go back to … 1880s to find the last time … a Senate of a different party from the president filled a Supreme Court vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election. That was entirely the precedent.”
When that anticipation became reality with the death of Justice Ginsburg, he offered a slightly different excuse: “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year”. A National Review article claimed a norm: “when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies . . . [but] when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees . . .”.
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!
Expand the court to 13/15 seats, establish Federal law mandating that SCOTUS have said number of members. Establish federal law that establishes a requirement that the court partisan distribution be no greater than 50%+1 seat; a 13-seat SCOTUS would be legally obliged to have no more than 7 representatives from a given party, and a 15-seat court no more than 8. Establish federal law that no more than one seat can be empty and the Court still sit, preventing any party from leaving seats open rather than fill them to maintain an advantage. Establish a code of conduct that mandates a separation of Church and State within the courts.
Ideally, I'd say a federal law to prevent any justice, at any level, from any partisan standing or membership whatsoever, currently or historically. But that's never gonna happen, in the USA.
I would also establish a law that says when they can refuse to hold hearings or stop the slamming through of a seat. Like, You can't confirm a judge, in an election year, after the primary process has been chosen, or started? Instead of having some shitgibbon like McConnell change his mind and flip flop.
There is actually a very good policy argument going around for expanding the court significantly - 19-27 seats. The reasoning is that each seat opening of SCOTUS has become so divisive that it makes a process that shouldn't be any more political than necessary into something that couldn't be more political if we tried. By expanding the court to a large number - 27 seats is actually the preferred amount - you remove most of the politicization for when a seat opens. With 9 seats, if a Justice dies or retires, the world goes insane. With 27, if three die or retire, who the fuck cares (relatively speaking).
The Taliban endorses Trump.
No comment.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
What? You do know there's a French and Dutch speaking part with their own government right? It has nothing to do with factionalism but with the constitutional structure of this country.
Educate yourself before you run your mouth about a topic you clearly don't know anything about.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I'm a long-time lurker but not really an active poster, so I don't know who to direct this at, but are there any Trump supporters out there willing to actually answer this question: during the first debate, the Trump family refused to wear masks. Why do they believe the rules don't apply to them?
Ever since watching the Chris Wallace interview on Fox News I've yet to see any direct answer to this question.