The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she's doing this, but she hasn't been relevant since The Rose and wasn't relevant before that since Bugle Boy. Two hits. And The Rose was sappy af.

They ain't listening. The worst thing you can say to a conservative bully is, "Shame on you!" Bullies love that shit.

 

Well, she's clearly more popular than I thought.

I still don't think it's going to work.

 

I don't know how "relevant" Randy Rainbow is (never heard of him until people started posting on this forum), but his videos are funny as hell...

Any public figure who speaks out about stuff like that is OK by me.

Except for LeBron, he should stick to playing basketball

 

In assessing her relevance one also has to weight Barry Manilow's whole career as well. It was as her accompanist in the bathhouses of Manhattan that he first attracted attention. They both became lbtg... icons and she simultaneously a big hetero icon with the kinda casual "Playboy" fan crowd. In 1974 she was considered hotter than hot by both groups, one of the few to manage that.

 

@diablodelsol I promise you I am not playing games with your heart.

BREAKING WAPO:

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks — including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 16, 2024

 

Now this is something independents will absolutely get behind. If done properly, this could have legs for Dems.

 

I don't think you can do term limits without an amendment? The most creative solution I've seen is say doubling or tripling the size of the bench and have them on the appellate as senior judges or whatever and every term a random pull is made of say 13 to work cases at that level. Next term? New batch.

The ethics and limiting what they can rule on Congress absolutely can do.

There is 0 chance any of that is deemed Constitutional by this group though. It's a challenge to their power and they'll strike it down.

 

Already commented on a different thread.

This is the ultimate try to look like you’re doing something without actually doing it…which is weird because you have to actually put this out there and you still get the backlash you are supposedly going to get on the subject….when you again…propose nothing.

The constitution is clear. Judges serve while they remain in good standing. Legislation to change that goes nowhere. You could have the legal equivalent of 9 r Randy Rainbows on the court…and this legislation goes nowhere. At every single federal level challenged….it would lose unanimously.

 

The constitution is garbage and it's nearly impossible to change. I think violent conflict will be necessary to change our rotten system of government (not predicting it will happen anytime soon).

 

Or…Biden could propose legislation that could actually reform the court…and make these 6 jagoffs irrelevant.

 

I saw go with the 13 justices for 13 circuits plan. That would then let him pick 4. Long as we have the Senate, we can then say scoreboard.

 

The US government as a whole from the Constitution to its construction was really never built to deal with one party being full on into fascism. And since that one party is made that move everyone from the press to the politicians to the courts have failed to meet the moment.

 

Hot take: the US Constitution was explicitly designed to accommodate an authoritarian minority party that would have embraced fascism today were it still around.

 

A country led by Rich white men owning land only? You're not wrong.

 

Except that it was designed with the (forlorn) hope that there would never be parties; that things would be run by the smartest, most experienced guys in each city/town/precinct/county and that those guys would be men of goodwill whose prudence in protecting their own property would simultaneously protect everyone else's...

Which I suppose actually is a benign sort of fascism. Except for the peaceful transfer thingy...

 

But maybe not so much to the Anti-federalists// Democratic Republicans, and they had a considerable part in the Founding too.

I mean Jefferson tried to be an intellectual and Renaissance man; but he believed in some of the weirdest shit you can imagine-- centaurs and mountains of salt-- and was in no way above appeals to emotion nor immune to them himself.

 

Increasing the court size is constitutional, but won't pass with out control of Congress and removing the filibuster.

So just like the 5% cap on rent increases, this is just BS.

But if it helps get some svckers to vote Democrat, so be it.

 

But the result of that conflict could leave us much worse off.

Just like a constitutional convention could come up with a much more conservative constitution draft.