- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,398
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
This must be a little liberal crybaby
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
Whatever merits such a case may have, pragmatically, we're farther from seeing such brought to fruition than we are from altering the first or second amendments.The Case for Abolishing the Supreme Court
When you can't win, destroy it: Progressive thinking 101
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
Not sure if he means what he syas, is a poe or what. AA puts out some of the most... interesting posts with views that are by far some of the most extreme and generally irrationale around.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
I look forward to his next article, "The Case for Abolishing Congress" to be released shortly after November 6th.
Where was this talk when Kagan was put on the Bench?It's a bit premature to suggest abolishing the Supreme Court. However, if we're going to accept that the nomination and confirmation process is to be a completely partisan affair from here on out, then it at least makes sense to end lifetime seats. It makes a mockery of the court to stack it with unabashed political operatives who can never, ever be removed except by the most numerically improbable process ever.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
Where was this talk when Kagan was put on the Bench?
I would rather see a provision that disallowed any sitting judge from having a political party affiliation. Plus a term limit. A thorough investigation of the nominee.One solution I have heard discussed is to have Term limits of 16 years for those on the Supreme Court. Each President would make two appointments, presumably in November of years two and four of each Presidential term.
It is an idea that certainly merits discussion.
Another thought, for those that like pie in the sky:
A Republican POTUS can only nominate Democratic justices; A Democratic POTUS can only nominate Republican justices.
This would prevent either party from having extremists sitting on the Court. Presidents from either party would select moderates from the other party. This may result in decisions that are more in keeping with the long term health of the Country.
Kagan is as much a part of a political machine as anyone ever seated. yet she was voted in and no one seemed to be dismayed at the obvious and very political appointee. But now...with Kavanaugh (and based solely on his response to the rats in the senate that spent months attcking him and his family) suddenly there is an outcry.What about Kagan?
I look forward to his next article, "The Case for Abolishing Congress" to be released shortly after November 6th.
Kagan is as much a part of a political machine as anyone ever seated. yet she was voted in and no one seemed to be dismayed at the obvious and very political appointee. But now...with Kavanaugh (and based solely on his response to the rats in the senate that spent months attcking him and his family) suddenly there is an outcry.
Has anyone bothered actually LOOKING at his record on the bench? Does it matter that in a side by side comparison he voted identically with Merrick Garland on 96% of the cases he sat on?
The hysteria is ludicrous.
One solution I have heard discussed is to have Term limits of 16 years for those on the Supreme Court. Each President would make two appointments, presumably in November of years two and four of each Presidential term.
It is an idea that certainly merits discussion.
Another thought, for those that like pie in the sky:
A Republican POTUS can only nominate Democratic justices; A Democratic POTUS can only nominate Republican justices.
This would prevent either party from having extremists sitting on the Court. Presidents from either party would select moderates from the other party. This may result in decisions that are more in keeping with the long term health of the Country.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?