https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/1813921806149124395
Trump personally dictated the new RNC language on abortion and gay marriage. His team put the delegates in a room, took their phones, and Trump said you're going to pass this and you're going to do it quickly.
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) July 18, 2024
Night of the Long Knives for social conservatives. pic.twitter.com/IQLdu22tOy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you can insulate the judiciary from popular pressure and also have term limits lmao.
When the framers wrote these rules lifespans were not as long my guy. It made sense in that context, it no longer makes a lot of sense when you can have 90 year olds sitting on the supreme court that were put there when they were 40.
If anything the extreme position is thinking nothing can ever be changed, the context of when the rules were written cannot be considered.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your turn: explain how. Lifespans being longer is irrelevant; the Court is a co-equal branch that unlike the other two is not elected at all. You want them to be free to make decisions on just the facts, the law, and the Constitution, not about partisan fervor or a desire to do something because they're afraid they might die.
Also, while you're at it, why not propose a constitutional amendment instead of a nakedly pandering bill that'll get torpedoed by the Court in about 6 seconds.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The term limits Biden suggested were 18 years. how is that not long enough to protect them from emotional political backlash? The issue is they aren't really making decisions based on the law at this point, as the court has been captured by conservative extremists primarily operating on "what's good for the GOP."
The term limit thing is an effort to protect the supreme court and what little credibility it has left. The country cannot function the way it currently does, the court will continue rapidly losing support and just not be taken seriously at all.
Because they don't have to, a majority of the senate, house, can change the supreme court lol. That's literally how it works.
He did propose an amendment, just not for the court:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They can change the numbers on the Court, but not their terms as that's in the Constitution. As for the rest, I'm literally not reading it because you clearly just don't like the outcomes of these decisions. If this were the Warren Court, I'm sure you'd be protecting it at all costs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, the court has repeatedly made rulings that are r-slurred and absurd, and at least one justice has entertained bat-shit insane fringe legal theories in relation to electors lol.
The Texas bounty hunter ruling was so wildly absurd idk how the court even survived.
frankly if nothing is done, I'd be fine with them changing the court numbers to offset the extremist conservatives placed there by someone a non-majority of americans voted for.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Then you'd be fine with a Republican Congress expanding the number even further then and then a Republican president nominating a sufficient number of new Justices to offset liberal ones? That's where this would go, pizza. I'm sorry you don't like federalism or originalism, or even case-specific outcomes. I never liked Roe, Chevron, or Wickard for that matter. But thems the breaks.
I suppose the Democrats could try winning presidential elections and then nominating liberals to replace conservatives on the Court, or amending the Constitution that you're seemingly butthurt about, but I get that's hard.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yes I would, because it would blow up in their faces lmao, because conservative ideas are unpopular. There's a reason donald trump wanted a really vague republican party platform, balancing the court would likely not hurt democrats, republicans attempting to revert it back to a conservative extremist majority likely would hurt republicans.
Democrats have won almost every presidential election in recent history.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
kind of weird to stop it at 2000, the general standard should be like 1990?
Even worse is dems continue to get a majority of the vote.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
And yet, here we are with a 6-3 Court. Also, popular vote doesn't count for shit.
But if you're fine with making a mockery of the Supreme Court by going from 9 to 15 to 19 to 21 to 25 then to 33 and so on, have at it, champ. I think it'd be obvious who's playing games at that point.
Heck, Democrats started the first Civil War, why not take another crack at being king of the ash pile after you burn it down again?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ok let me try to word this in a way you can understand.
A senate majority can be formed with less than 36% of the vote.
The president can win with a non-majority of the vote.
What happens when the court, with lifetime appointments, is primarily shaped by a minority of the country? It rapidly loses credibility, especially when the minority specifically appoints the most extreme conservatives they can find, that repeatedly rule in insane ways.
Like the reforms to the court are to save it, because the current path will end in the court being completely meaningless.
The "democrats" that started the first civil war are all republicans now my guy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context