2020 presidential candidate 'crats

[michigancat]

https://twitter.com/REALpunknews/status/1110179528834334720?s=19

[sys]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1110200512161431552

[sys]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1110317958990127104

[sys]

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1110333147017818113

[puniraptor]

i think having the justices pick the justices is a great idea

i dont want any more of them tho

[Spracne]

i think having the justices pick the justices is a great idea

i dont want any more of them tho

I haven't really formed an opinion on it myself one way or the other, but I'm just curious: What's your thought process for the second point?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

i think having the justices pick the justices is a great idea

i dont want any more of them tho

I haven't really formed an opinion on it myself one way or the other, but I'm just curious: What's your thought process for the second point?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

the fewer there are, the more you can get to know each of them and it makes it more fun. If there were 15, I wouldnt know the name of a single one or care even a little bit about their appointments or opinions

[Spracne]

i think having the justices pick the justices is a great idea

i dont want any more of them tho

I haven't really formed an opinion on it myself one way or the other, but I'm just curious: What's your thought process for the second point?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

the fewer there are, the more you can get to know each of them and it makes it more fun. If there were 15, I wouldnt know the name of a single one or care even a little bit about their appointments or opinions

So, 9 is good, but 15 is right out?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

yup

[Spracne]

Last I saw, something like 25% of people can name 2 Supreme Court justices. I don't see name recallability of 9 versus 15 being a material issue.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

it should really be sized on workload. each case normally has 2 opinions. how many cases do we want a year and how many justices does it take to hear them and generate the necessary opinions.

[Spracne]

it should really be sized on workload. each case normally has 2 opinions. how many cases do we want a year and how many justices does it take to hear them and generate the necessary opinions.

Something like 1% of writs for certiorari are granted. Based on memory, that accounts for fewer than 100 out of ~10,000/year. I don't think we *need* more justices. Nor do I think the political will exists to pack the court. But I think status quo is that case load tracks capacity, and not the other way around.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[star seed 7]

I am not opposed to the idea of more judges, but I don't want it to happen because of some power grab, which is the most likely scenario.

I'm also a fan of 9 judges at 16 year terms, 2 appointed each presidential term

[puniraptor]

what if each dying president gets to appoint a justice with his or her last breath

[Spracne]

I am not opposed to the idea of more judges, but I don't want it to happen because of some power grab, which is the most likely scenario.

I'm also a fan of 9 judges at 16 year terms, 2 appointed each presidential term

Thing is, that would require an amendment, and most Constitutional scholars agree that we are likely living in a post-Constitutional-amendment country. It's just too difficult to amend it, absent broad bi-partisan consensus. And every issue gets polarized immediately. Especially a politically motivated thing like packing the court. Lol. No.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[catastrophe]

I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.

[sys]

I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.

before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.

[catastrophe]

Doesn’t work. Look at what happened when Obama had Scalia murdered.

[Spracne]

LOL

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[sys]

Obama had Scalia murdered.

i have had irl people tell me that happened.  also irl people tell me that he obviously died rough ridin' a prostitute.

[puniraptor]

I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.

before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.

the seal has already been broken

there have been 6, 7, 9, and 10 justice courts. the constitution does not define the size of the court

[Spracne]

I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.

before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.

the seal has already been broken

there have been 6, 7, 9, and 10 justice courts. the constitution does not define the size of the court

I already made that point. But the status quo is pretty relevant in the least-understood branch of government. How long has it been since there have been not 9 Justices? Rhetorical question. I know the answer. You know who doesn't want a shake up in the high court? The high court, because it would undermine their legitimacy as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.

before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.

the seal has already been broken

there have been 6, 7, 9, and 10 justice courts. the constitution does not define the size of the court

I already made that point. But the status quo is pretty relevant in the least-understood branch of government. How long has it been since there have been not 9 Justices? Rhetorical question. I know the answer. You know who doesn't want a shake up in the high court? The high court, because it would undermine their legitimacy as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

i know the answer because i obviously just looked it up on wikipedia
i think there is a law currently mandating the 9, so they would have to write a new law, which is as impossbile as any other law

[MakeItRain]

thinking back, i think gillibrand did indicate an openness to consider removing existing barriers on the border.  so that's two.  pretty sure no one else has.  i know when harris was pressed on it she was a hard no and talked up a bunch of trump reinforcing crap about border security.

please do link me up if there are other candidates pushing back on continuing to have a militarized southern border forever.  i'd be very happy to know of them.

Instead of wasting my time looking for something so patently stupid, why don't you find me and Democratic candidate on record for wanting to build any type of border barrier. Even the two potential candidates to primary the cheeto aren't fully invested in a barrier.

[star seed 7]

what if each dying president gets to appoint a justice with his or her last breath

Would require an amendment, I can't believe spracne let you get away with this one