The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, I am positive he was not referencing that. I wasn’t making a point so much as a snide, unhelpful comment that doesn’t really move the conversation but might be good for a cheap laugh.

FTR, I laughed.

[Non Sequitur]

Oh, I am positive he was not referencing that. I wasn’t making a point so much as a snide, unhelpful comment that doesn’t really move the conversation but might be good for a cheap laugh.

Snide, I can live with.

[Pelado]

Oh, I am positive he was not referencing that. I wasn’t making a point so much as a snide, unhelpful comment that doesn’t really move the conversation but might be good for a cheap laugh.

AA is a treasure.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Sleeping in EQ]

An editorial in Newsweek comes with both barrels:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...?ocid=msedgntp

[Bo Diddley]

An editorial in Newsweek comes with both barrels:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...?ocid=msedgntp

Thanks. That was good.

[Now who’s the dean?]

Apparently, if one believes the government's restrictions on individual liberty in 2020 are unprecedented in the U.S., one must be against masks and must have taken their ideas straight from Trump's tweets. No one, by the way, bothers to point out a time when the government has issued more "severe, extensive and prolonged" restrictions of individual liberties for U.S. citizens.

Whether the notion was taken from Trump’s tweets or somewhere else, it’s a remarkably stupid assertion.

The primary complaint seems to be that Alito conflated being labeled a bigot with the restriction of speech. It is true that one can physically say these words about marriage. Government officials have not forcibly stopped people from speaking heterodoxy. But Alito's point is that one speaks those words at increasing risk of being shut down. In many corporate and academic contexts, as well as in society at large, people actually do suffer penalties and forfeit opportunities for saying such things.

Right. People do speak those words at increasing risk of being shut down. If a supreme court justice wants to weigh in on “cancel culture” go for it, I guess. Don’t try and paint it as a free speech issue.

[Uncle Ted]

Dems plan to pack the supreme court...

HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAN BILL TO ADD FOUR JUSTICES TO SUPREME COURT

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS PLAN to unveil legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court on Thursday, according to three congressional sources familiar with the closely held measure.

The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13 from the current nine. The number of justices on the Court, which is set by Congress, has fluctuated throughout the course of the nation’s history, before settling on nine in 1869.

The bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, Subcommittee chair Hank Johnson, and freshman Rep. Mondaire Jones. In the Senate, the bill is being championed by Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
[...]

https://theintercept.com/2021/04/14/...supreme-court/

13 is better than 9. 13 is a prime.

[Katy Lied]

This bothered me when I read it. What's to stop the republicans from reducing the supreme court to one member when they control all of the branches?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am a little skeptical of this news. I just googled it and literally the only news sources with this story are a small handful of conservative sites.

[BlueK]

This bothered me when I read it. What's to stop the republicans from reducing the supreme court to one member when they control all of the branches?

Lifetime appointments.

But yeah, theoretically they could pass a law that would say they won't replace anyone who retires or dies until they reach the number they want. Most likely what they will do next is refuse to confirm anyone the next time a dem president is in office with a gop senate.

[Moliere]

There are very few things that would result in me voting for Trump. Court packing by the Dems is one of those things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commando]

lol. Democrats don't have the balls to get rid of the filibuster that dates back to like 2000... or ICE, which dates back to 2001. Shit-- Biden himself doesn't even have the balls to get rid of Trump's shitty immigration policies because of CBP/GOP's laughable 'border crisis' headlines they've worked so hard for. The idea that they are going to change the rules to change the composition of the Supreme Court is nothing more than fodder and bluster for the GOP to get donations ahead of midterms.

[Green Monstah]

Honestly, we need a constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices.

[Uncle Ted]

I am a little skeptical of this news. I just googled it and literally the only news sources with this story are a small handful of conservative sites.

Like the NYTimes? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/u...democrats.html

[Uncle Ted]

This bothered me when I read it. What's to stop the republicans from reducing the supreme court to one member when they control all of the branches?

I like 1 too... it's also a prime!