He led with that idea which leads to me believe that is what he mainly interested in. He mentions other ideas have been "floated."
It's okay to change his position or mind which for some reason isn't widely accepted. The idea that someone can their mind has become toxic today. Also, it's okay to be wrong and admit to being wrong.
The supreme court is a political body and pretending it can be depoliticized is a centrist fantasy. Expand it to 11 justices or impeach Kavanaugh or Thomas. Otherwise every left legislative bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional or neutered like Obamacare was.
On what grounds would you impeach either of them? I don't believe the fact that they make your snatch sore is an impeachable offense.
The supreme court is a political body and pretending it can be depoliticized is a centrist fantasy. Expand it to 11 justices or impeach Kavanaugh or Thomas. Otherwise every left legislative bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional or neutered like Obamacare was.
Packing it invites repacking. He's interested in structural solutions, not political ones.
Rules matter. You want better behavior and better outcomes, make better rules. Pete gets it.
The supreme court is a political body and pretending it can be depoliticized is a centrist fantasy. Expand it to 11 justices or impeach Kavanaugh or Thomas. Otherwise every left legislative bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional or neutered like Obamacare was.
Packing it invites repacking. He's interested in structural solutions, not political ones.
Rules matter. You want better behavior and better outcomes, make better rules. Pete gets it.
I’m fine with back and forth repacking wars. At least it demystifies the notion that it’s not a political body. The problem is you can’t do structural solutions against a Republican party that doesn’t care about the rules.
The supreme court is a political body and pretending it can be depoliticized is a centrist fantasy. Expand it to 11 justices or impeach Kavanaugh or Thomas. Otherwise every left legislative bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional or neutered like Obamacare was.
Packing it invites repacking. He's interested in structural solutions, not political ones.
Rules matter. You want better behavior and better outcomes, make better rules. Pete gets it.
I’m fine with back and forth repacking wars. At least it demystifies the notion that it’s not a political body. The problem is you can’t do structural solutions against a Republican party that doesn’t care about the rules.
Both sides use the rules to their advantage. Change the rules to make both sides behave better. If all you want is perpetual packing, then you're part of the problem.
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
Trump owes Adelson and the Mercer’s directly, and the Koch’s/other right-wing billionaires indirectly for their cultivation of the congressional right-wing dark money network
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!!
Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote
If money wins why did Hillary lose?
Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?
Fuck off
If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation
You shills never have an issue with public unions do you
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that mold
Comments
It's okay to change his position or mind which for some reason isn't widely accepted. The idea that someone can their mind has become toxic today. Also, it's okay to be wrong and admit to being wrong.
Rules matter. You want better behavior and better outcomes, make better rules. Pete gets it.
https://www.weblinenews.com/supreme-court-justice-charts/
I think it was FDR that was the first to threaten packing the court
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!!
If money wins why did Hillary lose?
Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?
Fuck off
If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation
You shills never have an issue with public unions do you
They both lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. You sure feel entitled to a reply to every stupid question you ask.