Loser left

jecornel

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.

SFGbob

HardlyClothed said:

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.

BearsWiin

HardlyClothed said:

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.

HardlyClothed

BearsWiin said:

HardlyClothed said:

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.

BearsWiin

HardlyClothed said:

BearsWiin said:

HardlyClothed said:

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.

jecornel

Why should Kavanaugh be impeached? Because of his behavior in college?

Sledog

BearsWiin said:

jecornel said:

BearsWiin said:

jecornel said:

allpurpleallgold said:

A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.

Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE

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.

RaceBannon

If the left loses an election or a majority things NEED to change so it doesn't happen again

BearsWiin

Sledog said:

BearsWiin said:

jecornel said:

BearsWiin said:

jecornel said:

allpurpleallgold said:

A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.

Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE

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"

LebamDawg

This is kind of a neat article on the supremes and who appointed them - R's have more than the D's - plus it has great charts.
https://www.weblinenews.com/supreme-court-justice-charts/

I think it was FDR that was the first to threaten packing the court