Loser left

Sledog said:

BearsWiin said:

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"

Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?

Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

Sledog said:

BearsWiin said:

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"

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

SFGbob said:

As usual, Thomas and Kavanaugh should be impeached but the Kunt is too big a coward to state why.