Red Mosquito

Pretty interesting quote from Bertrand Russell in 1938

tl; dr

Bammer wrote:tl; dr

The Supreme Court is our Greek Oracles.

agree Bertrand Russell would not value Amy Coney Bryant's intellect

96583UP wrote:CollinsMurkowski loves to front like she won't do what the GOP wants and then always does it

she is just putting out the bat-signal for a payoff

then will guzzle the c*m like always

ftfy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lisa-murko ... _lead_pos4

96583UP wrote:

96583UP wrote:CollinsMurkowski loves to front like she won't do what the GOP wants and then always does it

she is just putting out the bat-signal for a payoff

then will guzzle the c*m like always

ftfy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lisa-murko ... _lead_pos4

Shame.

The thing that the GOP killed before millenials could beat them to it.

96583UP wrote:agree Bertrand Russell would not value Amy Coney Bryant's intellect

i doubt he would value any American's intellect.

So today's the day we get the result that people wasted their time talking about while knowing what the outcome was going to be, eh?

yes

it's done

time to win and pack 1

but just 1

If congress can just add more supreme court judges, then how was the supreme court ever a check on congress? Why not just keep adding or subtracting judges until you get a majority? What a farce!

i like the way Snrub thinks

BurtReynolds wrote:If congress can just add more supreme court judges, then how was the supreme court ever a check on congress? Why not just keep adding or subtracting judges until you get a majority? What a farce!

Burt, the framers were attempting to balance the... umm... the role of the court in determining... err... hmm.

BurtReynolds wrote:If congress can just add more supreme court judges, then how was the supreme court ever a check on congress? Why not just keep adding or subtracting judges until you get a majority? What a farce!

I believe Congress and the President have to work together on it. Neither branch can do it on their own. The check is that no branch can act unilaterally. If all 3 branches are fucked, well ... so are we.

All kinds of annoying stats coming out yesterday.

6 Justices are Catholic. 20% of the US population is Catholic.
5 Justices were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. (although technically, Bush had won the popular vote before nominating Alito and Roberts)
Barrett's nominating President got 3mil less votes than his competition. The 52 Senators voting her in represent either 13 or 17mil less citizens than the 48 voting against her.

Depressing.

So, I don't fully understand this stuff, but am I to understand that Kavanaugh has officially used Trump v Gore as precedent for another case?

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/pol ... 670662001/

So what now, court stacking or jurisdiction stripping? (If/when Democrats win)

I don't expect the Democrats to do either of those things.

Yeah, Democrats won't fight back. They'll wait until Republicans take the Presidency and Senate back and pack the Court. THEN they'll get pissed and demand that we vote Republicans out.

Mickey wrote:I don't expect the Democrats to do either of those things.

I don't either, at least right now. It wouldn't be in their best interests.

This way, they can pass all sorts of laws that they don't really want to, and then blame the court for killing them when it decides they're unconstitutional.

Regrettably I agree with Burt.