Kansas Crimson

Leawood wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm Lifetime appointments to the federal courts is a good idea. The confirmation process is what has become controversial.

I wonder if the Court would be well-served by having nine lifetime appointment spots and, say, two spots with ten-year terms.

There are many possible solutions. But to each political body there are advantages in keeping the problem unsolved. To expand on your idea, it would be better if they were 8-year terms, each one staggered by four years so that there can be one appointment in each Presidential term. The confirmation process would be one where the Senate has to come up with 60 votes to block the nominee.

We can expand this idea and go for 5 lifetime appointments and four 8- or 12-year staggered terms so that there’s one appointment in each of the congressional sessions of a presidential term.

As I it’s in the best interest of too many to keep it unsolved

zsn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:13 am There are many possible solutions. But to each political body there are advantages in keeping the problem unsolved. To expand on your idea, it would be better if they were 8-year terms, each one staggered by four years so that there can be one appointment in each Presidential term. The confirmation process would be one where the Senate has to come up with 60 votes to block the nominee.

We can expand this idea and go for 5 lifetime appointments and four 8- or 12-year staggered terms so that there’s one appointment in each of the congressional sessions of a presidential term.

As I it’s in the best interest of too many to keep it unsolved

I prefer my Supreme Court Justices to have experience. I don't like the idea of running them off after 8 years. Plus, if you cap it at 8 years then you'll never get younger justices to take the job. They'd have nothing left to accomplish for the last 1-2 decades of their career.

why can’t we just get it back to how it was before it was politicized?

(aside from the current justices being largely at odds with the interests of any kind of popular majority of Mericans for the next like 30 years)

Actually “experienced” and “younger” Justices are seemingly in contradiction. Maybe, to your point, the minimum age should be increased so that judges have minimum judicial experience. This way the SCOTUS job is really a Supreme experience. The way the QOP is going they would nominate a page to the bench, just to stick it to the libs

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2C2024

don’t know if i like this

but, when pubs won’t play by the same set of “rules”, i get it

Yeah, it sucks that it’s come to this.


It wasn’t too long ago that a scotus nomination was mostly a formality, that would pass with near-if-not-unanimous votes to confirm.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme ... d=77395615

Supreme Court sides with undocumented immigrant fighting deportation

... "If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them," Gorsuch wrote in an opinion joined by a remarkable alignment of justices -- Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett...

i like this...what’s good for the goose is good for the gander

mitch mcconnell...sigh

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:32 pm mitch mcconnell...sigh

He's one of the most evil people on the planet.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:50 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:32 pm mitch mcconnell...sigh

He's one of the most evil people on the planet.

as much as i’d want to put him on tier 1, that shelf is reserved for the likes of gym jordon, rand paul, ted cruz, mtg, etc...imo

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:01 pm

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:50 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:32 pm mitch mcconnell...sigh

He's one of the most evil people on the planet.

as much as i’d want to put him on tier 1, that shelf is reserved for the likes of gym jordon, rand paul, ted cruz, mtg, etc...imo

True, but isn’t Moscow Mitch their fearless leader?

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:27 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:01 pm

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:50 pm

He's one of the most evil people on the planet.

as much as i’d want to put him on tier 1, that shelf is reserved for the likes of gym jordon, rand paul, ted cruz, mtg, etc...imo

True, but isn’t Moscow Mitch their fearless leader?

in name only

Obamacare lulz

Also scotus sides with Catholic social services in saying Philadelphia must work with them on adoptions even though they’re anti-same sex couples, thus establishing that lgbtq rights play second fiddle to religious bigotry I mean freedom.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:13 pm Also scotus sides with Catholic social services in saying Philadelphia must work with them on adoptions even though they’re anti-same sex couples, thus establishing that lgbtq rights play second fiddle to religious bigotry I mean freedom.

I disagree, and this was a unanimous decision, so I think it's pretty clear that it does violate the 1st amendment and isn't something that happened just because the conservative justices.

I might feel differently if the CSS had a monopoly on adoptions and was the only place in town.

I think there was also some virtue signaling going on here, as there had never been a complaint, and CSS had never been approached by a same-sex couple wishing to adopt a child and if they had they would have gotten them in contact with an agency that does.

I think the SC has been pretty clear lately that they'll protect private businesses to allow them to choose with whom to do business. I mean, this is why Twitter can ban Trump.

Good points.

And it is indeed rather moot if the same-sex couples already know to avoid the bigots.

The Catholic Church is a private business? If that's the case they should start paying taxes.

To me, they are accepting tax dollars to place kids with foster parents. Discrimination should not be an option. But I'm biased, we were foster parents for a time. Our class had a few LGBT couples. Kids would be lucky to be assigned to their homes.

Yeah.

There’s already so many messed up family situations kids might have to grow up in.

For instance, they might be placed in a home that expects them to believe a transient Jew became a zombie and they have to go all cannibal on him now, and that if they don’t, they’ll go to hell just like the same sex couples.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:41 pm The Catholic Church is a private business? If that's the case they should start paying taxes.

To me, they are accepting tax dollars to place kids with foster parents. Discrimination should not be an option. But I'm biased, we were foster parents for a time. Our class had a few LGBT couples. Kids would be lucky to be assigned to their homes.

But, according to the SC discrimination is allowed. The agencies pick and choose who they think are appropriate parents, using their own criteria.

This is based on my reading of the justices opinions, I'm not a lawyer.