United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv

Oh good. This is going to end well.
You know, honestly more concerning to me than this (and it's been a personal bugaboo issue for...as long as it's been proposed with any trace of seriousness on the American political scene)?

The fact that at lesser number it could be proposed much more viably in political context and jive with the efforts to bring DC and Puerto Rico statehood. Because then there exists the fig-leaf justification that SCOTUS expansions in the past have occurred because of expanding number of states and the work demanded of each Justice to oversee their carveouts...It's a thin pretext, but it IS a pretext, and masks the partisan power-move behind something that at least allows it to be presented as something that isn't a purely partisan power-move.

Adding four makes that fig-leaf impossible and just emphasizes 'partisan power-move'. Probably so it can attract fundraising from saps, but by that same extension because the partisan power-move signaling has become much more central to US politics.
Because anyone giving up any power or devolving things ever is anathema. Power isn't something to be skeptical of, it just has to be focused against better targets or used to your own side's benefit.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
The fact that at lesser number it could be proposed much more viably in political context and jive with the efforts to bring DC and Puerto Rico statehood. Because then there exists the fig-leaf justification that SCOTUS expansions in the past have occurred because of expanding number of states and the work demanded of each Justice to oversee their carveouts...It's a thin pretext, but it IS a pretext, and masks the partisan power-move behind something that at least allows it to be presented as something that isn't a purely partisan power-move.

I would argue that adding a justice for DC or Puerto Rico statehood would actually be more partisan, because historically justices have *not* been added for new states; they've been added for new *federal circuits*.

Past expansions of SCOTUS due to -- as you said, an expanding federal court workload -- were made to correspond to expansions/reorganizations of the federal circuit courts, peaking at ten Justices corresponding to ten federal circuit courts in 1863. But in 1866, Congress declared that they would not replace the next three justices who retired, specifically as a partisan fuck-you to President Johnson. This pushed the size of SCOTUS back down to 7, and then in 1869 Congress brought it back up to 9 after Johnson's term was over.

Adding four makes that fig-leaf impossible and just emphasizes 'partisan power-move'.

I disagree. Adding four to bring SCOTUS to 13 is quite defensible in principle because there are thirteen federal circuit courts. This would bring us back to the historical practice of one SCOTUS justice per federal circuit.
 
Last edited:

Terthna

Professional Lurker
I thought we would have to wait until after the next populist leader until our neo optimates did something this fundamentally stupid.
I think you might have to accelerate your timetable, because it's starting to look like they're trying to speedrun the fall of the Roman Republic.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I think you might have to accelerate your timetable, because it's starting to look like they're trying to speedrun the fall of the Roman Republic.

I will say that the first optimates at least had the defense of tradition.

Our guys only have money and naked force and their going to start running out of money.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Except there's also been talk of somehow nuking that so they only need a simple majority.


I think that's very possible it will of course lead to a massive populist uprising because that is a direct violation of so many norms and it will also mean that the republicans will pack the court the minute they get power as retribution. This is the kind of shit that makes civil wars envitable.


Justice Roberts may just go down as the man who ended the republic.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
I think that's very possible it will of course lead to a massive populist uprising because that is a direct violation of so many norms and it will also mean that the republicans will pack the court the minute they get power as retribution. This is the kind of shit that makes civil wars envitable.


Justice Roberts may just go down as the man who ended the republic.
If democrats pack the courts they will start passing laws that ensure republicans never get power again.

They pack the courts and this game is over. The only way out will be war.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
My question is...where is the money going to come from to prevent hyperinflation from crippling the US? Does anyone know how much money has been printed since Covid started to mess with us?

What will the Dems do if they are in power? Because none of them come across as a new Franklin Roosevelt
 

Cherico

Well-known member
You've got to give them a few days for the spin machine to come up with the official explanation for this. Then it'll all be justified and they can look the other way.

Pains a pretty good teacher and after all eventally even the slowest horses cross the finish line.
 

DarthOne

☦️
I think that's very possible it will of course lead to a massive populist uprising because that is a direct violation of so many norms and it will also mean that the republicans will pack the court the minute they get power as retribution. This is the kind of shit that makes civil wars envitable.


Justice Roberts may just go down as the man who ended the republic.
Just like how blatantly stealing an election would?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top