January 6 - How much do you care?

[Baldy]

Jan 6 committee recommends criminal referrals to DOJ for Donald J Trump.

[HI54UNI]

Jan 6 committee recommends criminal referrals to DOJ for Donald J Trump.

[BDKJMU]

Jan 6 committee recommends criminal referrals to DOJ for Donald J Trump.

[kalm]

[UNI88]

Say it ain't so ...

[houndawg]

But the specifics here, for what he's done here, are often missed in the clamor over trying to score political points and web clicks. Lindsey Graham is being asked to testify before a grand jury on a phone call he had with the Georgia Secretary of State. Maybe his conversation is covered by the speech and debate clause, maybe it isn't. But that hasn't really been decided yet and needs to be decided. Thomas has delayed Graham having to sit for the grand jury until that's decided. And if it comes to the SCOTUS to actually decide that, it will likely be the full court, and not just Thomas, making that judgment. Nothing about Ginnie Thomas has been directly connected to Graham or this phone call in question. If it was her phone call or if she was in the room with Graham before/during/after the phone call, then yes, recusal would be a different story entirely. Let's see where this goes before we start the impeachment process against Thomas.

Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.

I think its too late for that - maybe a small chance if Biden sets to packing the fuck out of the court tout suite

[kalm]

Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.

I think its too late for that - maybe a small chance if Biden sets to packing the fuck out of the court tout suite

Yep. And term limits.

[UNI88]

I think its too late for that - maybe a small chance if Biden sets to packing the fuck out of the court tout suite

Yep. And term limits.

Why do the two of you want to destroy the Republic?

[kalm]

Yep. And term limits.

Why do the two of you want to destroy the Republic?

Why would you think updating the SCOTUS would destroy the Republic?

[UNI88]

Why do the two of you want to destroy the Republic?

Why would you think updating the SCOTUS would destroy the Republic?

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the traditional way rather than changing the rules because they're sore losers. Packing the court is analogous in some ways to denying election results.

[kalm]

Why would you think updating the SCOTUS would destroy the Republic?

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the old-fashioned way.

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

[UNI88]

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the old-fashioned way.

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

I love this country and I don't want it to go to sh!t because a bunch of whiny ass bitches (on the left and/or right) didn't get their way.

[GannonFan]

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the old-fashioned way.

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

We've only changed the size of the court six times in our history, and we haven't changed it since 1869. It's not something we tinker with very often and when we were changing it the size of the country and number of states were increasingly significantly. Geographically, the country isn't changing very much anymore, probably why we haven't changed the size since 1869. If we were talking about changing the size of the Court to handle the workload (which is why the court size was changed those six times in the nascent period of this country) then you'd have an argument. The Court needs to be big enough to handle the workload. But if we're just talking about changing the size of the Court to gain a contemporary political advantage, then that's not something that there's a lot of track record for and definitely not something the Founders baked into the Constitution.

And if Democracy wanted to change things, we can update the Constitution any time we want to. There's an actual mechanism to do that, with enough support from the American populace.

Why do you hate Americans?

[houndawg]

Why would you think updating the SCOTUS would destroy the Republic?

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the traditional way rather than changing the rules because they're sore losers. Packing the court is analogous in some ways to denying election results.

Think of it s a vaccination to ameliorate the effects of the political virus that has infected the SCOTUS

[kalm]

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

We've only changed the size of the court six times in our history, and we haven't changed it since 1869. It's not something we tinker with very often and when we were changing it the size of the country and number of states were increasingly significantly. Geographically, the country isn't changing very much anymore, probably why we haven't changed the size since 1869. If we were talking about changing the size of the Court to handle the workload (which is why the court size was changed those six times in the nascent period of this country) then you'd have an argument. The Court needs to be big enough to handle the workload. But if we're just talking about changing the size of the Court to gain a contemporary political advantage, then that's not something that there's a lot of track record for and definitely not something the Founders baked into the Constitution.

And if Democracy wanted to change things, we can update the Constitution any time we want to. There's an actual mechanism to do that, with enough support from the American populace.

Why do you hate Americans?

that’s why I related my comment population.

Why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate change? After all, change is universal.

[GannonFan]

We've only changed the size of the court six times in our history, and we haven't changed it since 1869. It's not something we tinker with very often and when we were changing it the size of the country and number of states were increasingly significantly. Geographically, the country isn't changing very much anymore, probably why we haven't changed the size since 1869. If we were talking about changing the size of the Court to handle the workload (which is why the court size was changed those six times in the nascent period of this country) then you'd have an argument. The Court needs to be big enough to handle the workload. But if we're just talking about changing the size of the Court to gain a contemporary political advantage, then that's not something that there's a lot of track record for and definitely not something the Founders baked into the Constitution.

And if Democracy wanted to change things, we can update the Constitution any time we want to. There's an actual mechanism to do that, with enough support from the American populace.

Why do you hate Americans?

that’s why I related my comment population.

Why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate change? After all, change is universal.

I think change, and democratic change, is great. It's why we have an amendment procedure built into the Constitution. Change is good. Embrace it!

[GannonFan]

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the traditional way rather than changing the rules because they're sore losers. Packing the court is analogous in some ways to denying election results.

Think of it s a vaccination to ameliorate the effects of the political virus that has infected the SCOTUS

That's the equivalent of using a live vaccine vaccination method (like smallpox back in the day - actually give the person smallpox and see if they live or not). Sure, it could work, but it could also kill the patient.

[houndawg]

Think of it s a vaccination to ameliorate the effects of the political virus that has infected the SCOTUS

That's the equivalent of using a live vaccine vaccination method (like smallpox back in the day - actually give the person smallpox and see if they live or not). Sure, it could work, but it could also kill the patient.

Not this shit again.....

[JoltinJoe]

OMG, it's an attack on the very fabric of our Republic! How can you not see this? It's right there in front of you.
Do I need the sarcasm emoji to show that I'm mocking you and all the other pearl-clutching illiberals claiming trump is a fascist and Democracy was about to end on January 6?

The problem is that Republicans will just respond in kind (over the hysterical cries of Democrats) when they're in power and so-on and we'll end up with an unwieldy and dysfunctional SCOTUS and it will be whoever does this first's fault.

If Democrats want to change the court they should win elections and replace judges the old-fashioned way.

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

In 1937, a Joint Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee reached the determination that FDR's proposal to expand the Supreme Court in order to gain a political advantage, or "court packing," was a violation of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution -- as it would represent the effort of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to subvert a constitutionally co-equal branch of government.

While Congress has the authority to expand the Court, it cannot do so for political reasons without running afoul of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. IMO.

[kalm]

Court size has been debated and changed since the founding. We currently have 9 elitists determining the rights of 330 million people.

Why do you hate Democracy and the average Joe?

Why do you love Ailto and Trump?

In 1937, a Joint Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee reached the determination that FDR's proposal to expand the Supreme Court in order to gain a political advantage, or "court packing," was a violation of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution -- as it would represent the effort of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to subvert a constitutionally co-equal branch of government.

While Congress has the authority to expand the Court, it cannot do so for political reasons without running afoul of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. IMO.

All reasons can be deemed political. Court appointments are political. The court itself is political. Yet congress is granted the authority.

[GannonFan]

In 1937, a Joint Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee reached the determination that FDR's proposal to expand the Supreme Court in order to gain a political advantage, or "court packing," was a violation of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution -- as it would represent the effort of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to subvert a constitutionally co-equal branch of government.

While Congress has the authority to expand the Court, it cannot do so for political reasons without running afoul of the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. IMO.

All reasons can be deemed political. Court appointments are political. The court itself is political. Yet congress is granted the authority.

How very nihilistic of you. If you think of things that way you can do whatever you want and always feel justified as nothing has any real justification.

Still doesn't change the fact that up until 1869 when we were changing the size of the Court on occasion, we were doing so to adjust to increasing workloads and/or to give better coverage to a country that was geographically expanding and becoming hard to manage with fewer justices. I don't see the same problem today, at the SCOTUS level, with being able to handle the workload.

[SeattleGriz]

Oh my. If the supposed leak of chapter titles for the upcoming report are true,

[BDKJMU]

The bigger question is how did this idiot make it to colonel in the US Army?

[houndawg]

The bigger question is how did this idiot make it to colonel in the US Army?

He was drafted.

[kalm]

All reasons can be deemed political. Court appointments are political. The court itself is political. Yet congress is granted the authority.

How very nihilistic of you. If you think of things that way you can do whatever you want and always feel justified as nothing has any real justification.

Still doesn't change the fact that up until 1869 when we were changing the size of the Court on occasion, we were doing so to adjust to increasing workloads and/or to give better coverage to a country that was geographically expanding and becoming hard to manage with fewer justices. I don't see the same problem today, at the SCOTUS level, with being able to handle the workload.

Missed this one. Aka realistic.