Political Discussion

New bill that raises the number of justices from 9 to 13. I'm not sure if this is the way to go, but I know that the democrats have been threatening this for a while.

Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.

The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

Good Lord, I hope that there are much cooler heads in the house and senate to put the kibosh on this pretty quickly. I greatly fear the consequences if this is able to be rammed through. My fears have nothing to do with legislation.
 
I don't like the expansion of seats personally, but Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. But we all know they won't. :)

Good Lord, I hope that there are much cooler heads in the house and senate to put the kibosh on this pretty quickly. I greatly fear the consequences if this is able to be rammed through. My fears have nothing to do with legislation.
Looks like Pelosi is against it. It might be dead in the water.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she has "no plans" to bring a Democratic-led bill to expand the Supreme Court to the House floor for a vote, while saying such an idea is "not out of the question."

Pelosi was asked during a press briefing if she supported a bill brought forward by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) to expand the Supreme Court by four seats and if she would bring it to the House floor.

"No. I support the president's commission to study such a proposal, but frankly I'm not — right now, we're back, our members, our committees are working. We're putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest," Pelosi said.

 
Just saw a now hiring commercial for Amazon.

They were advertising openings in the MA warehouse.

What get's me is everyone in the commercial is so happy and talking about how amazon pays so well.

But then Amazon says most jobs are $15 an hour or more.

$15 an hour is minimum wage in Massachusetts. It's not a great wage and doesn't cover the cost of living. Also it's about half as much per hour as the industry average in the area.

I'm sure Amazon has the same excuse here though, that they aren't hiring industry worker and are hiring from a different group of low wage workers and paying them well.
 

Explain to me what Eugenics is and how this has become to goto for conservative judges to weaken or overturn precedent.

What else besides abotion is this being used against?

Eugenitics is the pseudoscience that gave scientific credence to a hierarchy of races. It was the basis for many policies for the Nazis.
 

Explain to me what Eugenics is and how this has become to goto for conservative judges to weaken or overturn precedent.

What else besides abotion is this being used against?

Eugenics is the belief that humans should breed selectively to promote a populace with the strongest possible genetic make up. It’s utter bollocks and generally linked to to the most racist regimes that have existed.

I don’t follow how it has a link to any ideas surrounding abortion?

That link is unreadable to anyone who can’t access Apple news.
 
Eugenics is the belief that humans should breed selectively to promote a populace with the strongest possible genetic make up. It’s utter bollocks and generally linked to to the most racist regimes that have existed.

I don’t follow how it has a link to any ideas surrounding abortion?

That link is unreadable to anyone who can’t access Apple news.

Sorry, didn't realize you needed Apple News to follow the link.

Try this link:

 
Sorry, didn't realize you needed Apple News to follow the link.

Try this link:


Ah ok that makes more sense now. I think it’s completely disingenuous for conservatives to claim that as eugenics. Also the right is surely the right, what does the reason have to do with anything.

That said, that argument was absolutely the most contentious one when we had our abortion referendum here a few years back.
 
Last edited:

Explain to me what Eugenics is and how this has become to goto for conservative judges to weaken or overturn precedent.

What else besides abotion is this being used against?

It also has been used to justify European colonialism into the 20th century, slavery and Jim Crow, and countless of other human rights abuses across the world by some dominant ethnic group/country/etc.
 

So status quo
As long as white people make their decisions about what they'll lose instead of what they'll gain the status quo will persist.
 
Florida’s ‘anti-riot’ bill headed to DeSantis
By Gray Rohrer and Mark Skoneki Orlando Sentinel

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Senate on Thursday approved an “anti-riot” bill championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, sending it to him for signature into law over the objections of Democrats and civil rights groups who say the measure infringes on the fundamental First Amendment right to protest.

The hotly debated measure passed 23-17, largely along partisan lines.

The parts of the bill (HB 1 ) that most upset Democrats grant civil legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blocking a road; prevent people arrested for rioting or offenses committed during a riot from bailing out of jail until their first court appearance; and impose a six-month mandatory sentence for battery on a police officer during a riot.

DeSantis, when he unveiled the proposal, emphasized the need to prevent bail for rioters, so they aren’t able to rejoin the unrest.

During an emotional debate, Sen. Annette Taddeo, D-Miami, called the bill a “mail piece for reelection for a specific base who wants it."



The bill passed is pretty much a racist, ani protest reform that is meant to target BLM and police brutality protests.
 
New bill that raises the number of justices from 9 to 13. I'm not sure if this is the way to go, but I know that the democrats have been threatening this for a while.

Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.

The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

I'm all for an increase. I don't see how it's a bad thing.
It also has been used to justify European colonialism into the 20th century, slavery and Jim Crow, and countless of other human rights abuses across the world by some dominant ethnic group/country/etc.
It was also very popular in the US (and much of the West) in the early 20th century and was used as the reasoning for policies such as forced sterilization of folks with cognitive or mental health issues.
We're still doing this in prisons and among immigration detainees.
File this under things I never thought I would see.


Eh, he's just upset that the system is threatened.
 
I'm all for an increase. I don't see how it's a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because Republicans will retaliate. They will consider this a direct attack on the constitution and packing the court. Even though packing the court is their biggest focus.

They don't play fair or by the rules, so if we break away from a 9 judge SCOTUS, who's to say they won't add a ton more conservative judges when they are in power again.

All in all the court appointments have become to political and courts have political agendas. We are screwed either way I feel.
 
It's a bad thing because Republicans will retaliate. They will consider this a direct attack on the constitution and packing the court. Even though packing the court is their biggest focus.

They don't play fair or by the rules, so if we break away from a 9 judge SCOTUS, who's to say they won't add a ton more conservative judges when they are in power again.

All in all the court appointments have become to political and courts have political agendas. We are screwed either way I feel.
So what? So add more. And more. How many justices are too many?
 
1I'm all for an increase. I don't see how it's a bad thing.


2We're still doing this in prisons and among immigration detainees.

Eh, he's just upset that the system is threatened.
2) could you point me to resources to more information on what you were referring to? I’m genuinely curious.

1) if that happens the last institution of the federal government is still retain any sort of esteem or faith that it is operating as it is supposed to, loses all trust with the entirety of the American public. At that point the wheels come off the whole apple cart.
 
Back
Top