Neuter the courts. The root cause of the issue is that SCOUTS is too powerful by passing laws rather than interpreting them. I recommend the following:
Term-Limits. (16 or 20yrs)
Force retire Thomas & Breyer and close their seats. (Take the court membership down to 7. This asserts the Senate and the SCOTUS mandate to the laws.)
Amend the constitution to say that State laws
overwrite Federal rulings and Federal regulations. (If a State bothered to pass a law on say abortion and the Federal government didn't, then the courts default to State law rather than Starry Decisis or Chevron Deference.)
Undo the nuclear option from 2013. (Bring it back to a 2/3rd majority to moderate the SCOTUS and prevent to the vitriol we have seen from every vacancy since then.)
Take a pocket constitution and bitch-slap John Roberts.
Why Thomas? He's the best Justice on the bench. He should have been promoted to Chief Justice.
Amend the constitution to say that State laws overwrite Federal rulings and Federal regulations. (If a State bothered to pass a law on say abortion and the Federal government didn't, then the courts default to State law rather than Starry Decisis or Chevron Deference.)
"I have no idea how the law works."
Undo the nuclear option from 2013. (Bring it back to a 2/3rd majority to moderate the SCOTUS and prevent to the vitriol we have seen from every vacancy since then.)
No. The Senate evil over Supreme Court nominations began with Robert Bork's and (especially) Clarence Thomas's nominations, in 1987 and 1991, respectively.
All of the problems in U.S. jurisprudence stem from three causes:
Revocation of "loser pays." In the U.K., any legal defense costs past the process of discovery (a pre-trial gathering of information about the case) can be assessed to an unsuccessful plaintiff. The U.S. ended that in the Federalist era, since so many British subjects were suing for lost property during the Revolution.
Re-imposition of the distinction between "solicitor" and "barrister" in U.S. law. Remember how people complain that the U.S. has 10,000x the lawyers the UK has? That is because the U.S. removed the distinction between a solicitor (who gives legal advice) and barrister (a much more qualified lawyer who can try a case) back when a qualified barrister was hard to find on the frontier. Most U.S. lawyers could be replaced with solicitors, since all they do is file legal paperwork for businesses. The lack of solicitors and the presence of Legal Aid is why poorer people cannot afford decent legal advice.
The Fourteenth Amendment says absolutely nothing but that each state must enforce its laws without regard to race. That's it. Under Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court declared that of course this meant that states could legally segregate their population by race. Under Brown v. Board of Education, this now means that the government can violate Freedom of Association (again) by mandating integration.
Fix those three laws, and 80% of our problems (tort abuse, access to legal services, massive Federal overreach) will disappear.
I looked through it and it’s all one sided partisan nonsense like r/politics always is. Make it where the Republicans can never win and make it so the minority party never gets a say, ignoring how that could be used against them if someone they don’t like gets in. Dems never think about the rule changes
What are the legal and technical details of an expansion like that? Because at this point I would like to start discussing potentials for the 4 new SC seats. This is the only silver lining for now. Suggestions? How about Keith Ellison?
DA of Minnesota that once made a post on twitter saying something like "the book Trump fears", posted with a photo of himself holding an antifa book. He supports antifa. Hence why he came out and said it was only white supremacists that were rioting, in less than 24 hours after the story on George Floyd broke.
... these genuises do realise that Trump gets to do the nominations if he wins, right?
i think they believe thd polls !
Neuter the courts. The root cause of the issue is that SCOUTS is too powerful by passing laws rather than interpreting them. I recommend the following:
Term-Limits. (16 or 20yrs)
Force retire Thomas & Breyer and close their seats. (Take the court membership down to 7. This asserts the Senate and the SCOTUS mandate to the laws.)
Amend the constitution to say that State laws overwrite Federal rulings and Federal regulations. (If a State bothered to pass a law on say abortion and the Federal government didn't, then the courts default to State law rather than Starry Decisis or Chevron Deference.)
Undo the nuclear option from 2013. (Bring it back to a 2/3rd majority to moderate the SCOTUS and prevent to the vitriol we have seen from every vacancy since then.)
Take a pocket constitution and bitch-slap John Roberts.
Why Thomas? He's the best Justice on the bench. He should have been promoted to Chief Justice.
"I have no idea how the law works."
No. The Senate evil over Supreme Court nominations began with Robert Bork's and (especially) Clarence Thomas's nominations, in 1987 and 1991, respectively.
All of the problems in U.S. jurisprudence stem from three causes:
Fix those three laws, and 80% of our problems (tort abuse, access to legal services, massive Federal overreach) will disappear.
Or now hear me out, we tatto John Roberts dick with the constitution and he blows himself with it dail.
I looked through it and it’s all one sided partisan nonsense like r/politics always is. Make it where the Republicans can never win and make it so the minority party never gets a say, ignoring how that could be used against them if someone they don’t like gets in. Dems never think about the rule changes
Keith Ellison?! Jesus fucking Christ!
DA of Minnesota that once made a post on twitter saying something like "the book Trump fears", posted with a photo of himself holding an antifa book. He supports antifa. Hence why he came out and said it was only white supremacists that were rioting, in less than 24 hours after the story on George Floyd broke.