The Courts (not specific to either party)

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

The EPA decision is going to impact more than the EPA. This is going to be bad for public health.

Yes some on the radio said that the CDC may be the next target 

[suh_fan93]

 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

That uh... seems really, really bad...

[Moiraine]

This is just an opinion piece but allowing states to pick their own electors regardless of the vote is what I'm most worried about with this supreme court. We should not even have electors. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state is who the winner of the state should be without having to send a human to go vote on it. That should have been voted into law in early 2021.

 

Opinion | Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[funhusker]

22 hours ago, Moiraine said:

This is just an opinion piece but allowing states to pick their own electors regardless of the vote is what I'm most worried about with this supreme court. We should not even have electors. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state is who the winner of the state should be without having to send a human to go vote on it. That should have been voted into law in early 2021.

 

Opinion | Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

There were several states I believe that were going to award their votes to the national popular vote winner.  But needed more states on board with the plan, I believe.

 

I always thought that was a good idea….  But not much different from what you’re complaining about if the state were forced to give votes to someone that didn’t win the state.

[Moiraine]

5 hours ago, funhusker said:

There were several states I believe that were going to award their votes to the national popular vote winner.  But needed more states on board with the plan, I believe.

 

I always thought that was a good idea….  But not much different from what you’re complaining about if the state were forced to give votes to someone that didn’t win the state.

 

 

The key difference is the idea of giving the votes to the winner of the popular vote would be set in stone regardless of whether a Republican, Democrat, or other won the presidency, regardless of who is governor, etc. The being able to pick and choose which electors go idea would allow the decision to be made purely because the people in charge of the decision at the time didn't like the outcome in their state.

[suh_fan93]

 

[Scarlet]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[Danny Bateman]

Clarence Thomas (and by extension, his insane wife) doing what they are doing is exhibit A in the case for SCOTUS term limits.

[BigRedBuster]

6 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Clarence Thomas (and by extension, his insane wife) doing what they are doing is exhibit A in the case for SCOTUS term limits.

I’m not necessarily against SCOTUS term limits.  But, this doesn’t have anything to do with that. A brand new judge could do the same thing. 
 

What this is showing is that there needs to be some way of suspending or getting rid of a judge that blatantly doesn’t follow rules like this for the job. 

[Danny Bateman]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m not necessarily against SCOTUS term limits.  But, this doesn’t have anything to do with that. A brand new judge could do the same thing. 
 

What this is showing is that there needs to be some way of suspending or getting rid of a judge that blatantly doesn’t follow rules like this for the job. 

I think they’re absolutely related in that these kind of terrible rulings, not recusing from blatant conflict of interest cases (since his wife is an election denier), etc. will continue until there’s accountability for SCOTUS.

 

The dog and pony show that is the confirmation hearings doesn’t count.

 

From that point on, zero accountability. Some would argue that’s by design, but how long will people be OK with that if rulings continue to stray further from mainstream opininon?

[Archy1221]

Oh no.   Term limits for Kagan, she must be a Jan 6’er!!!.   

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/us/politics/kagan-jan-6-subpoena-supreme-court.html

[BigRedBuster]

57 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I think they’re absolutely related in that these kind of terrible rulings, not recusing from blatant conflict of interest cases (since his wife is an election denier), etc. will continue until there’s accountability for SCOTUS.

 

The dog and pony show that is the confirmation hearings doesn’t count.

 

From that point on, zero accountability. Some would argue that’s by design, but how long will people be OK with that if rulings continue to stray further from mainstream opininon?

First of all, SCOTUS isn't there to rule in favor of mainstream opinion.  They are there to legally rule according to the constitution.  Sometimes that goes against mainstream opinion.

 

Second, term limits don't hold anyone accountable.  It just limits the time they are on the court so there is turnover.  And, term limits takes away a lot of the game that's played where a judge with certain political leanings schedules their retirement based on what party is in charge of the Presidency and congress.

 

I'm saying there needs to be accountability somehow where, if a judge goes against how they should be conducting themselves in the position, they can be held accountable, no matter if they have been there 6 months or 20 years.