dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

smh said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first thing to do would be add 2 states and 4 Senators so we don't have to rely on faux Democrats like Manchin.

---

bingo

---

Pack the U.S.

---

BacK tO 13 STatEs nOw

---

aRe U a seR*aL K&lleR?

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Dont Pay said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

---

You're attacking me for not playing hardball - except for the area where I want to play hardball. Consistency, my friend. Consistency.

---

Because you're too stupid to see that expanding the Court means that someday when the Republicans are able to do it, they'll do the same exact thing. The other stuff is different. In all the time that the Republicans have tried to change the court, that's one piece of escalation they hadn't tried. If they do that, it'll come back to bite them later just like other things they have done that sounded good in the short term, but punished them later.

Expanding the court is a can of worms that sounds good in the short term, but probably is not a good long-term plan.

---

It is only not the right plan if you trust the other side not to do it when they need to. If you think the other side will do it, you do it when you have a chance. IMO, the Republicans absolutely will do it when it suits them. I also don't think the Republicans will take all three of President, House, and Senate again anytime soon.

Unwritten rules don't get followed. If the political calculation is that the voters won't be mad if you do it, do it. If you think it will bite you, don't. it is that simple at this point.

To that end, I've said, see what the public thinks about adding two on the argument that the Republicans started this with Garland and you are just correcting that wrong. Adding 4 is probably a political overreach.

---

Pack the court - lose the Senate. Long term demographic changes suggest if the Dems are patient, it won't matter. Also, I think people will realize that even with the present court, very little of what the Dems pass will be knocked out. There is huge deference at the SCOTUS level to the other branches of govermment Why waste the political capital?

---

The 2022 Senate map is actually very favorable to Democrats. There is maybe 1 vulnerable Democrat (more if Dems win in Arizona and Georgia this year). OTOH, Republicans will have to defend 5 seats (more if they win in Arizona and Georgia this year).

Add 4 Democratic seats with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. statehood and the Democrats find themselves in a very strong position to govern with the full backing of the American people, which would be a nice change of pace for our country.

---

I think you are underestimating how unpopular these moves will be seen, particularly adding the new statehoods to packing the court.

---

Adding to the Supreme Court does not appear to be popular. Adding the two statehoods is, though once the Republicans scream I'm sure many of those on that side that support it now will fall in line. Regarding the statehood, doesn't matter. The political benefit short and long term far outweighs the blow back.

And I'll say this. In my mind this is not even about Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. The rural vote has far too outsized power. It isn't fair. It has never been fair. We've let it slide. However, if they are going to use that power to put in idiots like Trump, urban and suburban college educated voters can't let it slide anymore. We are staring at an election where the Democrat could win the popular vote by 8% and still be sweating out the electoral college. That is bullshyte. DC and Puerto Rico will not make up for the inequity, but it is probably enough.

You also underestimate the fact that if the Democrats do not have the balls to fight back after the last four years and at minimum pass DC statehood, they are useless and they will lose a lot of us. This isn't even about policy. It is about protecting us from the most dangerously incompetent complete menace that has ever been in the White House. The stakes are higher than difference in tax policy or abortion.

---

My guess is Joe will try some bipartisan efforts, that will fail, and Dems will pass what they want to pass. That is called having a majority in Democracy. I'm thinking they will add DC as a state, but not Puerto Rico.

As for DC as a state are you repealing the 23rd amendment?There is also a question as to whether granting statehood to the District would need the approval of Maryland. The U.S. Constitution requires that any new states formed from an existing state receive permission from the legislature. Unlike Puerto Rico, I don't see any practical reasons DC can't be a state. DC has an economic base, you can argue how well its govenment functions, but it does function, which probably can't be said for Puerto Rico. And most importantly, almost all DC residents want DC to be a state.

Puerto Rico has been incaable of paying its debt for some time. Put simply, Puerto Rico is an economic sinkhole. The General Accounting Office has estimated that the added tax burden coming along with statehood would cause enormous job losses and damages the economy of Puerto Rico even further. And that also means eliminating territorial subsides. What benefit would the American people get from adding to the union a bankrupt state with a tanking economy? Puerto Rico officially speaks both English and Spanish, the primary language spoken there is Spanish. Although estimates vary, most seem to put the number of residents fluent in English at less than 20 percent. That fact alone should give most Americans pause about whether Puerto Rico should become a state people who don't share a language will have difficulty working together at a job or sharing a common culture. And that gives Puerto Rican's pause for thought as well. The real question is about whether Puerto Rico even wants to become the 51st (or 52nd) state. It has held five votes on the question. Three times, the people of Puerto Rico said "no." The fourth vote was indeterminate. The fifth time, 23 percent of Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly said "yes" but the anti-statehood party refused to participate because of the way the referendum was worded, and the vote was therefore practically meaningless. With so much local opposition to statehood, do the Dems really want to do that heavy lifting with all the other issues Puerto Rico presents?

Packing the court is unpopular, and I'm not sure what that really gains. Thomas and Breyer land maybe Alito are out in a 8 year Dems run. Statistically, one of the younger justices will have some reason to leave. So the dems likely can reshape the court, though I'm not sue you will see that many different decisions. There are not that man 5-4 votes. I'm also not sure most Democrats feel that strongly about the Supreme Court, while GOP leaning voters are. But the last attempt to pack the court deeply cut FDR's popularity (and I would expect the Biden administration t facd the same accusations that are discussed in the article below). I don't think the average American voter cares or knows about Garland. The History of FDR's Failed Court-Packing Plan | History ...www.smithsonianmag.com history when-franklin-r...

I am admittedly not super-informed on this subject, but how about a compromise on the DC issue where they get one Senator? Makes sense from sort of a logical standpoint where you have fifty states, each with two Senators, then DC (not a state, but the "capital district"), with one. An odd number of Senators (sort of like on the Supreme Court) would prevent ties, too (sorry, Madame Vice President).

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Dont Pay said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

---

You're attacking me for not playing hardball - except for the area where I want to play hardball. Consistency, my friend. Consistency.

---

Because you're too stupid to see that expanding the Court means that someday when the Republicans are able to do it, they'll do the same exact thing. The other stuff is different. In all the time that the Republicans have tried to change the court, that's one piece of escalation they hadn't tried. If they do that, it'll come back to bite them later just like other things they have done that sounded good in the short term, but punished them later.

Expanding the court is a can of worms that sounds good in the short term, but probably is not a good long-term plan.

---

It is only not the right plan if you trust the other side not to do it when they need to. If you think the other side will do it, you do it when you have a chance. IMO, the Republicans absolutely will do it when it suits them. I also don't think the Republicans will take all three of President, House, and Senate again anytime soon.

Unwritten rules don't get followed. If the political calculation is that the voters won't be mad if you do it, do it. If you think it will bite you, don't. it is that simple at this point.

To that end, I've said, see what the public thinks about adding two on the argument that the Republicans started this with Garland and you are just correcting that wrong. Adding 4 is probably a political overreach.

---

Pack the court - lose the Senate. Long term demographic changes suggest if the Dems are patient, it won't matter. Also, I think people will realize that even with the present court, very little of what the Dems pass will be knocked out. There is huge deference at the SCOTUS level to the other branches of govermment Why waste the political capital?

---

The 2022 Senate map is actually very favorable to Democrats. There is maybe 1 vulnerable Democrat (more if Dems win in Arizona and Georgia this year). OTOH, Republicans will have to defend 5 seats (more if they win in Arizona and Georgia this year).

Add 4 Democratic seats with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. statehood and the Democrats find themselves in a very strong position to govern with the full backing of the American people, which would be a nice change of pace for our country.

---

I think you are underestimating how unpopular these moves will be seen, particularly adding the new statehoods to packing the court.

---

Adding to the Supreme Court does not appear to be popular. Adding the two statehoods is, though once the Republicans scream I'm sure many of those on that side that support it now will fall in line. Regarding the statehood, doesn't matter. The political benefit short and long term far outweighs the blow back.

And I'll say this. In my mind this is not even about Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. The rural vote has far too outsized power. It isn't fair. It has never been fair. We've let it slide. However, if they are going to use that power to put in idiots like Trump, urban and suburban college educated voters can't let it slide anymore. We are staring at an election where the Democrat could win the popular vote by 8% and still be sweating out the electoral college. That is bullshyte. DC and Puerto Rico will not make up for the inequity, but it is probably enough.

You also underestimate the fact that if the Democrats do not have the balls to fight back after the last four years and at minimum pass DC statehood, they are useless and they will lose a lot of us. This isn't even about policy. It is about protecting us from the most dangerously incompetent complete menace that has ever been in the White House. The stakes are higher than difference in tax policy or abortion.

---

My guess is Joe will try some bipartisan efforts, that will fail, and Dems will pass what they want to pass. That is called having a majority in Democracy. I'm thinking they will add DC as a state, but not Puerto Rico.

As for DC as a state are you repealing the 23rd amendment?There is also a question as to whether granting statehood to the District would need the approval of Maryland. The U.S. Constitution requires that any new states formed from an existing state receive permission from the legislature. Unlike Puerto Rico, I don't see any practical reasons DC can't be a state. DC has an economic base, you can argue how well its govenment functions, but it does function, which probably can't be said for Puerto Rico. And most importantly, almost all DC residents want DC to be a state.

Puerto Rico has been incaable of paying its debt for some time. Put simply, Puerto Rico is an economic sinkhole. The General Accounting Office has estimated that the added tax burden coming along with statehood would cause enormous job losses and damages the economy of Puerto Rico even further. And that also means eliminating territorial subsides. What benefit would the American people get from adding to the union a bankrupt state with a tanking economy? Puerto Rico officially speaks both English and Spanish, the primary language spoken there is Spanish. Although estimates vary, most seem to put the number of residents fluent in English at less than 20 percent. That fact alone should give most Americans pause about whether Puerto Rico should become a state people who don't share a language will have difficulty working together at a job or sharing a common culture. And that gives Puerto Rican's pause for thought as well. The real question is about whether Puerto Rico even wants to become the 51st (or 52nd) state. It has held five votes on the question. Three times, the people of Puerto Rico said "no." The fourth vote was indeterminate. The fifth time, 23 percent of Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly said "yes" but the anti-statehood party refused to participate because of the way the referendum was worded, and the vote was therefore practically meaningless. With so much local opposition to statehood, do the Dems really want to do that heavy lifting with all the other issues Puerto Rico presents?

Packing the court is unpopular, and I'm not sure what that really gains. Thomas and Breyer land maybe Alito are out in a 8 year Dems run. Statistically, one of the younger justices will have some reason to leave. So the dems likely can reshape the court, though I'm not sue you will see that many different decisions. There are not that man 5-4 votes. I'm also not sure most Democrats feel that strongly about the Supreme Court, while GOP leaning voters are. But the last attempt to pack the court deeply cut FDR's popularity (and I would expect the Biden administration t facd the same accusations that are discussed in the article below). I don't think the average American voter cares or knows about Garland. The History of FDR's Failed Court-Packing Plan | History ...www.smithsonianmag.com history when-franklin-r...

---

Regarding DC - it is questionable whether you need to repeal the 23rd amendment to give them statehood, and frankly, I think it is a ridiculous argument from conservatives that an Amendment that gave them a say in presidential elections now precludes them from being a state. The Amendment would probably not have happened if anyone thought that is what it meant. However, there is nothing in the Amendment that sets the boundaries of the District of Columbia and they have been changed in the past. All you would need to do is redefine DC as a much smaller area around the Capitol and give the rest statehood. I don't think the argument that Maryland has to approve is a good one, but I don't think that would be a problem. Yes, I'm sure the conservatives on the court will throw up every bullshyte roadblock they can think of, but I don't think there is anything that can't be countered.

Puerto Rico has officially requested statehood. The last vote people didn't show up because they were mad they keep being asked to vote when it doesn't amount to anything. The fourth vote was "indeterminate" because of how it was proposed, but it pretty strongly appeared to approve statehood and that resulted in an official request.

What does the US get out of it? 2 Democratic Senators, 5 Democratic congresspeople, and 7 Democratic votes in the Electoral College.

Puerto Rico gets effed because they have no say. They should be granted statehood or independence. I'm fine either way, but the territory status is just wrong.

I think the language they speak and their "sharing a common culture" are inappropriate criteria. I really don't want to discuss that further because I have very much gone out of my way to water down my response to that point.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Dont Pay said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

---

You're attacking me for not playing hardball - except for the area where I want to play hardball. Consistency, my friend. Consistency.

---

Because you're too stupid to see that expanding the Court means that someday when the Republicans are able to do it, they'll do the same exact thing. The other stuff is different. In all the time that the Republicans have tried to change the court, that's one piece of escalation they hadn't tried. If they do that, it'll come back to bite them later just like other things they have done that sounded good in the short term, but punished them later.

Expanding the court is a can of worms that sounds good in the short term, but probably is not a good long-term plan.

---

It is only not the right plan if you trust the other side not to do it when they need to. If you think the other side will do it, you do it when you have a chance. IMO, the Republicans absolutely will do it when it suits them. I also don't think the Republicans will take all three of President, House, and Senate again anytime soon.

Unwritten rules don't get followed. If the political calculation is that the voters won't be mad if you do it, do it. If you think it will bite you, don't. it is that simple at this point.

To that end, I've said, see what the public thinks about adding two on the argument that the Republicans started this with Garland and you are just correcting that wrong. Adding 4 is probably a political overreach.

---

Pack the court - lose the Senate. Long term demographic changes suggest if the Dems are patient, it won't matter. Also, I think people will realize that even with the present court, very little of what the Dems pass will be knocked out. There is huge deference at the SCOTUS level to the other branches of govermment Why waste the political capital?

---

The 2022 Senate map is actually very favorable to Democrats. There is maybe 1 vulnerable Democrat (more if Dems win in Arizona and Georgia this year). OTOH, Republicans will have to defend 5 seats (more if they win in Arizona and Georgia this year).

Add 4 Democratic seats with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. statehood and the Democrats find themselves in a very strong position to govern with the full backing of the American people, which would be a nice change of pace for our country.

---

I think you are underestimating how unpopular these moves will be seen, particularly adding the new statehoods to packing the court.

---

Adding to the Supreme Court does not appear to be popular. Adding the two statehoods is, though once the Republicans scream I'm sure many of those on that side that support it now will fall in line. Regarding the statehood, doesn't matter. The political benefit short and long term far outweighs the blow back.

And I'll say this. In my mind this is not even about Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. The rural vote has far too outsized power. It isn't fair. It has never been fair. We've let it slide. However, if they are going to use that power to put in idiots like Trump, urban and suburban college educated voters can't let it slide anymore. We are staring at an election where the Democrat could win the popular vote by 8% and still be sweating out the electoral college. That is bullshyte. DC and Puerto Rico will not make up for the inequity, but it is probably enough.

You also underestimate the fact that if the Democrats do not have the balls to fight back after the last four years and at minimum pass DC statehood, they are useless and they will lose a lot of us. This isn't even about policy. It is about protecting us from the most dangerously incompetent complete menace that has ever been in the White House. The stakes are higher than difference in tax policy or abortion.

---

My guess is Joe will try some bipartisan efforts, that will fail, and Dems will pass what they want to pass. That is called having a majority in Democracy. I'm thinking they will add DC as a state, but not Puerto Rico.

As for DC as a state are you repealing the 23rd amendment?There is also a question as to whether granting statehood to the District would need the approval of Maryland. The U.S. Constitution requires that any new states formed from an existing state receive permission from the legislature. Unlike Puerto Rico, I don't see any practical reasons DC can't be a state. DC has an economic base, you can argue how well its govenment functions, but it does function, which probably can't be said for Puerto Rico. And most importantly, almost all DC residents want DC to be a state.

Puerto Rico has been incaable of paying its debt for some time. Put simply, Puerto Rico is an economic sinkhole. The General Accounting Office has estimated that the added tax burden coming along with statehood would cause enormous job losses and damages the economy of Puerto Rico even further. And that also means eliminating territorial subsides. What benefit would the American people get from adding to the union a bankrupt state with a tanking economy? Puerto Rico officially speaks both English and Spanish, the primary language spoken there is Spanish. Although estimates vary, most seem to put the number of residents fluent in English at less than 20 percent. That fact alone should give most Americans pause about whether Puerto Rico should become a state people who don't share a language will have difficulty working together at a job or sharing a common culture. And that gives Puerto Rican's pause for thought as well. The real question is about whether Puerto Rico even wants to become the 51st (or 52nd) state. It has held five votes on the question. Three times, the people of Puerto Rico said "no." The fourth vote was indeterminate. The fifth time, 23 percent of Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly said "yes" but the anti-statehood party refused to participate because of the way the referendum was worded, and the vote was therefore practically meaningless. With so much local opposition to statehood, do the Dems really want to do that heavy lifting with all the other issues Puerto Rico presents?

Packing the court is unpopular, and I'm not sure what that really gains. Thomas and Breyer land maybe Alito are out in a 8 year Dems run. Statistically, one of the younger justices will have some reason to leave. So the dems likely can reshape the court, though I'm not sue you will see that many different decisions. There are not that man 5-4 votes. I'm also not sure most Democrats feel that strongly about the Supreme Court, while GOP leaning voters are. But the last attempt to pack the court deeply cut FDR's popularity (and I would expect the Biden administration t facd the same accusations that are discussed in the article below). I don't think the average American voter cares or knows about Garland. The History of FDR's Failed Court-Packing Plan | History ...www.smithsonianmag.com history when-franklin-r...

---

Regarding DC - it is questionable whether you need to repeal the 23rd amendment to give them statehood, and frankly, I think it is a ridiculous argument from conservatives that an Amendment that gave them a say in presidential elections now precludes them from being a state. The Amendment would probably not have happened if anyone thought that is what it meant. However, there is nothing in the Amendment that sets the boundaries of the District of Columbia and they have been changed in the past. All you would need to do is redefine DC as a much smaller area around the Capitol and give the rest statehood. I don't think the argument that Maryland has to approve is a good one, but I don't think that would be a problem. Yes, I'm sure the conservatives on the court will throw up every bullshyte roadblock they can think of, but I don't think there is anything that can't be countered.

Puerto Rico has officially requested statehood. The last vote people didn't show up because they were mad they keep being asked to vote when it doesn't amount to anything. The fourth vote was "indeterminate" because of how it was proposed, but it pretty strongly appeared to approve statehood and that resulted in an official request.

What does the US get out of it? 2 Democratic Senators, 5 Democratic congresspeople, and 7 Democratic votes in the Electoral College.

Puerto Rico gets effed because they have no say. They should be granted statehood or independence. I'm fine either way, but the territory status is just wrong.

I think the language they speak and their "sharing a common culture" are inappropriate criteria. I really don't want to discuss that further because I have very much gone out of my way to water down my response to that point.

---

I don't understand your response on the 23rd amendment. That deals with the electoral college and in no way impacts the ability of statehood. The question is now does DC get electoral college representation other than through 23rd amendment (conflict between population based electoral college and only 3 voters per 23rd amendment). Personally, I think DC being a state makes sense, but I do expect some voter blow back.

The paragraph on Puerto Rico is fiction. The request for statehood never happened. You misrepresented the resolution by Puerto Rico that asked Congress and the President to consider Puerto Rico as independent or a state. That is a distinction of Trumpian purportion. You also are incorrect on the last referendum. The last vote was boycotted by all the political parties other than the pro-statehood PNP, because it did not include remaining a territory or independence. AS A RESULT, THE ENTIRE VOTER TURNOUT WAS 23% where the usual voter rate is around 80%. There is another referendum this election, which unfortunately suffers from the same defect of only an up or down vote on statehood. Unless the PDP party wins the Governor election, the other parties are expected to call for a constitutional assembly to decide statehood, independence or remain a territory, and Biden has announced he favors their self-determination. One of the major arguments by opponents of statehood has been they don't share the same culture or language as the US, and you can water down your response all you want to the Puerto Ricans that believe that. (And I'm avoiding a stronger remark in response).

The remark about what the US gets out of it belies a bias that may reflect on your willingness to shade the history of statehood. Puerto Rico would be a failed state. The US doesn't guaranty the credit of state bonds, and Puerto Rico without US territorial support is insolvent. You can gloss over that that by saying Democratic Senators and representatives, but that doesn't help you when the media explains Puerto Rico financial status to the public. Like I said, why waste the political capital unless Puerto Rico actually wants statehood, and you have a legitimate answer to their financial troubles.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The paragraph on Puerto Rico is fiction.

---

OTB > Puerto Rico has officially requested statehood.


Clash of the Titans, casting of Perseus tbd..

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Dont Pay said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

---

You're attacking me for not playing hardball - except for the area where I want to play hardball. Consistency, my friend. Consistency.

---

Because you're too stupid to see that expanding the Court means that someday when the Republicans are able to do it, they'll do the same exact thing. The other stuff is different. In all the time that the Republicans have tried to change the court, that's one piece of escalation they hadn't tried. If they do that, it'll come back to bite them later just like other things they have done that sounded good in the short term, but punished them later.

Expanding the court is a can of worms that sounds good in the short term, but probably is not a good long-term plan.

---

It is only not the right plan if you trust the other side not to do it when they need to. If you think the other side will do it, you do it when you have a chance. IMO, the Republicans absolutely will do it when it suits them. I also don't think the Republicans will take all three of President, House, and Senate again anytime soon.

Unwritten rules don't get followed. If the political calculation is that the voters won't be mad if you do it, do it. If you think it will bite you, don't. it is that simple at this point.

To that end, I've said, see what the public thinks about adding two on the argument that the Republicans started this with Garland and you are just correcting that wrong. Adding 4 is probably a political overreach.

---

Pack the court - lose the Senate. Long term demographic changes suggest if the Dems are patient, it won't matter. Also, I think people will realize that even with the present court, very little of what the Dems pass will be knocked out. There is huge deference at the SCOTUS level to the other branches of govermment Why waste the political capital?

---

The 2022 Senate map is actually very favorable to Democrats. There is maybe 1 vulnerable Democrat (more if Dems win in Arizona and Georgia this year). OTOH, Republicans will have to defend 5 seats (more if they win in Arizona and Georgia this year).

Add 4 Democratic seats with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. statehood and the Democrats find themselves in a very strong position to govern with the full backing of the American people, which would be a nice change of pace for our country.

---

I think you are underestimating how unpopular these moves will be seen, particularly adding the new statehoods to packing the court.

---

Adding to the Supreme Court does not appear to be popular. Adding the two statehoods is, though once the Republicans scream I'm sure many of those on that side that support it now will fall in line. Regarding the statehood, doesn't matter. The political benefit short and long term far outweighs the blow back.

And I'll say this. In my mind this is not even about Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. The rural vote has far too outsized power. It isn't fair. It has never been fair. We've let it slide. However, if they are going to use that power to put in idiots like Trump, urban and suburban college educated voters can't let it slide anymore. We are staring at an election where the Democrat could win the popular vote by 8% and still be sweating out the electoral college. That is bullshyte. DC and Puerto Rico will not make up for the inequity, but it is probably enough.

You also underestimate the fact that if the Democrats do not have the balls to fight back after the last four years and at minimum pass DC statehood, they are useless and they will lose a lot of us. This isn't even about policy. It is about protecting us from the most dangerously incompetent complete menace that has ever been in the White House. The stakes are higher than difference in tax policy or abortion.

---

My guess is Joe will try some bipartisan efforts, that will fail, and Dems will pass what they want to pass. That is called having a majority in Democracy. I'm thinking they will add DC as a state, but not Puerto Rico.

As for DC as a state are you repealing the 23rd amendment?There is also a question as to whether granting statehood to the District would need the approval of Maryland. The U.S. Constitution requires that any new states formed from an existing state receive permission from the legislature. Unlike Puerto Rico, I don't see any practical reasons DC can't be a state. DC has an economic base, you can argue how well its govenment functions, but it does function, which probably can't be said for Puerto Rico. And most importantly, almost all DC residents want DC to be a state.

Puerto Rico has been incaable of paying its debt for some time. Put simply, Puerto Rico is an economic sinkhole. The General Accounting Office has estimated that the added tax burden coming along with statehood would cause enormous job losses and damages the economy of Puerto Rico even further. And that also means eliminating territorial subsides. What benefit would the American people get from adding to the union a bankrupt state with a tanking economy? Puerto Rico officially speaks both English and Spanish, the primary language spoken there is Spanish. Although estimates vary, most seem to put the number of residents fluent in English at less than 20 percent. That fact alone should give most Americans pause about whether Puerto Rico should become a state people who don't share a language will have difficulty working together at a job or sharing a common culture. And that gives Puerto Rican's pause for thought as well. The real question is about whether Puerto Rico even wants to become the 51st (or 52nd) state. It has held five votes on the question. Three times, the people of Puerto Rico said "no." The fourth vote was indeterminate. The fifth time, 23 percent of Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly said "yes" but the anti-statehood party refused to participate because of the way the referendum was worded, and the vote was therefore practically meaningless. With so much local opposition to statehood, do the Dems really want to do that heavy lifting with all the other issues Puerto Rico presents?

Packing the court is unpopular, and I'm not sure what that really gains. Thomas and Breyer land maybe Alito are out in a 8 year Dems run. Statistically, one of the younger justices will have some reason to leave. So the dems likely can reshape the court, though I'm not sue you will see that many different decisions. There are not that man 5-4 votes. I'm also not sure most Democrats feel that strongly about the Supreme Court, while GOP leaning voters are. But the last attempt to pack the court deeply cut FDR's popularity (and I would expect the Biden administration t facd the same accusations that are discussed in the article below). I don't think the average American voter cares or knows about Garland. The History of FDR's Failed Court-Packing Plan | History ...www.smithsonianmag.com history when-franklin-r...

---

Regarding DC - it is questionable whether you need to repeal the 23rd amendment to give them statehood, and frankly, I think it is a ridiculous argument from conservatives that an Amendment that gave them a say in presidential elections now precludes them from being a state. The Amendment would probably not have happened if anyone thought that is what it meant. However, there is nothing in the Amendment that sets the boundaries of the District of Columbia and they have been changed in the past. All you would need to do is redefine DC as a much smaller area around the Capitol and give the rest statehood. I don't think the argument that Maryland has to approve is a good one, but I don't think that would be a problem. Yes, I'm sure the conservatives on the court will throw up every bullshyte roadblock they can think of, but I don't think there is anything that can't be countered.

Puerto Rico has officially requested statehood. The last vote people didn't show up because they were mad they keep being asked to vote when it doesn't amount to anything. The fourth vote was "indeterminate" because of how it was proposed, but it pretty strongly appeared to approve statehood and that resulted in an official request.

What does the US get out of it? 2 Democratic Senators, 5 Democratic congresspeople, and 7 Democratic votes in the Electoral College.

Puerto Rico gets effed because they have no say. They should be granted statehood or independence. I'm fine either way, but the territory status is just wrong.

I think the language they speak and their "sharing a common culture" are inappropriate criteria. I really don't want to discuss that further because I have very much gone out of my way to water down my response to that point.

---

I don't understand your response on the 23rd amendment. That deals with the electoral college and in no way impacts the ability of statehood. The question is now does DC get electoral college representation other than through 23rd amendment (conflict between population based electoral college and only 3 voters per 23rd amendment). Personally, I think DC being a state makes sense, but I do expect some voter blow back.

The paragraph on Puerto Rico is fiction. The request for statehood never happened. You misrepresented the resolution by Puerto Rico that asked Congress and the President to consider Puerto Rico as independent or a state. That is a distinction of Trumpian purportion. You also are incorrect on the last referendum. The last vote was boycotted by all the political parties other than the pro-statehood PNP, because it did not include remaining a territory or independence. AS A RESULT, THE ENTIRE VOTER TURNOUT WAS 23% where the usual voter rate is around 80%. There is another referendum this election, which unfortunately suffers from the same defect of only an up or down vote on statehood. Unless the PDP party wins the Governor election, the other parties are expected to call for a constitutional assembly to decide statehood, independence or remain a territory, and Biden has announced he favors their self-determination. One of the major arguments by opponents of statehood has been they don't share the same culture or language as the US, and you can water down your response all you want to the Puerto Ricans that believe that. (And I'm avoiding a stronger remark in response).

The remark about what the US gets out of it belies a bias that may reflect on your willingness to shade the history of statehood. Puerto Rico would be a failed state. The US doesn't guaranty the credit of state bonds, and Puerto Rico without US territorial support is insolvent. You can gloss over that that by saying Democratic Senators and representatives, but that doesn't help you when the media explains Puerto Rico financial status to the public. Like I said, why waste the political capital unless Puerto Rico actually wants statehood, and you have a legitimate answer to their financial troubles.

---

WIAF: Sorry, I made an assumption about your question on the 23rd amendment. In case you aren't aware, Republicans are claiming that the 23rd amendment precludes making DC a state without an amendment to the Constitution. I don't think that is persuasive. It sounds like you don't either.

If the Democrats decided to end that argument by doing what I said - redefining the area of DC as something much smaller and giving statehood to the rest, then I'd say everyone would have a good reason to pass an amendment repealing the 23rd Amendment. (and that is exactly what the Democrats are currently doing. Their bill effectively leaves the first family as the only inhabitants of DC). Technically as it stands, the President, assuming he is on good terms with the First Lady and assuming he registers to vote in DC, would be able to award himself 3 electoral college votes. I don't think voters would find that tenable and I think that both parties would pretty quickly see that is not good for anybody. But I guess if they didn't, yes, we'd be stuck with that small incumbency advantage until they got a clue.

smh said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The paragraph on Puerto Rico is fiction.

---

OTB > Puerto Rico has officially requested statehood.


Clash of the Titans, casting of Perseus tbd..

---

NO they have not. They requested either statehood or independence. If you can't see that distinction, then I can't help you.

The GOP must be on drugs if they thinks that amendment stands for anything other than the electoral issue which I raised and you so eloquently described. Backing away from the politics, I can't really see any legitimate reasons why residents of DC should not receive the benefits that come from being in a state. The 16 US Territories are different. And it becomes a slippery slope. Does the GOP demand Guam, Midway, and various other south pacific islands become states (their populations and economies in the south pacific tend to be dominated by the Defense Department and probably veer towards red)? There are social, language, historical, geographic, constitutional and administrative differences between these territories, making them all unique, and for that matter different from DC, which has no such distinctions from other existing states other than it is a District.

If Biden wants to take a more bipartisan approach on territories (I don't now that is feasible), a possible solution to the economic and political issues could be to consolidating two or more territories into larger states (e.g., Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands); adjusting some seats in the Congress between the existing and the newly admitted states; and making bipartisan deals for the debt issues, case by case. Just my two cents.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The GOP must be on drugs if they thinks that amendment stands for anything other than the electoral issue which I raised and you so eloquently described. Backing away from the politics, I can't really see any legitimate reasons why residents of DC should not receive the benefits that come from being in a state. The 16 US Territories are different. And it becomes a slippery slope. Does the GOP demand Guam, Midway, and various other south pacific islands become states (their populations and economies in the south pacific tend to be dominated by the Defense Department and probably veer towards red)? There are social, language, historical, geographic, constitutional and administrative differences between these territories, making them all unique, and for that matter different from DC, which has no such distinctions from other existing states other than it is a District.

If Biden wants to take a more bipartisan approach on territories (I don't now that is feasible), a possible solution to the economic and political issues could be to consolidating two or more territories into larger states (e.g., Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands); adjusting some seats in the Congress between the existing and the newly admitted states; and making bipartisan deals for the debt issues, case by case. Just my two cents.

---

I would say Puerto Rico is in a far different position than the other US territories (besides DC). PR would be 31st most populous state if it became a state. That's 3 million+ US citizens currently with no real say in their national government. There's a much greater argument there.

Anyway, I agree that Puerto Rico's desire to become a state has been a bit ambiguous over the years, though polling and recent elections indicate the population is now majority in support of the idea. There will be another ballot measure in PR this election which should hopefully add some clarity to their position. Oaktown is right, though, that Puerto Rican leaders have formally requested statehood. Congress just hasn't taken up the measure.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The GOP must be on drugs if they thinks that amendment stands for anything other than the electoral issue which I raised and you so eloquently described. Backing away from the politics, I can't really see any legitimate reasons why residents of DC should not receive the benefits that come from being in a state. The 16 US Territories are different. And it becomes a slippery slope. Does the GOP demand Guam, Midway, and various other south pacific islands become states (their populations and economies in the south pacific tend to be dominated by the Defense Department and probably veer towards red)? There are social, language, historical, geographic, constitutional and administrative differences between these territories, making them all unique, and for that matter different from DC, which has no such distinctions from other existing states other than it is a District.

If Biden wants to take a more bipartisan approach on territories (I don't now that is feasible), a possible solution to the economic and political issues could be to consolidating two or more territories into larger states (e.g., Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands); adjusting some seats in the Congress between the existing and the newly admitted states; and making bipartisan deals for the debt issues, case by case. Just my two cents.

---

The other US territories are tiny. Added all together they don't add up to 400K - substantially less than the least populace state. I have no idea how they would vote, but we shouldn't be giving statehood to every territory that is that small. I don't think they would want to join up to form one small state - they are radically different (it would be even more illogical than having California and Alabama become one state). Remember being a state means more than your federal votes - it means governing together. They are literally 22 time zones apart.

I think it would be fair to offer one actual voting member in Congress each, to be added on top of the current number of Congresspeople. Again, I have no idea which party this would benefit.

bad touch, baad^

trivial pursuit..

Quote:

---

Here are the basics of touch move:

• If you touch a piece you have to move it if you can.
• If you touch an opponents piece you have to take it if you can.
• If you let your hand off a piece the move is over.. .. ..

I accidentally touched my king while trying to move my pawn. Do I have to move it? No. You must touch the piece with the intention of moving it. If you accidentally touch a piece it does not count. But your opponent might argue that you did touch the piece trying to move it and are lying about accidentally touching it. In this case a tournament director needs to come over and help you resolve your dispute.

---

https://www.academicchess.com/touchmove.htm

" It wasn't coincidental, he says, that between Barack Obama's election in 2008, Francis's in 2013, and Trump's in 2016, a segment of Catholic conservatives veered sharply into more radical ideological terrain. "They saw a Jesuit from Latin America who was talking a lot about the poor, the environment, the marginalized, and how capitalism is corrupt*, And they saw it was the destruction of what they expected Catholicism was going to be, which in their plans was a Ratzingerian church forever," says ***gioli. "The alt-right in the Catholic Church was born in that moment."
*You know, the stuff that whacky guy Jesus preached.



How Donald Trump and Conservative Catholics Formed a Far-Right Alliance | Vanity Fair


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/how-qanon-and-trumpism-have-infected-the-catholic-church

bearister said:

---

How Donald Trump and Conservative Catholics Formed a Far-Right Alliance | Vanity Fair


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/how-qanon-and-trumpism-have-infected-the-catholic-church

---

Trump's support among White catholics is slipping from 2016.

Jarvanka, Patron Saints of the Proletariat



"Let them eat cake!"

" That doesn't mean there's not still a lot of pain and there won't be pain for a while, but that basically was, we've now put out rules to get back to work. Trump's now back in charge. It's not the doctors. They've kind of we have, like, a negotiated settlement."

*Later this year Jarvanka will put out a collection of their reflections regarding the meaning of life, human suffering and personal sacrifice.

bearister said:

---

Jarvanka, Patron Saints of the Proletariat



"Let them eat cake!"

" That doesn't mean there's not still a lot of pain and there won't be pain for a while, but that basically was, we've now put out rules to get back to work. Trump's now back in charge. It's not the doctors. They've kind of we have, like, a negotiated settlement."

*Later this year Jarvanka will put out a collection of their reflections regarding the meaning of life, human suffering and personal sacrifice.

---

Why is she wearing a maxipad on her head?

I could take that question yard. Not gonna do it.

bearister said:

---

I could take that question yard. Not gonna do it.

---

I set 'em up and you knock 'em down!

bearister said:

---

I could take that question yard. Not gonna do it.

---

Um... In case Jarred needs one.

BOOM goes the dynamite!

bearister said:

---

IMHO, a mask has no effect of de crazying CRAZY EYES!



...and her voice....



*How are you going to rip an unethical appellate attorney a new one during oral argument with that voice?

---

Another keeper. Her last words to me were, "You had me at man bun."




*I'm opening a Salute to B.A.Bearacus Memes and GIFs wing in my house.