I would like that myself, I doubt it will happen. But you may be right. They will do things we’d find counter-intuitive - because we have a sense of shame (an unappreciated emotion when we choose to co-exist in a society) and they don’t. The opposite in fact.
I would like that myself, I doubt it will happen. But you may be right. They will do things we’d find counter-intuitive - because we have a sense of shame (an unappreciated emotion when we choose to co-exist in a society) and they don’t. The opposite in fact.
What you call a sense of shame on the part of the Democrats, I call cowardice. Adding four new justices would not be shameful but would be warranted because of the shameful behavior of the six Republican politicians on the Court. The fact that Thomas and Alito take money from right-wing donors and don't recuse themselves when they should is the least of it. The shameful behavior of the six Republican politicians is their having abandoned their role of justices who try to apply the Constitution and the law in good faith. Judicial activism is defensible, but they are not activists; they have gone rogue. They know that they can get away with deciding cases based on their political and religious views, and they do.
What would make sense is a concerted push to establish a code of conduct where there are consequences for noncompliance. That wouldn’t have to wait for impeachment to remove a justice along with any and all accrued benefits.
The so-called code of ethics they just published didn't seem to help Samuel decide he needed to recuse! He made up some ridiculous excuse as to why it didn't apply in this case!! Un-fecking-believable!
GD religion. What has it ever, ever done for mankind/womankind? There have been some enlightened philosophers from time to time but they have hardly been organized into an oppressive, coercive body. I understand that religious beliefs bring comfort to some people but they should not force that belief on others.
We could fill another thousand pages with all the destruction the world has seen in the name of religion, just about all of them. Leonard Leo would be perfectly happy with a Taliban type government and has assured he and his buddies would sit at the head of that. I know religion comforts many, far fewer than in my distant past childhood. At least people observed the good parts of the Christian message at that time. Now, we're down to those clinging to the purple robes of religion saying to their preachers: That Jesus guy, he wants to give to the poor and lift up the oppressed. That's snowflake talk. We don't want to do that. We think they're evil. We want them dead.
And the gall of Roberts under the circumstances to refuse to appear before the Congress, I think just that committee, is astounding. Talk about insulted. Appoint four more.
I would like that myself, I doubt it will happen. But you may be right. They will do things we’d find counter-intuitive - because we have a sense of shame (an unappreciated emotion when we choose to co-exist in a society) and they don’t. The opposite in fact.
What you call a sense of shame on the part of the Democrats, I call cowardice. Adding four new justices would not be shameful but would be warranted because of the shameful behavior of the six Republican politicians on the Court. The fact that Thomas and Alito take money from right-wing donors and don't recuse themselves when they should is the least of it. The shameful behavior of the six Republican politicians is their having abandoned their role of justices who try to apply the Constitution and the law in good faith. Judicial activism is defensible, but they are not activists; they have gone rogue. They know that they can get away with deciding cases based on their political and religious views, and they do.
What would make sense is a concerted push to establish a code of conduct where there are consequences for noncompliance. That wouldn’t have to wait for impeachment to remove a justice along with any and all accrued benefits.
That and a term limit.
The so-called code of ethics they just published didn't seem to help Samuel decide he needed to recuse! He made up some ridiculous excuse as to why it didn't apply in this case!! Un-fecking-believable!
Because it effectively is an empty document without consequences if ANY of their so-called Code is violated. Useless.
A token rule that never had a tooth in it.
GD religion. What has it ever, ever done for mankind/womankind? There have been some enlightened philosophers from time to time but they have hardly been organized into an oppressive, coercive body. I understand that religious beliefs bring comfort to some people but they should not force that belief on others.
We could fill another thousand pages with all the destruction the world has seen in the name of religion, just about all of them. Leonard Leo would be perfectly happy with a Taliban type government and has assured he and his buddies would sit at the head of that. I know religion comforts many, far fewer than in my distant past childhood. At least people observed the good parts of the Christian message at that time. Now, we're down to those clinging to the purple robes of religion saying to their preachers: That Jesus guy, he wants to give to the poor and lift up the oppressed. That's snowflake talk. We don't want to do that. We think they're evil. We want them dead.
And the gall of Roberts under the circumstances to refuse to appear before the Congress, I think just that committee, is astounding. Talk about insulted. Appoint four more.