I’m not the one being slow. SCOTUS had 8 people while McConnell held up Garland.
Officially SCOTUS was and is nine people. But if the wheels of government turn slow enough, SCOTUS continues to do its job with whoever has made it through the process.
Officially 9, it functioned with 8. No one is credibly saying all those decisions must be thrown out or that SCOTUS cannot function during a shortage.
If that shortage was 4, people would be vocal. But legally, it would still be functional.
I not talking about changing the official number. I never did in this thread until you did.
It ran at 8 for quite a while. No one’s legitimately saying those decisions don’t count.
The official number can be whatever. Congress doesn’t get to nominate. And SCOTUS would keep deciding.
If there were 5 justices, they’d still be functional. As proven in the past, there’s no requirement for 9.
Esit: I’d - > If
Replace the mature trees at any cost. If those don’t “take” do it again.
And again. And again. Until the soil accepts the fully mature trees.
Onve they’ve lost millions, I hope they’ll serve as a proper cautionary tale.
Threat of impeachment. Dems will vote for impeachment. Republicans will, too, if the president is a Democrat.
deleted by creator
Obama broke Occupy. Biden and Clinton are vocal about not supporting the anti-genocide protests (except to say the protestor have specific rights).
There are no political leaders sympathetic to protests here. Only those who could maybe be cowed if we really fought. If that was likely, the FBI would infiltrate and agitators would create reasons for enforcement.
We’re talking Floyd levels of riot that would remind people of Jan 6th and leave people feeling justified. MLKs proymtests were NOT popular at the time… We’re looking for something and someone like that. Closest we’ve got is Shawn Fain.
My riot, for now, is my vote and my tepid support of formerly-Dark Brandon. He’s done a lot. More than most. But Garland was a shit pick. And now we’re here with trials delayed all over the place because Garland dithered.
We* should be free to own as many guns as we want.
*You know.
“When you’re a star…”
Thank you for saying this. This fact is missed so often and it’s vitally important to understand US politics right now.
He has to be part of an opinion in order for this to work. That opinion stands the test of time best if he can put forth a legal opinion that supports his preferred answer.
“Congress shall”… I wonder if that’s part of his thinking.
legally carry a gun
Watch states try to find ways to allow him within their borders.
So does coffee, really (imo). Until the taste is acquired.
Then it’s habit forming.
Republicans honor sacrifice by making sure it’s big. They’ll send you to war and complain about VA costs.
Law and order never meant what many heard.
Law and order keeps people in their place. It’s an argument for an old status quo.
It never meant following or enforcing the laws. It’s privilege saying it doesn’t want to budge.
That, unfortunately, is up to voters and fate (health, decline, etc).
We can have a justice system that dies that too, but we’d have to vote that and it would need to poll over 75% without hypocrisy.
It’s the 4 mil we found.
No worries. Have absolutely done the same in the past.
And I’ll take the moment to salute your reliance on fact and citation. Wish more people did the same.
Cheers