Holy Shiite, doesn't get any crazier than this. below. just the last and next to last paragraphs are enough if you are on your fourth cup of coffee and have the attention span of a hummingbird. I would rather explain how the electoral college works or the role of the superdelegates on the second ballot in the democratic primary than explain this court scheme to someone. How about we keep things simple. Just move Ruthie out, and have Trump move another appointee in. DONE. You are welcome. On a strategic level, Buttguy needs to be careful about one of his opponents or the media getting him in a corner where he has to explain this in a sound bite and everyone gets brain fog. Carter got tagged as a guy who could tell you how to make a watch but couldn't tell you what time it is. Didn't help. The media or others already bagged Buttguy for previously saying that all lives matter but now saying that black lives matter. He explains that by saying that he did not previously understand how the term "all lives matter" was actually being used to undermine the fact that "black lives matter." Ahh, okay. Don't try this trick at home. I agree that he is quite a bit brighter than the other clowns there, but let's not go off into cerebral heaven. Leave that to Warren. She is the designated lecturer for this cycle. Plus her Paw Paw told her about shit that you are too stupid too understand. BLOOMBERG OPINION Politics & Policy Pete Buttigieg’s Plan to Politicize the Supreme Court How will letting the parties appoint justices improve the court’s reputation for nonpartisanship? By Stephen L. Carter April 5, 2019, 7:00 AM PDT How many justices should work here? Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg But whatever Buttigieg’s virtues, his ideas about how to fix the Supreme Court are bad. As in really, really bad.Pete Buttigieg seems like a sensible fellow. The South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate, who has become the latest media darling, has interesting ideas. And if progressives worry that he shows a troubling tendency to think for himself, maybe that’s a point in his favor. 1 Here’s what Buttigieg said in an interview with the Intercept: We definitely need to do structural reform on the Supreme Court. Adding justices can be part of the solution but not in and of itself, it’s not enough. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient. What we’ve got to do is depoliticize it and one solution that I’ve been discussing in recent weeks is structuring it with 15 members but five of whom can only be seated by a unanimous consensus of the other 10. Elsewhere, he’s suggested that these 10 justices who get to select the others should be selected by presidents from opposite parties. As a practical matter, this means five Democratic appointees and five Republican appointees.
Kamala Harris is descended from Jamaicans (her father) so she might be up for a ganga-centric solution.
That is crazy, but how about at least age limits like 80, while I am glad they are there right now for some balance, 80+ shouldn't be on the supreme court. Nothing should be a lifetime appointment.
It’s a bad idea overall because it institutionalizes political parties. Can’t have that. Adding justices selected by unanimous vote of the court is not a bad idea.
I am flat out not interested but just to play along: What does "selected" mean? Selected to then be reviewed and approved by the Senate? - or y'all are going to amend the constitution along the way?