Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Discussion / Re: The Venting Thread
« Last post by evil_physics_witchcraft on September 21, 2020, 12:21:35 PM »
It's Monday.

Elder evil cat did not want to be out of the office while I was doing a Webex. He howled, banged on the door and started to open it. I had to jump out of my chair and secure the door before he came into the office.

Email is screwed up again. Students aren't talking on Webex. I'm frustrated, so I'm going outside to pull weeds.
22

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here’s the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have “won.”  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".

I am more interested in knowing the reasons behind the changing number of justices and whether or not it was a question of a political power grab. I can definitely see perfectly legit reasons for changes the number. I can see an even number as being less than ideal, unless one justice has the deciding vote in case of a tie.

One of the changes (a reduction) was to prevent Andrew Johnson from nominating any Justices. That is the one I remembered, and I'd say it was blatantly political.
23

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here’s the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have “won.”  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".

I am more interested in knowing the reasons behind the changing number of justices and whether or not it was a question of a political power grab. I can definitely see perfectly legit reasons for changes the number. I can see an even number as being less than ideal, unless one justice has the deciding vote in case of a tie.
24
It's true that we often confuse "the framework" for "that's the way it's been for many years." As an article I just read pointed out, with McConnell and company, it's not even hypocrisy, really. It's just, "we do it because we can," complete with evil laugh and moustache-twirling. I'm inclined to agree that Dems can't beat that kind of thinking with misplaced worry about how history will view them later.
25

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here’s the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have “won.”  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".
26


Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here’s the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution and permanently do away with one of the checks and balances in the constitution.  If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have “won.”  Do you see the difference?
27

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here’s the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have “won.”  Do you see the difference?
28
General Discussion / Re: Jerry Falwell Jr. takes leave of absence
« Last post by kaysixteen on September 21, 2020, 11:30:44 AM »
apl has a good point..  But whether or not Falwell Jr. is a sincere Christian vs a charlatan, he remains an A+ argument against nepotism in evangelicaldom.
29
General Discussion / Re: What's your weather?
« Last post by kaysixteen on September 21, 2020, 11:29:08 AM »
What is fall-like in your area?
30
General Discussion / Re: wifi hotspots?
« Last post by kaysixteen on September 21, 2020, 11:27:37 AM »
WRT Zoom, I confess I am less than impressed with this foundation I am doing the volunteer senior citizens courses for.   My two courses are set to start Thursday, and I do not yet know if this is going to work.  I get that the foundation board was essentially winging it last minute in late July when they decided to go online this fall, and the director asked if I could do that.  I asked the tech person who gave me the machine if it could do Zoom, and learning that it could, I agreed to do the classes.   But the foundation director promised to provide Zoom training, which I told her then that I wanted and would need.  She dilly-dallied for several links and then sent, as 'training', links to a couple of youtube videos.   I was able to sign up for Zoom account with this info (but of course I could have located the info myself), but I have gotten no assistance beyond this, certainly no access to a local tech person to see if this is going to work.   And when I  registered for Zoom last week, the Zoom screen offered me a chance to do a demo meeting.... I have asked the foundation director to set something up for me to do so, but gotten no response.   Unless I very much miss my guess, a 'demo meeting' actually requires at least one other person somewhere else working with me to do it, it cannot be done by myself?   If I cannot do a demo mtg by Thursday, the first class is going to end up as the demo, and we will see what happens.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10