Kavanaugh
Options
Comments
-
I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption.
0 -
No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha.pjl44 said:
I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption.
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!PJ_Soul said:
No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha.pjl44 said:
I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption.0 -
Yeah, you're a cynic. I understand why Americans would feel that way at this point, but that more tells the story of where America is at psychologically, not of what's actually doable. It simply has to be done properly. And no, at the end of the day it doesn't have to be elected officials making any of those related decisions.pjl44 said:
Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!PJ_Soul said:
No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha.pjl44 said:
I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption.
In any case, surely you can at least agree that the current system is terrible.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
-
Now THAT is awesome!!!
No more Fixers Ed, thanks!0 -
Yeah, that is awesome.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
dignin said:
The explanatim is much longer, but this is the wrong thread and improper method. Anyway, good luck with Elizabeth Warren. Trump awaits his second term.Go Beavers said:
Thanks for sharing your half-baked theory that is basically you coming up with motivations of millions of trump supporters because Hillary wasn’t likeable. And Sanders would’ve crushed trump if he was nominated.EdsonNascimento said:
Much longer conversation, so I will keep it to 2 words that liberals are very full of - arrogance and hubris. And nobody bigger on that than Hillary and Debbie Schultz.Go Beavers said:
What’s your half baked theory as to why trump won?EdsonNascimento said:
Did she not attack sexual assault victims? Or, was it a different time? Or, are we just supposed to forgive and forget b/c you say so?Abe Froman said:
Same old Hillary bullshit defense.EdsonNascimento said:
If the Dems put up a more moderate candidate who doesn't attack sexual assault victims, I bet they'd win (assuming the Economy doesn't keep zooming up which one would think it can't possibly, because that's ultimately what people vote on).Abe Froman said:
Both. Its disturbing that people defend and actually back this garbage administration. AND WILL VOTE FOR IT AGAIN!?!? Its sickening.Bentleyspop said:
Once again I have to ask what's worse?Abe Froman said:
Decency and morality are gone. josevolution said:Bentleyspop said:
Party over common sense and decency as wellmfc2006 said:Party over morality. Disgusting.
This entire administration is total fucking trash. Its beyond comprehension at this point.
Agreed we deserve this total trash ..rgambs said:We deserve Kavanaugh.
A nation of deplorable trash deserves a Trump Presidency and a court full of Kavanaugh trash.
This fucked up, narcissistic, hateful, lying trash of an administration.
Or the people who support it, believe in it, and will vote for it agan?
If they go all Elizabeth Warren on the country, they will lose.
The other candidate matters.
And yet you guys still don't understand why Trump was elected. Too funny.
You know who understood that? Bernie supporters. He was a far worse candidate that would never have gotten elected, but they knew her Achilles heal.
Thats not not to say Trump isn’t full of arrogance. Just that his strategy was arrogance. She and her supporters are still to this day completely un self aware. Dangerous place to be,
its much more more complicated than that, but what you think people should care about isn’t what they care about.
Bernie Sanders. Too funny.
#TheOtherCandidateMatters
0 -
This is awesomedignin said:0 -
-
While I appreciate the condescension, I'll stick with the current systemPJ_Soul said:
Yeah, you're a cynic. I understand why Americans would feel that way at this point, but that more tells the story of where America is at psychologically, not of what's actually doable. It simply has to be done properly. And no, at the end of the day it doesn't have to be elected officials making any of those related decisions.pjl44 said:
Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!PJ_Soul said:
No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha.pjl44 said:
I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption.
In any case, surely you can at least agree that the current system is terrible.0 -
That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.mickeyrat said:
have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.0 -
further, I think the appointments should be in the odd numbered off years. giving 1 president no more than 3 picks.mace1229 said:
That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.mickeyrat said:
have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Yeah. Ny has closed primaries. After a long time being unaffiliated, i registered as democrat for bernie sanders. Was recently able to vote in some state primaries for some righteous people.cincybearcat said:
Well yeah. If you aren’t apart of the party you shouldn’t be picking their candidate. I understand what you are saying but it’s really not that big of a deal to register and re-register party affiliate.mickeyrat said:
so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.mace1229 said:
Does that not make perfect sense though?josevolution said:
I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...mickeyrat said:
what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?josevolution said:Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...
Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative?
Everyone gets to vote in the final election.
I personally would prefer it if independents could vote in 1 primary of their choosing though.
Its nice to "take a stand" and brag to people you arent in a party.... but it makes little practical sense to diminish your voice0 -
What if the court is hearing a case on the Lost Ark and during the hearing they open the Ark and everyone starts screaming and then their faces melt off and they disappear into a puddle of play doh? And then it turns out the president already used his three picks prior to the face melting incident?mickeyrat said:
further, I think the appointments should be in the odd numbered off years. giving 1 president no more than 3 picks.mace1229 said:
That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.mickeyrat said:
have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.PJ_Soul said:
The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well.pjl44 said:
I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judgesmy2hands said:Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices...
Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?
The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning
Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.
Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
https://youtu.be/CQ4GbcuBvUQThe ultimate in vanity
Exploiting their supremacy
I can't believe the things you say
I can't believe, I can't believe the price
We pay
Nothing can save us
Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone
Pulling your strings, justice is done
Seeking no truth, winning is all
Find it so grim, so true, so realI SAW PEARL JAM0 -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/10/11/chief-justice-roberts-requests-tenth-circuit-to-investigate-kavanaugh-ethics-questions/#40e7bf0b1877
For what is worth ..jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N34hehRgw9g
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help