Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1129130132134135168

Comments

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    His choices revolve around what he thinks makes him look good; but, in reality, he only shoots himself in the foot once again. I am surprised he can still stand.

    You have yet to explain how he is shooting himself in the foot with this move.
  • It might be better to wait until after the event...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    His choices revolve around what he thinks makes him look good; but, in reality, he only shoots himself in the foot once again. I am surprised he can still stand.

    You have yet to explain how he is shooting himself in the foot with this move.

    Whenever he does something that he thinks is in his favor, there has been a strong reaction against it. For instance, when he had his minions clear Lafeyette Square of peaceful demonstrators, the national approval ratings for him nosed-dived. When he threatens to send in troops to quell the demonstrations, his approval ratings are negatively impacted. The list is endless.

    To shoot oneself in the foot is foolishly harming one's own cause, as in He really shot himself in the foot, telling the interviewer all about the others who were applying for the job he wanted. This colloquial term alludes to an accidental shooting as opposed to a deliberate one done so as to avoid military service.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    The acid test will be the actual election results.
  • This.

    All other speculation is just that...speculation.

    Though the vision of this malevolent would-be dictator bringing himself crashing down in flames before the election is attractive...
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    So I don't think it is intended so much as a dog whistle to white supremacists as it is a cynical and transparent attempt to wrap themselves in the "We Really Care About You Little People" banner.

    :vomit:
    I wouldn't put it past some of those around him to plan to do both: he'll be saying that he cares about All Americans, but in the All Lives Matter kind of way in which says that those who actually mark the day and care about the racial history of the host city aren't more important than his support base, and in fact are still less so as he's subsuming them into the whole Trump cavalcade.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    If the anniversary of that massacre was knowingly, consciously chosen (by T, Miller, or T's minions) as a dog-whistle signal to white supremacists and/or to threaten/frighten African Americans, that's vile and inexcusable.

    But are wide swathes of people (of whatever ethnicity) apt to understand? I *think* I have something vague in the back of my mind about something awful happening to African Americans in Oklahoma, long ago. (Not that that was the only thing.) Maybe many/most African Americans are aware of that incident and anniversary?

    Wide swathes of black people are apt to understand. They know a lot more about the history of black people in this country than I do, and (no offense) you either. They have to.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    O lucky Phoenix (not)...!
    :scream:

    Will he wave the obligatory Floppy Bible (KJV, of course) at the megachurch, I wonder?
    :grimace:

    (I noticed that the Bible he held up outside St John's wasn't, apparently, a Floppy Bible. It was, if that is so, not a Proper Evangelical Bible, and therefore proves that Trump is Of Satan).



    The Bible was apparently handed to him by Ivanka, an Orthodox Jew. I don't even know if it included the New Testament. And he wouldn't even say if it was his Bible: "It's A Bible" quoth he.

    There has to be a really good Jewish/Yiddish joke there, somewhere...
    :mrgreen:

    (Please don't have a go at me for anti-Semitism or something - Jewish jokes are just SO funny...I went to a wonderful Jackie Mason evening in London many years ago, at which myself and my Kiwi lady friend were the only Gentiles present).

    Woody Allen standup from the early days of television FTW. I love it when he accidentally winds up at a KKK meeting in the deep south, and they rumble him because when the hat goes around he pledges.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    mt--
    mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    If the anniversary of that massacre was knowingly, consciously chosen (by T, Miller, or T's minions) as a dog-whistle signal to white supremacists and/or to threaten/frighten African Americans, that's vile and inexcusable.

    But are wide swathes of people (of whatever ethnicity) apt to understand? I *think* I have something vague in the back of my mind about something awful happening to African Americans in Oklahoma, long ago. (Not that that was the only thing.) Maybe many/most African Americans are aware of that incident and anniversary?

    Wide swathes of black people are apt to understand. They know a lot more about the history of black people in this country than I do, and (no offense) you either. They have to.

    No offense taken. FWIW: I was making a point of how much I don't know, and that I don't know (one way or the other) whether that particular massacre, out of many, is consciously in their minds.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    Trump's approval rating is now 39% according to the latest Gallup Poll--a 10% drop, and his disapproval rating is now 57% a 9% gain. That's like having a 19% spread against him.

    Notably, the same poll shows only 20% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country. The biggest drop in the last six months has been from Republicans. In January 80% of Republicans were satisfied with the direction of the country, but on the first of June 39% of Republicans are satisfied. Among independents and Democrats, the satisfaction is much lower.

    There is an old nautical saying when the rats abandon the ship it is going to sink. More and more Republicans are abandoning the ship. Bush has said he cannot vote for Trump. Powell has said he will be campaigning for Biden. The Lincoln Project and Republicans against Trump are eroding Republican support. And today the baby was complaining all the networks (including Fox) have been doing him wrong--with the exception of One American News (OAN).

    And his Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff has now come out and apologized for walking with him on Lafeyette Plaza for that photo op. the CJCS said it was wrong for the military to take sides in a political dispute.

    Trump should do the honorable thing and just resign. (But then Pence could pardon him for all the federal crimes he has allegedly done).

    In other news, Barr is in a lot of hot water for moving to dismiss the Flynn case--the court-appointed review of the motion is accusing Barr of malfeasance. This is to say nothing about how he abused his authority to police Washington DC and clearing the peaceful demonstrations on Lafeyette Plaza, now named Black Lives Matter Plaza.

    Oh, and, the Dow dropped 6.9% today. Looks like they are beginning to wake up to the seriousness of the coronavirus.

    Did I mention the CDC estimates that 39% of Americans tried to drink bleach at T's suggestion? They are not drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Did I mention the CDC estimates that 39% of Americans tried to drink bleach at T's suggestion? They are not drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.

    My company has an "all hands" digital meeting every Monday. The CEO and COO and Chief Medical Officer (the latter two being the same person) and other higher-ups talk for a bit about the pandemic, how to stay sane, what the company is doing, and so on. The CEO this week said, in an apparent attempt to lighten the mood, "If you have friends or neighbors gargling bleach to be safe from COVID-19, please, try to get them to switch to bourbon. It tastes better and is far less dangerous."
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Did I mention the CDC estimates that 39% of Americans tried to drink bleach at T's suggestion? They are not drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.

    They doesn't sound possible. Do you have a source for that?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    {Confessions of a stats skeptic ahead. Scrolling past is acceptable. If proceeding with reading this post, please ensure your seat belt is fastened. You may want to take advantage of the Dramamine/Bonine tablets, kleenex, and tummy mints in the seat pocket ahead of you.}

    I have a hard time believing it's as high as 39%. But I tend to be skeptical of statistics. (Sorry.) If it's something like ye olde "6 identical red socks and 6 identical blue socks in a drawer; how many do you have to pull out to make sure of a match?" brain teaser, fine. Or "how many cartons of eggs in the store have at least 1 visibly-broken shell?". Or maybe even "how many of the Doctor's TARDISes can fit into a standard, enclosed American phone booth?"

    But I don't automatically trust surveys.

    I realize that people are and have been very scared of this virus, and many people don't know about the safety risks of something like bleach. But 39% seems awfully high.

    FWIW: I looked it up just now (NBC29).
    The information comes from a survey of more than 500 people last month.

    The findings show:

    39% of respondents reported washing food products with bleach, applying household cleaning or disinfectant products to bare skin, and intentionally inhaling or ingesting these products
    19% used bleach on food items
    18% used household cleaning and disinfectant products on hands or skin
    10% sprayed the products on their bodies
    4% admitted to drinking or gargling diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, and other cleaning and disinfectant solutions

    The CDC says all of these are high risks practices and could cause adverse health effects.

    Of the participants, only 4% said they drank/gargled bleach or other dangerous things. Maybe more of them actually did. Maybe the 4% were joking.

    ISTM that a survey of one group of people doesn't *necessarily* extrapolate to the same results for a larger group--or country. You can't safely assume that the same array of brain-teaser socks (above) exists in every sock drawer in every home in the US. Some people don't wear socks. Others wear only one color/style. Some don't own enough pairs to do the brain teaser. Or don't have a sock drawer. Or don't have dresser drawers at all. Or have so very many types and colors of socks that you might need to plug transfinite numbers into quadratic equations to adapt the original brain teaser to the situation.*

    If the CDC survey participants told the truth (as they understood it) and understood the survey questions the way its designers intended...they still might be the only people in the country who did those things..and/or the only ones who would admit to it.**

    YMMV.

    *Hyperbole for effect.

    **I once worked for someone who was a True Believer (tm) in survey stats: If the right questions were chosen, and worded exactly the right way, and if participants actually answered..then accurate answers *would* be had. .Anything else was impossible.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Even if the sample was well chosen, a sample size of 500 has a margin of error of ±5%.
  • Yeah... 4% is well within the "answer however the hell you like for shits and giggles" range.
  • I used to love Family Feud NOT
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    @Golden Key: "Or maybe even 'how many of the Doctor's TARDISes can fit into a standard, enclosed American phone booth?'"

    Only one, as the Doctor only has one TARDIS.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    This is a big tent thread! And it's already spawned split off threads.

    Have a look at the new guidelines in the Styx and do feel free to set up separate discussions on Trumpish topics you feel justify separate discussion.

    And I'll keep an eye on using the split thread facility to help you with this.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Re T's planned Tulsa rally, historical connections, AND corona virus

    --"Trump rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa called 'slap in the face' "(AP via Yahoo).

    I've only skimmed, but it mentions both Juneteenth and the massacre mentioned upthread.

    --And for that same rally:

    "Rally at your own risk: Trump has supporters sign coronavirus waivers to attend campaign events" (NBC News).

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Thinking out loud here! I can see a number of Trumpish topics that allow for discrete discussions.

    Trump and his supporters
    Trump and the Democrats
    The Trump White House
    Trump and the Truth
    Trump and the Virus
    Trump and the Constitution.

    I know there is overlap. Trump tends to smear across any logical category! But the above list might give you some ideas. Don't worry if you can't see anything straightaway. That's something I fully understand!

    B62, Purg Host
  • On "washing food products with bleach"--if I were asked a survey question phrased in exactly this way, I would have assumed it meant "disinfecting the outer surfaces of grocery containers when they come into the house," e.g. the outside of a milk jug and so on, and would have answered accordingly. That practice was a freaking big deal a month ago.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Thinking out loud here! I can see a number of Trumpish topics that allow for discrete discussions.

    Trump and his supporters
    Trump and the Democrats
    The Trump White House
    Trump and the Truth
    Trump and the Virus
    Trump and the Constitution.

    I know there is overlap. Trump tends to smear across any logical category! But the above list might give you some ideas. Don't worry if you can't see anything straightaway. That's something I fully understand!

    B62, Purg Host

    Shortly after Trump was inaugurated he meant with the Russian ambassador and revealed top-secret information. I started a thread about it entitled OOPS..... Shortly thereafter the Purgatory hosts ruled that the thread would be renamed to the current title and ruled that any discussion about Trump would be restricted to this thread.

    Since then, this thread has become the most enduring thread in SOF's history. Yes, it has become unwieldy, but it was the Purgatory hosts that created this monster.

    Just wanted to put a little history behind this thread.

    BTW--when I posted an off-hand remark about 39% abusing bleach, I only meant it as a joke. I should have put a smiley face on it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Since then, this thread has become the most enduring thread in SOF's history. Yes, it has become unwieldy, but it was the Purgatory hosts that created this monster.

    We know, Gramps49. Admin have just had a rethink.

    Actually. I quite like monster threads. They become like cranky old friends; life doesn't seem the same when they go. (I missed the Christus Victor thread, which probably makes me a very strange person!).

    But I think the Admin arguments for making a change are worth trying out.

    Feel free to take queries and arguments to the Styx. Or try things out. The new policy gives you freedoms.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Here is the waiver one has to agree to in order to complete the online registration form for Trump's Tulsa rally:
    By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.

    If there's one thing Trump always makes sure, it's that someone else is holding the bag when it comes to liability.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Croesos, I'm thinking this post might spawn a separate thread. I know it's part of the general 'Trump is an out and out shit" and it has connections with his manipulation of his supporters, his instinct for self protection under the law, and his massive mismanagement of the virus!

    It's an important post. I'm going to leave it here to see what develops. And thanks for posting it.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Here is the waiver one has to agree to in order to complete the online registration form for Trump's Tulsa rally:
    By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.

    If there's one thing Trump always makes sure, it's that someone else is holding the bag when it comes to liability.

    I have been wondering if one of the rally-goers does get sick and then passes that on to someone else, can the second person sue Trump.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And now Trump is trying to intimidate the International Criminal Court. The ICC is launching an investigation on alleged war crimes committed by American soldiers in Afghanistan. While the US has never been a signatory to the ICC treaty, the ICC nevertheless is tasked with investigating crimes committed in signatory countries. Afghanistan is a signatory.

    Trump has canceled visas to the US for ICC judges and their staff. He has also threatened sanctions against ICC judges and their family members. Meanwhile, Barr says he is opening an investigation of the ICC and their connections with Russia. This seems to be poetic irony.

    John Bolton's book, The Room Where It Happened is coming out on 23 June. Sounds like it is going to be quite revealing.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Here is the waiver one has to agree to in order to complete the online registration form for Trump's Tulsa rally:
    By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.

    If there's one thing Trump always makes sure, it's that someone else is holding the bag when it comes to liability.

    Even liability for a so-called fake news disease invented by libtards and the lamestream media.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Here is the waiver one has to agree to in order to complete the online registration form for Trump's Tulsa rally:
    By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.

    If there's one thing Trump always makes sure, it's that someone else is holding the bag when it comes to liability.

    I have been wondering if one of the rally-goers does get sick and then passes that on to someone else, can the second person sue Trump.

    Good thought!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    And now Trump is trying to intimidate the International Criminal Court. The ICC is launching an investigation on alleged war crimes committed by American soldiers in Afghanistan. While the US has never been a signatory to the ICC treaty, the ICC nevertheless is tasked with investigating crimes committed in signatory countries. Afghanistan is a signatory.

    Trump has canceled visas to the US for ICC judges and their staff. He has also threatened sanctions against ICC judges and their family members. Meanwhile, Barr says he is opening an investigation of the ICC and their connections with Russia. This seems to be poetic irony.

    John Bolton's book, The Room Where It Happened is coming out on 23 June. Sounds like it is going to be quite revealing.

    I'm pretty upset about this, the ICC thing. It's fine (sort of) that the US doesn't want to subject its soldiers to the ICC. It's fine (sort of) that they don't want to be a part of it. But the ICC does excellent work. It is a highly respected institution. It is not necessary for the US to go down this path. If Pompeo had any credibility left, this criticism could substantially damage the Court. As things stand, it just damages Pompeo, the toadie.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Did Pompeo ever have any credibility?
  • I used to see him as a sensible establishment type with a penchant for torture. But not any more. I wish I had understood what was going on before I responded to Gramps. The ICC thing seems to merit a stand-alone thread, maybe revisiting the entire US position on the matter. I'm a bit sad and pissed off with myself cos of my behavior in hell, or I'd do it now.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    What I've heard is that the US didn't join the ICC for fear that someone would use it against us.

    Of course, now that *is* pointing at us, maybe it would be a good time to join, and perhaps get some ability to influence the ICC from the inside.

    NOT saying that the ICC shouldn't come after the US, and not saying that the US should influence it from the inside--or at all. I don't know how the ICC works. But the US influences the UN, NATO, etc. from the inside.

    ...thinking out loud...
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Re Croesos post, I decided to pursue the topic which still makes me scratch my own head about what is going on. So I started this thread to see whether others might be scratching their heads.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Trump lost a big one today. He had been saying LBGTQ people have no civil protections, but the Supreme Court today overruled (6-3) him saying, essentially LBGTQ people cannot be discriminated against under the sexual discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Law. They also refused to consider any appeals to the 2nd Amendment on local laws limiting the possession of firearms. And they also agreed to take another look at the Texas Death Penalty. While Trump has placed two appointees to the bench, it is good to see one of them has a mind of his own.
  • It's a funny thing how often a president's expectations of a Supreme Court appointment are disappointed. Refreshing, in fact.
  • I think American political animals, left and right, are too keen to label Supreme Court judges. It is too soon to tell, but perhaps even a Trump appointed judiciary will act like judges.
  • @Gramps49 Here is an opinion piece from Politico arguing that GOP organisers are fired up and expecting a Trump landslide. Their opinions seem to be based on a V shaped recovery and the coronavirus not coming back. They are, to name an actor in Dr Strangelove, Slim Pickens.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think American political animals, left and right, are too keen to label Supreme Court judges. It is too soon to tell, but perhaps even a Trump appointed judiciary will act like judges.

    Maybe some. Kavanaugh? I doubt it. If Ginsberg passes before January Trump will use a lame duck senate to ram through another in the same mould.
  • Did you catch up with Gorsuch's judgement a few days ago on legal protections for people of diverse sexuality?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Gramps49 Here is an opinion piece from Politico arguing that GOP organisers are fired up and expecting a Trump landslide. Their opinions seem to be based on a V shaped recovery and the coronavirus not coming back. They are, to name an actor in Dr Strangelove, Slim Pickens.

    Many states are not yet rid of the first wave of Covid19 🤔

  • Not only Gorsuch's vote, but that he authored the majority opinion, gobsmacked me. It will be interesting to watch... will this be a pattern, or an exception.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Trump lost a big one today. He had been saying LBGTQ people have no civil protections, but the Supreme Court today overruled (6-3) him saying, essentially LBGTQ people cannot be discriminated against under the sexual discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Law.

    Can't be discriminated against by their employers. The ruling [PDF] didn't come down one way or the other in terms of other forms of discrimination. Judicial restraint and all that.
    Not only Gorsuch's vote, but that he authored the majority opinion, gobsmacked me. It will be interesting to watch... will this be a pattern, or an exception.

    Gorsuch claims to be a strict textualist, meaning that only the words included in the law are binding. The intentions of the legislators or the expected interpretation at the time of passage are irrelevant if such things weren't included in the text of the law. He apparently decided to stick to his guns on that position.
    Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

    Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

    So to Gorsuch the fact that legislators in 1964 had no intention to forbid discrimination against homosexuals in employment carries no weight whatsoever. They wrote the law the way they did and that's what he's sticking to.

    A lot of conservative justices supposed "principles" are often little more than pretexts to achieve the desired end. (See, for example, the supposed devotion to equal protection doctrine in Bush v. Gore.) But for whatever reason Gorsuch decided to hold to his declared doctrine in this particular case.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Gramps49 Here is an opinion piece from Politico arguing that GOP organisers are fired up and expecting a Trump landslide. Their opinions seem to be based on a V shaped recovery and the coronavirus not coming back. They are, to name an actor in Dr Strangelove, Slim Pickens.

    That's a good one.
  • My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.

    Both left and right tend to think decisions that go their way should be decided by the courts, and decisions that go against them should have been left to the legislature.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.

    Both left and right tend to think decisions that go their way should be decided by the courts, and decisions that go against them should have been left to the legislature.

    I'm not so sure. From what I've seen I think the left tend to think that court decisions that go against them are wrong (and a result of Republicans appointing ideologues rather than jurists) rather than the court had no business making judgments on the law in the first place.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    As I understand it, assuming Biden is elected and the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be a move to add 2 new judgeships on the court which could give Biden at least two possible judges to appoint, maybe three if Ginsberg steps down, bless her soul.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I understand it, assuming Biden is elected and the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be a move to add 2 new judgeships on the court which could give Biden at least two possible judges to appoint, maybe three if Ginsberg steps down, bless her soul.

    I'll believe it when I see it. I have a suspicion that even if the Democrats take the senate a handful of blue dogs will decide to scupper any such plan.
  • Not just blue dogs. Also people who think beyond the next four or ten or how many years, and who consider that just because it benefits “us” now, it could benefit “them” in the future.

    So far as I’ve heard, it’s an idea that been bandied about, but I don’t know that many in (or wanting to be) in Congress are seriously considering it.

Sign In or Register to comment.