Because Biden

[Colin]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

Given that I haven't been posting about that particular tactic, why should I?  You're the one claiming some of Trump's supporters were unique in questioning the legitimacy of the selection or acting violently to change the outcome.  One small riot once in one place compared to dozens of much larger and more destructive ones in many places between the 2016 election and inauguration alone.

Which continue to this day, including occupying a State Capital.

[BansheeOne]

I agree the move (which seems unlikely to become law BTW since Nancy Pelosi said she has no plans to bring it to the floor) is clearly partisan, and like all such moves (abolishing filibuster etc.) would have the potential to backfire on the party that brought it while in power as soon as conditions are reversed. Which is probably the reason such nuclear options are rarely actually followed through with. Roosevelt attempted to increase USSC seats to an upper limit of 15, but his own party rejected it.

However, the number of seats has of course changed multiple times over history, from the original six to five (never implemented) to seven to eight to nine to ten to eight to nine. Increases were mostly in response to the workload of judges overseeing their assigned circuits, so Nadler's justification is actually broadly historically correct - though the practice of "circuit riding" which required judges to travel on horseback for months of a year has long ceased.

A real solution to the hysterics over presidents cramming partisan candidates into the court which then hang on until either another ideologically fitting POTUS comes along or they die might be introducing retirement ages, though that would actually mess with the constitution. So I guess it's right out because nobody wants the trouble and like election reform, everyone thinks they potentially profit too much from the current system.

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, Colin said:

Which continue to this day, including occupying a State Capital.

And once again attempting to burn an occupied Federal court house.

[Mikel2]

12 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

And once again attempting to burn an occupied Federal court house.

In a mostly peaceful way.

[nitflegal]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I agree the move (which seems unlikely to become law BTW since Nancy Pelosi said she has no plans to bring it to the floor) is clearly partisan, and like all such moves (abolishing filibuster etc.) would have the potential to backfire on the party that brought it while in power as soon as conditions are reversed. Which is probably the reason such nuclear options are rarely actually followed through with. Roosevelt attempted to increase USSC seats to an upper limit of 15, but his own party rejected it.

However, the number of seats has of course changed multiple times over history, from the original six to five (never implemented) to seven to eight to nine to ten to eight to nine. Increases were mostly in response to the workload of judges overseeing their assigned circuits, so Nadler's justification is actually broadly historically correct - though the practice of "circuit riding" which required judges to travel on horseback for months of a year has long ceased.

A real solution to the hysterics over presidents cramming partisan candidates into the court which then hang on until either another ideologically fitting POTUS comes along or they die might be introducing retirement ages, though that would actually mess with the constitution. So I guess it's right out because nobody wants the trouble and like election reform, everyone thinks they potentially profit too much from the current system.

I would suggest that the real solution, as is so frequently the case in modern American politics, is that the legiislature go back to doing the hard grinding work of legislating.  For both parties, this is no longer of interest so the imperial presidency and the problem solving supreme court have become where power lies.  The legislative branch don't do things so much as they act as obstacles.  Have Congress going back to passing laws with details that don't depend on executive interpretation and solve problems with laws instead of trying to get a Supreme Court that will rule in favor of whatever vague interpretation that they want.  I don't expect this to happen until after at least a partial collapse as this only works if the voting public believes in a country that works together as a whole and not as competing Balkanized states.  

[Ivanhoe]

It always seemed to me that the solution to SCOTUS gaming is an Amendment that fixes the number at 9 or whatever (10, if you believe in the designated hitter rule).

The US still needs to take a lesson from some Yurrow countries and institute law sunsetting. I've also thought about limits to the sheer volume of the federal code, but that's a challenge. Maximum pages? Maximum words? Maximum weight of the printed and bound code? Perhaps every time Congress passes a law that increases the number of extant federal laws, they get docked $1,000 in annual pay.

 

[Mikel2]

48 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

It always seemed to me that the solution to SCOTUS gaming is an Amendment that fixes the number at 9 or whatever (10, if you believe in the designated hitter rule).

The US still needs to take a lesson from some Yurrow countries and institute law sunsetting. I've also thought about limits to the sheer volume of the federal code, but that's a challenge. Maximum pages? Maximum words? Maximum weight of the printed and bound code? Perhaps every time Congress passes a law that increases the number of extant federal laws, they get docked $1,000 in annual pay.

 

 

Calvin Coolidge (my favorite 20th century president) said that it was more important to get rid of bad laws, than to pass good ones. We can't continue to add layers upon layers of laws until the end of times.

That the legislative branch has relinquished so much power in favor of the executive is deeply troubling too. But it's much too convenient for the party in power, since all they need is a pen and a phone.

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

Maximum weight of the printed and bound code?

You know that would only lead to smaller type and thinner paper. 

[Ivanhoe]

26 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

You know that would only lead to smaller type and thinner paper. 

Yeah, every thing I've come up with can be worked around.

[Ivanhoe]

https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/biden-calls-masters-champ-hideki-matsuyama-japanese-boy/
 

Quote

 

President Biden on Friday awkwardly hailed Masters golf champion Hideki Matsuyama as a “Japanese boy” during a press conference in the Rose Garden with Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga.

Matsuyama, 29, won the Masters Tournament on Sunday at Georgia’s Augusta National Golf Club.

 

 

[rmgill]

On 4/17/2021 at 11:35 AM, Ivanhoe said:

Yeah, every thing I've come up with can be worked around.

Naah, Teachers demanding an essay of X size worked this out. 

It would be easy. 

Maximum number of pages on 8 1/2" x 11" paper with 1.5" margins (top, bottom, sides), using Times New Roman in 12 point text, double spaced for clarity with line numbers at left. 

[glenn239]

On 4/17/2021 at 9:41 AM, Ivanhoe said:

It always seemed to me that the solution to SCOTUS gaming is an Amendment that fixes the number at 9 or whatever (10, if you believe in the designated hitter rule)

That would be good, but I doubt the Dems would agree to do it.  What puzzles me is the talk of expanding SCOTUS when the rulings from the top bench have been pretty responsible pieces of business.  Why fix what's not broken?

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

That would be good, but I doubt the Dems would agree to do it.  What puzzles me is the talk of expanding SCOTUS when the rulings from the top bench have been pretty responsible pieces of business.  Why fix what's not broken?

They want a permanent majority in SCOTUS so that they can create a permanent uniparty rule in DC via Constitutionally-iffy moves (recall Biden saying he didn't know if there would be a Republican Party in 2024?).

[Skywalkre]

8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

They want a permanent majority in SCOTUS so that they can create a permanent uniparty rule in DC via Constitutionally-iffy moves (recall Biden saying he didn't know if there would be a Republican Party in 2024?).

Umm... no.

The Ds want a majority for the same reason the Rs do - so cases brought before the court more likely go their way and they have a court that's favorable to cases being brought up that can be used for precedence.  With the machinations of the Rs over the last few years the current SCOTUS will remain Conservative-leaning for quite a while.  Adding judges during a D Presidency is the only way to get them the majority.  Keep in mind Biden hasn't directly come out and said he's in favor of adding judges.  That's mostly come from the Progressive camp of the D side.  This commission he started was his compromise to that camp (and there are some indications he's not enthusiastic about packing the court).

As for Biden's comments about the R Party in '24... there's no reason to read anything sinister into it.  After the election, and especially after 6 Jan, a lot of pundits were wondering what might come of the R Party.  Would it split between traditional camps and supporters of Trump?  Would Trump siphon off enough supporters that the R Party would officially whither away?  Would traditionalists start up their own party in defiance of Trump?

Sadly the Rs have solidly coalesced around Trump and the question is a moot one at this point.  Going back to the start of the Republic there is certainly history of parties evolving, changing, reforming, etc.  There is literally nothing, however, to imply Biden's comments were sinister in any way.

[DKTanker]

59 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Sadly the Rs have solidly coalesced around Trump and the question is a moot one at this point.  

You misspelled DeSantis.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Umm... no.

The Ds want a majority for the same reason the Rs do - so cases brought before the court more likely go their way and they have a court that's favorable to cases being brought up that can be used for precedence. 

Yeah...and with HR1 they can control state level elections. And lock in their control of the federal government and become a single party system. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

With the machinations of the Rs over the last few years the current SCOTUS will remain Conservative-leaning for quite a while.  Adding judges during a D Presidency is the only way to get them the majority.

Only way for them to get a lock on congress is put their fist on the scale. Only way to get a lock on scotus is to put their fist on the scale. And with both of those they have the white house locked. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

  Keep in mind Biden hasn't directly come out and said he's in favor of adding judges.

Before the election it was absurd to think. Now we have a committee that's examining the feasibility. 

Pull the other one. 

 

[Ivanhoe]

[Ivanhoe]

Brilliant use of taxpayer money;

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/04/24/report-border-czar-kamala-harriss-book-is-purchased-with-us-tax-dollars-and-given-as-welcome-gift-to-illegal-aliens-n1442572

Quote

The New York Post reports that the Biden administration is handing out copies of a book written by Vice President Kamala Harris. Breaking 911 claims that the administration is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to buy the books to give to children who came to the U.S. illegally. Thousands of children have come over the border at the invitation of the Biden administration.

 

[Mikel2]

34 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Brilliant use of taxpayer money;

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/04/24/report-border-czar-kamala-harriss-book-is-purchased-with-us-tax-dollars-and-given-as-welcome-gift-to-illegal-aliens-n1442572

 

 

  I'm sure the democrats would have been completely fine if each immigrant had been given a (taxpayer funded) Trump steak.

[Rickard N]

On 3/21/2021 at 6:51 PM, rmgill said:

Yeah, most don’t realize that the hops are really just there (originally) as an antibacteriofactant. 

 

My preferences lean towards the older styles. 

Lambics, flemish red ales, Trappist Tripels and Quads and Barley Wine. 

 

My favorites are:

Hanssens Experimental Cassis (black currant fruited lambic, very dry about $20/375ml)

laTrappe/Koneigshoven Tripel (wondrous with a good steak)

Duchesse de Borgogone (21 month aged flemish red, about  $20 for a 4 pack)

JW Lee’s barleywine. 10 year old aged is complex like a really good scotch.

 

 

If you find Rodenbach, get it, I suspect you'd like it. Rodenbach Alexander is one of my favourite flemish red ale. It's about $10 for a 75cl bottle (that's about 3/4 of a quart, so 3/16 of a gallon? :P)

Oh and if you haven't had the experience and after the crap-Corona-thingy, look for a Zwanze day.

As for American beer and hops being bad, I just have to disagree, one of my favourite breweries is SKA in Durango, but then again I'm of the broken ilk that like the insanely hoppy IPAs. The best hops if from New Zealand though Motueka.

/R

[Ivanhoe]

bevmo.com has a 4-pack of 11oz bottles for $17USD. At that price, it had better be delivered by a slutty blonde lingerie model. 

 

[Ivanhoe]

Oh dear, here we go again;

 

[DKTanker]

Dude should be wearing high waisted green trousers with a yellow shirt while playing shuffleboard at the senior center in St. Petersburg.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Dude should be wearing high waisted green trousers with a yellow shirt while playing shuffleboard at the senior center in St. Petersburg.

I don't think Russia would take him.

[Tim Sielbeck]

Florida man!