Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

also that metaphor doesn’t even make sense. Chiefs are indians

Have you never heard that phrase before?

I was purposely using it to make a joke.

Maybe...too many cooks in the kitchen.

[faftorial]

It's not that complicated:

Of American-English origin, the phrase too many chiefs and not enough Indians, also all chiefs and no Indians, is used of a situation in which there are too many people giving orders and not enough to carry them out.

The earliest instances that I have found indicate that this phrase was first used in 1947 to characterise the situation of the U.S. armed forces at that time, after the demobilisation of a large number of soldiers at the end of the Second World War.

The earliest occurrence is from a United-Press news item published in the Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada) of Sunday 16th February 1947:

[dodint]

Thanks. I'm new.

[faftorial]

Thanks. I'm new.

I didn't know the second part.

[nocera]

also that metaphor doesn’t even make sense. Chiefs are indians

Also if we go with that metaphor, there were never any “Indians” on SCOTUS. It’d be going from 9 chiefs to 13 chiefs.

[Shyster]

For a comparison, of the 52 state supreme courts (Texas and Oklahoma have separate supreme courts for civil and criminal appeals), 7 have nine justices, 16 have five justices, and the remaining 29 states have seven justices. No state supreme court has more than nine justices, so nine justices is already larger than the vast majority of state supreme courts.

There are other countries with larger supreme courts. The Supreme Court of Japan, for example, has 15 members, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has 12 members. But those other courts also usually sit in panels of three to five justices for most cases; they only sit as a full court for certain rare cases. That is not how the SCOTUS operates and never has been.

[nocera]

We really gonna act like adding 4 judges is going to destroy the country? Or is it the slippery slope argument?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I’m honestly encouraged by a slippery slope. As I said above I think more opinions is better. I’d be ok with 25 judges with a rotation of 9 or so

[mikey]

If you can just use adding more judges as a political tool to pack the courts for your team (which goes without saying) than the slippery slope argument applies, once again...

[Shyster]

I think 25 judges would be ridiculous. That would be more judges than all but one of the Courts of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 judges, but no other circuit has more than 17, and people have been calling for the Ninth to be subdivided for years. Those Courts hear vastly more cases than the SCOTUS. There is no need for the SCOTUS to be that large. One of the reasons that other countries have more judges on their top courts is that those courts hear a larger number/variety of cases than our court does, which has a very narrow range of original jurisdiction and purely optional appellate jurisdiction.

This proposal is purely a power grab. Note that if the Dems want to argue that the Scalia and Ginsberg seats were "stolen," they could propose to bring the Court up to 11 seats so that they would "get those two back." But that still wouldn't give the Dems a majority. And how many new judges would they need to control the Court? Why, four, which is the number proposed.

It's already a horrendous thing that the SCOTUS has become a political football for the two main parties to fight over. Adding more rank partisanship and gamesmanship is only going to make it worse and completely destroy whatever credibility the Court has.

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

We really gonna act like adding 4 judges is going to destroy the country? Or is it the slippery slope argument?

Adding four judges wont destroy the country, but on a related note , the Merrick Garland debacle didn't destroy the country either. Just because a partisan move made in bad faith didn't destroy the country doesn't mean it was justified.

[nocera]

I don’t think it’s going to happen and I also don’t think it’s the best solution. Even if it does happen (which it won’t) it’ll be undone the next time the GOP has control.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Ok

[count2infinity]

Had no idea about that situation... so he heard gun shots, called 9-1-1, grabbed his shotgun, and saw a dude running away from the area where the gunshots were coming from?

Certainly don't think it was the right decision, but I can see him as being mayor somehow thinking that was his responsibility. It's not, but I can empathize with him thinking that. I'd still vote for him.

[eddy]

Yeah, this comes up once a year and he deals with it everytime. More people like him in government.

[shmenguin]

The right policy for the SCOTUS is that any time a disgraced TV personality who grifts their way to presidency with coordinated Russian assistance and is then impeached twice only to he acquitted by partisan bullshit, then any justice he appointed is nullified because he was never qualified to do so.

I would accept this over court packing.

[Troy Loney]

I am a fan of keeping the threat of court packing in the collective mindset.

I think luckily the majority of people who's opinion is relevant, understands that SCOTUS is a fully political institution, if said institution wields unjust authority, buy issuing rulings fully out of step with public sentiment, than that demands political recourse.

So, for that, I think the current court will continue to issue rulings that deny significant changes to sexual discrimination or abortion laws, but continue to nip at the edges of things like worker / consumer protections, unions and voter suppression tactics. Things that plugged in people may get outraged about, but won't prompt broad backlash.

[count2infinity]

Each SCOTUS member designs an essay question regarding constitutional law. Each state, should they wish, may nominate one person from their locality to answer the essay questions anonymously. The justices and their teams review the answers and rank their candidates 1 through 50. Highest average wins the seat.

[shmenguin]

I am a fan of keeping the threat of court packing in the collective mindset.

I think luckily the majority of people who's opinion is relevant, understands that SCOTUS is a fully political institution, if said institution wields unjust authority, buy issuing rulings fully out of step with public sentiment, than that demands political recourse.

So, for that, I think the current court will continue to issue rulings that deny significant changes to sexual discrimination or abortion laws, but continue to nip at the edges of things like worker / consumer protections, unions and voter suppression tactics. Things that plugged in people may get outraged about, but won't prompt broad backlash.

abortion battle is over, amongst other big ticket causes and you can't pack the court for guns. the threat of the SCOTUS is that they allow republicans to expand their attempts at rigging elections. if they indicate along the way that they're also anti-democracy, you save the country and pack the courts.

[Troy Loney]

Had no idea about that situation... so he heard gun shots, called 9-1-1, grabbed his shotgun, and saw a dude running away from the area where the gunshots were coming from?

Certainly don't think it was the right decision, but I can see him as being mayor somehow thinking that was his responsibility. It's not, but I can empathize with him thinking that. I'd still vote for him.

Fetterman seems to be more in the Bernie mold, but also a political striver.

This thing to me kind of highlights the left / liberal divide within the democratic party. I think his main opponent is some state rep from Philadelphia that made a profile by going on the MSNBC circuit around the election to raise awareness (alarm) at things the PA state legislature was trying to do. I think it was a good thing, even though they ultimately did nothing, they were trying to do things like audit specific precincts with partisan hacks and other things that messed with the election. That said, the philly dude is like the model corporate Dem model. Charismatic minority candidate that will attack republicans well, but never talk about economic issues.

[Dickie Dunn]

The odds of pulling your gun and detaining a non-black jogger in Braddock are slightly above zero.

[Morkle]

I'd rather impose term limits than packing the court. The court is supposed to be balanced/fair/non-biased - and political bias appears to be something that has to be selected to become a Judge.

[NTP66]

Source of the post I'd rather impose term limits than packing the court. The court is supposed to be balanced/fair/non-biased - and political bias appears to be something that has to be selected to become a Judge.

I'm with you on this.

[dodint]

I think 25 judges would be ridiculous. That would be more judges than all but one of the Courts of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 judges, but no other circuit has more than 17, and people have been calling for the Ninth to be subdivided for years. Those Courts hear vastly more cases than the SCOTUS. There is no need for the SCOTUS to be that large. One of the reasons that other countries have more judges on their top courts is that those courts hear a larger number/variety of cases than our court does, which has a very narrow range of original jurisdiction and purely optional appellate jurisdiction.

I'd be for a 27 justice court that hears most cases in 9 justice panels. SCOTUS could hear three times as many cases instead of just noping out on stuff that people actually care about. And maybe they can give some of the last minute death appeals more than just a rubber stamp by the on-call justice. Add in the diversity of opinion benefit and the de-celebritizing of justices and I struggle to come up with reasons not to do it.
Now, how we get there is a different story. I'd rather see a mechanism where the justices are selected without partisan influence (naïve, I know). Stand up a neutral commission, or have the current SCOTUS make the nominations from a certain set of parameters. Not much about the SCOTUS is defined in the Constitution so there is wiggle room here.

But this current effort will go no where, and I'm fine with that.

[Morkle]

I think that's a good idea too, remove the political bias from it - and a neutral commission decides who the best candidate is. Basically, remove all of the political nonsense/charade out of it and treat it like it's one of the most serious positions in the country.