From what I understand, turning this back will no different than trying to reverse Roe vs Wade. Neither will happen until there is a proper balance of Supreme Court justices…and that will take some time. And then there are the state level justices. What a mess.
Wow. This is an insanely elementary statistics error. In fact, it's so stupid you have no choice but to assume this was done in bad faith. Surely a supreme court justice and the doj statisticians can't be this stupid
And if We the People really wanted to it is possible to curtail the false and biased work of the Supremes... Robert Reich pointed out recently five steps that could be taken to put some control on the appointed members. Of course it would take a lot of state's legislative bodies to do this. It could be done!
Interestingly, the Supreme Court only performs its own *legal* research, not its own *factual* research. The parties appearing before it, and other parties joining the case called "*amicus* [plural: *amici*] *curiae*" are supposed to do the factual research. However, the Court can send the case back down to a lower court for additional research to be performed and received.
That’s a great answer to something that I just blurted out because of my extreme frustration with…
Everything.
Sometimes , I think that we need to strip things down to barebones. Verified facts. So the Court can say:
These are the facts. What is the case law that applies? If there is any. And then look at it from the point of the Constitution. I know, I know that it’s not as simple as that and blah, blah. I’m not a Pollyanna nor am I delusional but we need a Supreme Court that isn’t beholden to big money.
Blurting can often lead in interesting directions. 🙂
Actually, the process you describe is pretty much how it's supposed to go, and pretty much that simply.
And, while Clarence Thomas is indeed swimming in "emoluments," I don't believe those guys are bought off; I believe those psycho bastards actually think that way.
By definition minorities cannot participate equally with the majorities. Participation percentages may fall within a similar percentile but numerically they are still out voted. Representation of lawmakers according to demographics may be a better indicator but could still fall short of justice.
They clearly used the data that supports their bias.
From what I understand, turning this back will no different than trying to reverse Roe vs Wade. Neither will happen until there is a proper balance of Supreme Court justices…and that will take some time. And then there are the state level justices. What a mess.
Wow. This is an insanely elementary statistics error. In fact, it's so stupid you have no choice but to assume this was done in bad faith. Surely a supreme court justice and the doj statisticians can't be this stupid
Never underestimate weaponized stupidity.
And if We the People really wanted to it is possible to curtail the false and biased work of the Supremes... Robert Reich pointed out recently five steps that could be taken to put some control on the appointed members. Of course it would take a lot of state's legislative bodies to do this. It could be done!
Doesn’t the Supreme Court do RESEARCH ? Seriously…if not, then why do they sit on cases as long as they do?
Interestingly, the Supreme Court only performs its own *legal* research, not its own *factual* research. The parties appearing before it, and other parties joining the case called "*amicus* [plural: *amici*] *curiae*" are supposed to do the factual research. However, the Court can send the case back down to a lower court for additional research to be performed and received.
That’s a great answer to something that I just blurted out because of my extreme frustration with…
Everything.
Sometimes , I think that we need to strip things down to barebones. Verified facts. So the Court can say:
These are the facts. What is the case law that applies? If there is any. And then look at it from the point of the Constitution. I know, I know that it’s not as simple as that and blah, blah. I’m not a Pollyanna nor am I delusional but we need a Supreme Court that isn’t beholden to big money.
P.S.: Nice cat!
That’s “Iris”
Blurting can often lead in interesting directions. 🙂
Actually, the process you describe is pretty much how it's supposed to go, and pretty much that simply.
And, while Clarence Thomas is indeed swimming in "emoluments," I don't believe those guys are bought off; I believe those psycho bastards actually think that way.
By definition minorities cannot participate equally with the majorities. Participation percentages may fall within a similar percentile but numerically they are still out voted. Representation of lawmakers according to demographics may be a better indicator but could still fall short of justice.