|
Sunny Moraine@dynamicsymmetry.bsky.social |
So often see arguments against SCOTUS expansion like “but then Republicans will just add even more!” And I’m like, cool, then we come right out the gate with like 30 new Justices Make it absurdly big. I’m with Elie Mystal on this one: MORE FROGS AND DOGS AND BEARS AND CHICKENS AND WHATEVER
18 replies 40 reposts 265 likes
|
Big Bad Butch Gf, Baro Dyke Of Tipperary
@bigbadbutchgf.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I feel like eventually expanding the supreme court to every living human being is, at the end of the day, more politically viable than trusting Americans to never elect anybody right wing until the end of time
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Just Some Guy
@b420fd21f8.bsky.social
[ View ] |
SCOTUS-NG: 37 justices, cert petitions decided by random panel of 7, cases heard by random panel of 9 not on cert panel, 5-4 decisions can be appealed to another random panel of 13, supermajority of 9 required to overturn original decision. Huge improvement.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
@rhymeswithmoose.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And 39 is a multiple of 13, so you can put them all on Circuit rotations.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
AnneZo
@annezo.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We need to give them both the House and Senate to push the nominations through.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Dexter Remmick
@ltremmick.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Exactly. And you might as well start big, too. Don't just add 3. Add 301.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
condo potato 🥔
@condopotato.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I want to shake liberals when they say "if we do ___, they can do it to us" -- my brothers and sisters, they're doing it anyway. They do not share your civility politics. They are playing for keeps
0 replies 1 reposts 11 likes
|
Scott Lynch
@scottlynch78.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We are so far past "gosh, what if the Republicans do something extreme in retaliation?" when they have just hand-written an invitation to Donald Trump specifically to go ahead and end the republic.
0 replies 4 reposts 26 likes
|
Queen Gwenevere
@queengwenevere.bsky.social
[ View ] |
SWARM OF BEES And each one gets a vote
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Dextrosity
@dextrosity.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Right? Even a 41 member court with 15 additional FedSoc-approved judges is gonna find it hard to get 21 votes in favor of anything explicit.
0 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
|
Sunny Moraine
@dynamicsymmetry.bsky.social
[ View ] |
If we’re gonna destroy norms, then let’s actually destroy some norms. Let’s get crazy, let’s have some FUN with it for Christ’s sake
2 replies 0 reposts 47 likes
|
S knows that p
@sknowsthatp.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Elie was my fave follow at the old place
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
McNutcase
@mcnutcase.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Expansion *now* dilutes the effects of putative future tit-for-tat expansions. We have an opportunity for immense first mover advantage.
1 replies 0 reposts 10 likes
|
Sara Manns
@whatsarasaid.bsky.social
[ View ] |
one new justice should be 3 Muppets in a black robe, or what the hell are we even doing
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
phoebe
@poast.ing
[ View ] |
i like how they don’t even consider that after expanding the supreme court, they could reform it. isn’t that what they’re notionally supposed to be for, reform?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Micah
@rincewind.run
[ View ] |
ain't no rule says a dog can't be a Supreme Court justice
13 replies 13 reposts 141 likes
|
Dr. Amy, PsyD
@dramypsyd.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Let’s keep expanding the court until every single American is on the court
1 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
Andy Barnett
@hof1991.bsky.social
[ View ] |
13 circuits. 39 justices. Panels at random. 26 year terms. I’m not afraid of 13.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Not Yet Post Democracy Joshua Vaughan
@outerleftfield.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Elie is a voice I really miss on here. Love him.
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes