Term limits for justices would actually be good but they won't actually do it
Those same judges would say it requires a constitutional amendment anyway, to which the response would just be "oh well".
judicial review literally isn't in the constitution either, just write their term limits into law and let them bitch about it while you wheel them out when their time is up
This is what drives me completely insane, they just invented their power and now they write opinions jerking the constitution off and trying to block anything that isn't directly in the constitution. Any President worth half a shit would just tell them in the spirit of strict originalism or whatever they're going back to the thing the constitution defined as their job: taking cases from swamped district courts that lack the manpower. If they don't like it he can use their recent decision to justify drone striking them.
Nothing even remotely close to something that cool will ever happen. This is it. It's just diminishing returns from here
some lib on reddit was like "but they have the supreme court police!" lol
revolutionary guard that isn't.
"but they have the supreme court police!"
That's fantastic. I'm stealing that.
What audience is this shit for? Leftists understand that this policy and the rent caps he proposed are just empty promises for half measures, and the VBNMW crowd is already gonna vote for him. Nobody is swayed by this shit.
Lots of milquetoast libs consider themselves to be (far) more radical than they actually are. Consider a rando named Ed Burmila and how he defines himself. Emphasis mine.
Ed Burmila is a Chicago-based writer and host of Mass for Shut-ins, a podcast of leftist politics and historical arcana. He is the author of Chaotic Neutral: How the Democrats Lost Their Soul in the Center (Bold Type Books).
Another site says has a PhD in political science. At Bluesky I'm not sure how the libs would describe him. Probably as a "progressive". Recently he posted a screengrab Will Menaker joke. Libs don't know who Will Menaker so it was okay for him to do that. I'd bet money Burmila has only very rarely (maybe never) typed out the words "Chapo" and put that into a post. He wants engagement and likes. He knows libs despise Chapo. They might block or mute him if he used that nasty word.
So - what did he think of the WaPo article? His quote post is...
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now.
https://subium.com/profile/edburmila.bsky.social/post/3kxgjupxhwc24
fuck you "click all the blocks" for the third fucking time eat fucking shit I hope you fucking dieooh did you get the ol' archive.is/ph/etc infinite captcha loop? I used to be stuck in that all the time, I don't know what changed but I stopped getting it
This level of shit is entirely to be expected yet I'm mad as fuck anyway. I'd seriously prefer they have have no plan at all rather than this garbage. Libs will mention this and say "Vote!" and I [redacted].
Another bit idea: It dies as a bill in the senate because the dems refuse to kill the filibuster.
Biden has a plan that the dems will try to do (or pretend to try to do) after election day if Biden wins and the dems control congress. Then it could die in the senate. I don't know if you saw my other comment in this sub-thread where I quote a lawyer. It doesn't even matter if it passes. The GOP justices would kill it anyway
All of this is pure kabuki. This pretend form of action gives the libs to be excited about, to talk about, to be hopeful about, and to post about.
A notable lawyer's take
At the risk of being precisely who everyone expects me to be, I don’t think you can put term limits on justices without a constitutional amendment, and I’m 100% confident at least five current justices think you can’t.
https://subium.com/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3kxgvtjuh7z2m
when did liberals start thinking "move the overton window left" meant "bait people into vooting blue with false promises of half-baked vaguely left wing ideas"?
Show
I've gotten to the point that I've stopped trying to understand liberals. I nearly always put "Rhetorical question:" at the beginning of a sentence if I ask something like "Why are liberals like this?"
@questauthority mentioning the Overton window is a pretty good bit even if it isn't actually a bit and "question" is trucated.
Their account is visible to the public so it's a bsky link. Bio...
Father, Army Husband, lawyer. Chronic student recently dragged kicking and screaming into the practice of law. Litigation disaster tour guide. Proud member of the terminally online community since 1993. he/him
https://bsky.app/profile/questauthority.bsky.social
More
Said it before, gonna keep saying it. AOC is a generational talent as a politician, and that's not a remotely close call.
https://bsky.app/profile/questauthority.bsky.social/post/3kxgk323gkm2q
It just became a way of admitting to their being all talk, but that being good actually. Not even incremental material change, just incremental change in the "discourse", which will (if you're a good voter) lead to it.
Jesus Christ thank God I don't go on Reddit anymore, that much shitlibbery is too much for my blood pressure.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
terminal limit