I think you will really appreciate Elie mystal's proposal on the Supreme Court. He makes an excellent point that the federal courts long have had mechanisms in place similar to your idea here.
Which gets to the issue of the "other side" and not as a bothsidesism. The point is that an opposition party is supposed to DO something, and they …
I think you will really appreciate Elie mystal's proposal on the Supreme Court. He makes an excellent point that the federal courts long have had mechanisms in place similar to your idea here.
Which gets to the issue of the "other side" and not as a bothsidesism. The point is that an opposition party is supposed to DO something, and they pretend they can't. Yes they can.
The point is in regulating both businesses and government, it's long been an objective to prevent a "gaming" of the system - and what we have at Supreme Court is a gaming of the system, a captured court -- when no such thing could happen to the lower federal courts because they already have several mechanisms to prevent people from judge- and opinion-shopping.
I think you will really appreciate Elie mystal's proposal on the Supreme Court. He makes an excellent point that the federal courts long have had mechanisms in place similar to your idea here.
Which gets to the issue of the "other side" and not as a bothsidesism. The point is that an opposition party is supposed to DO something, and they pretend they can't. Yes they can.
The point is in regulating both businesses and government, it's long been an objective to prevent a "gaming" of the system - and what we have at Supreme Court is a gaming of the system, a captured court -- when no such thing could happen to the lower federal courts because they already have several mechanisms to prevent people from judge- and opinion-shopping.
Thanks Marc. That sounds very interesting. I'll check it out.