Agree! I understand the argument that there isn't anything unconstitutional about expanding, but it still feels more radical to me than impeachment. In the context of at least making a big public deal of shaming these slime bags, impeachment proceedings at least go there. Remembering that the American Bar Association officially categoriz…
Agree! I understand the argument that there isn't anything unconstitutional about expanding, but it still feels more radical to me than impeachment. In the context of at least making a big public deal of shaming these slime bags, impeachment proceedings at least go there. Remembering that the American Bar Association officially categorizes nominees, I'm fantasizing about official publication of decisions: institute an asterisk on certain cases, with explicit footnote advising less faith and credit as precedent for a number of the Thomas cases, etc. Just dreamin' .......(funny coincidence; the issue of Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame is in the news right now. He came to mind after I was thinking about permanent official downgrading of current Supreme cases....)
Agree! I understand the argument that there isn't anything unconstitutional about expanding, but it still feels more radical to me than impeachment. In the context of at least making a big public deal of shaming these slime bags, impeachment proceedings at least go there. Remembering that the American Bar Association officially categorizes nominees, I'm fantasizing about official publication of decisions: institute an asterisk on certain cases, with explicit footnote advising less faith and credit as precedent for a number of the Thomas cases, etc. Just dreamin' .......(funny coincidence; the issue of Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame is in the news right now. He came to mind after I was thinking about permanent official downgrading of current Supreme cases....)