I agree, but is it a lack of desire, or just an exercise in futility? Are there other factors beside an EO? I thought there needed to be a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I could be wrong and I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment.
I agree, but is it a lack of desire, or just an exercise in futility? Are there other factors beside an EO? I thought there needed to be a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I could be wrong and I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment.
The appointment of Federal Judges, including SCOTUS, does not require a 2/3 vote in the Senate, thanks to a law that the Republicans put through when they controlled the senate. All it requires is a majority in the Senate. There is nothing in the constitution about the Senate or Congress having to approve seating additional judges or expanding the court.
All Biden has to do is recommend Judges to the Senate (including SCOTUS) and with a majority vote the Senate can approve the recommendation.
When a judge is being recommended to the Senate ofr approval, his position is also mentioned, and there is nothing stopping Biden fromrecommending additioal judges to SCOTUS.
Thank you. Next question, do you think he can get the votes for a majority? I don’t think Sinema or Manchin would support expanding the court. It’s worth the risk for sure in my opinion. Just keep recommending judges until it they pass them?
You are most likely correct on all accounts. Manchin and/or Sinema will probably demur. Not so sure about Sinema, she is a money grubbing narcissistic bitch, but in her Greenie days she was behind the progressive approach to the culture war. Manchin, looks to his W VA base, which is ultra right wing I assume, but keep trying until they pass, which is a tacitic the Democrats haven't used. They take one defeat, pick up their ball and go home.
Nor do they make clear over and over until ya wanna puke 🤢 exactly where the blame lies when Washington “can’t get anything done” in your face all day everyday.
The significant word in your statement is "they". Who is "they". (I am not asking you, I have the same question). I don't want to be or sound defeatist, because we are faced with choices between the devil and the deep blue sea, between theocratic fascism and self serving corruption..
Given the choices I have no option but to vote for the self serving corrupt, but I fear it is only a stop gap, as we inch forward to a dark, Orwellian future.
Here is how I see it. In 1788, a ship of state was launched, its investors were a clique of the wealthiest and most influential men in the colonies cum states.They ensured that they, and their class would always be in ultimate control, by setting a rule, that the Senate (House of Lords) would have ultimate power, and more importantly historical control,over the government. The House of Representatives (House of commons) were limited to two year terms, and thus had little chance to establish even semi permanently their authority and more importantly less institutional memory.
Every four years the passengers on the ship of state, select a new Captain (much better for the investors than a mutiny (revolution).
The ship of state, under it's new Captaincy, will slightly alter the course to port or starboard, only to be course corrected with a change in Captaincy, in the next 4 or 8 years, but always the ship of state stays on the charted course.
Captains change, the original investors die, their investments are passed on to heirs, new shares are authorized by the Board of Directors, new investors buy in. Question is, who are the board of directors. Board of directors come and go, they die, retire, new ones, representing other financial interests, are hired. The purpose of the board of directors is to ensure that the corporation produces positive results (the definition of which varies with the nature of the corporation).
All societies are organized along the lines of class. In communist countries there was a new class, the party apparatchiks (China too) these are the people who took the biggest slice of the pie,
In monarchies they were called the nobility, in Republics they are the new nobility, the uber rich, the plutocrats/oligarchs.
The Tidewater Aristocracy of Virginia had no motivation to enjoin the New Englanders in a revolution. They were not discomfited or inconvenienced by the taxation of the Crown or the Monopoly of the East India Company.
My hobbyis genetic genealogy, and I came upon bills of lading, for the likes of George Washington, in which he bought china, silver ware, fome funiture, fine clothing, from London.
They had a comfortable life, they made plenty of money selling tobacco to London. The same goes for South Carolina, who resisted joining the revolution until the Brits occupied Charleston and kicked the cotton aristocrats out of their homes.
The motivation for the Tidewater aristocrats was to be established as a nobility in the new country. Most of these planters were descended from scions of English nobility. The "wild geese" (Cavaliers)that fled to Virginia with the victory of Oliver Cromwell and the Parliamentarians (Round heads)
Making an aliyah to London was expected among the planter class, the Tidewater Aristocracy, but in London they were laughed at, humored and treated like country bumpkins. In part because their speechway was an artifact of the indentured servants that were used to serve as labor in the Virginia colony. Most of the indentured servants and freemen (skilled artisans) were recruited from the counties around London, mostly Surrey. The Speechway of Surrey, found it's way into the speechway of Virginia, but was extinct by the time of the revolution (by royal decree). Speech, habits, customs of Virginia were alien to the gentry of London.
The revolution afforded them an opportunity to become the nobility. However the farmer, the tradesman, the common man had no desire to replace one set of Britisih overlords,with a homegrown versions, so they resorted to paying and distributing literature about the Rights of Man and establishing Committees of Public Safety to monitor the behaviors of people, identify and punish loyalists, and even punishing them by tar and feathers and carrying them out of town on a rail.
These committees were so successful that the French copied them and their name in 1789, as did the Bolsheviks in 1917.
I agree, but is it a lack of desire, or just an exercise in futility? Are there other factors beside an EO? I thought there needed to be a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I could be wrong and I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment.
The appointment of Federal Judges, including SCOTUS, does not require a 2/3 vote in the Senate, thanks to a law that the Republicans put through when they controlled the senate. All it requires is a majority in the Senate. There is nothing in the constitution about the Senate or Congress having to approve seating additional judges or expanding the court.
All Biden has to do is recommend Judges to the Senate (including SCOTUS) and with a majority vote the Senate can approve the recommendation.
When a judge is being recommended to the Senate ofr approval, his position is also mentioned, and there is nothing stopping Biden fromrecommending additioal judges to SCOTUS.
Thank you. Next question, do you think he can get the votes for a majority? I don’t think Sinema or Manchin would support expanding the court. It’s worth the risk for sure in my opinion. Just keep recommending judges until it they pass them?
You are most likely correct on all accounts. Manchin and/or Sinema will probably demur. Not so sure about Sinema, she is a money grubbing narcissistic bitch, but in her Greenie days she was behind the progressive approach to the culture war. Manchin, looks to his W VA base, which is ultra right wing I assume, but keep trying until they pass, which is a tacitic the Democrats haven't used. They take one defeat, pick up their ball and go home.
Nor do they make clear over and over until ya wanna puke 🤢 exactly where the blame lies when Washington “can’t get anything done” in your face all day everyday.
The significant word in your statement is "they". Who is "they". (I am not asking you, I have the same question). I don't want to be or sound defeatist, because we are faced with choices between the devil and the deep blue sea, between theocratic fascism and self serving corruption..
Given the choices I have no option but to vote for the self serving corrupt, but I fear it is only a stop gap, as we inch forward to a dark, Orwellian future.
Here is how I see it. In 1788, a ship of state was launched, its investors were a clique of the wealthiest and most influential men in the colonies cum states.They ensured that they, and their class would always be in ultimate control, by setting a rule, that the Senate (House of Lords) would have ultimate power, and more importantly historical control,over the government. The House of Representatives (House of commons) were limited to two year terms, and thus had little chance to establish even semi permanently their authority and more importantly less institutional memory.
Every four years the passengers on the ship of state, select a new Captain (much better for the investors than a mutiny (revolution).
The ship of state, under it's new Captaincy, will slightly alter the course to port or starboard, only to be course corrected with a change in Captaincy, in the next 4 or 8 years, but always the ship of state stays on the charted course.
Captains change, the original investors die, their investments are passed on to heirs, new shares are authorized by the Board of Directors, new investors buy in. Question is, who are the board of directors. Board of directors come and go, they die, retire, new ones, representing other financial interests, are hired. The purpose of the board of directors is to ensure that the corporation produces positive results (the definition of which varies with the nature of the corporation).
All societies are organized along the lines of class. In communist countries there was a new class, the party apparatchiks (China too) these are the people who took the biggest slice of the pie,
In monarchies they were called the nobility, in Republics they are the new nobility, the uber rich, the plutocrats/oligarchs.
The Tidewater Aristocracy of Virginia had no motivation to enjoin the New Englanders in a revolution. They were not discomfited or inconvenienced by the taxation of the Crown or the Monopoly of the East India Company.
My hobbyis genetic genealogy, and I came upon bills of lading, for the likes of George Washington, in which he bought china, silver ware, fome funiture, fine clothing, from London.
They had a comfortable life, they made plenty of money selling tobacco to London. The same goes for South Carolina, who resisted joining the revolution until the Brits occupied Charleston and kicked the cotton aristocrats out of their homes.
The motivation for the Tidewater aristocrats was to be established as a nobility in the new country. Most of these planters were descended from scions of English nobility. The "wild geese" (Cavaliers)that fled to Virginia with the victory of Oliver Cromwell and the Parliamentarians (Round heads)
Making an aliyah to London was expected among the planter class, the Tidewater Aristocracy, but in London they were laughed at, humored and treated like country bumpkins. In part because their speechway was an artifact of the indentured servants that were used to serve as labor in the Virginia colony. Most of the indentured servants and freemen (skilled artisans) were recruited from the counties around London, mostly Surrey. The Speechway of Surrey, found it's way into the speechway of Virginia, but was extinct by the time of the revolution (by royal decree). Speech, habits, customs of Virginia were alien to the gentry of London.
The revolution afforded them an opportunity to become the nobility. However the farmer, the tradesman, the common man had no desire to replace one set of Britisih overlords,with a homegrown versions, so they resorted to paying and distributing literature about the Rights of Man and establishing Committees of Public Safety to monitor the behaviors of people, identify and punish loyalists, and even punishing them by tar and feathers and carrying them out of town on a rail.
These committees were so successful that the French copied them and their name in 1789, as did the Bolsheviks in 1917.
Just a nit: "thanks to a law" ==> "thanks to a Senate standing rule". I believe last changed in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomination_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#:~:text=A%20simple%20majority%20vote%20is%20needed%20for%20confirmation. A simple majority is all that is needed to confirm a judge.