Ginsberg, get out!

[DGuller]

 

[grumbler]

Let's take an obvious "political" case like Citizens United.

On the one hand, it benefits corporations, so it must be Republican.
On the other hand it expands first amendment rights, so it must be Democrat.
Then again, the effect will be to help the GOP raise more money, so it must be Republican.
But it also allows Unions a bigger role in national political campaigns, so it must be Democrat.
Most Republicans applauded it, so it must be Republican.
But it killed John McCain's legislative baby, so it must be Democrat.

Yeah?  You just arbitrarily make it a victory for one party, like I said.

The real question is who gets to write to opinion, which then becomes the law.  I suppose the other issue is who decides what cases the Arbitrary Supreme "Court" hears, since the side losing the case now could just raise it again next session and hope to get luckier.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't know about your second point Joan.

One way to do it is see how Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh stand on the case.

[grumbler]

One way to do it is see how Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh stand on the case.

If Fatso is integral to the process, you are going to have to make him immortal, or your simple solution breaks down in a decade or two.  Immortality probably isn't going to be easy or cheap.  I am coming to the conclusion that DG's idea is less trouble, much as I like the idea of Fatso being immortal and deciding half the Supreme Court decisions.

[Scipio]

Why not make the rule of 80 mandatory?  That would certainly achieve the goal.

[Tonitrus]

simple to implement

requires is a constitutional amendment.

Ahem.

If you can ban alcohol by amendment, anything is possible.

[dps]

simple to implement

requires is a constitutional amendment.

Ahem.

If you can ban alcohol by amendment, anything is possible.

Yeah, that worked out real well.