CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 14, 2020 06:57 AM UTC
33 Comments
How about this for an approach.
Democrats introduce a pair of bills at the start. One increases the Supreme Court to 13 people. The second is a constitutional amendment that sets the size of the court to 9 people and sets term limits for all federal judges. 14 years for the Supreme Court, 24 years for all other seats. And no reappointments to the Supreme Court.
So we increase it, and then give Republicans a way to bring it back to 9 if they'll also agree to term limits.
I’m in, but let’s change 14 and 24 to prime numbers.
I'm a no vote on the constitutional amendment. It would set the court at 6-3 right-wing for at least a few years assuming ACB's appointed (not sure how you'd treat existing members). This means real threats to ACA and Roe v. Wade, probably other highly consequential stuff as well.
It would remove Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, & Alito. Leaving a 3-2 Conservative balance, plus Biden's4 additions making it 3-6 Liberal.
Replace them all with an AI that has a knowledge base of the whole of federal law plus founding documents.
In the beginning it would blow numerous circuit breakers because there are so many intern inconsistencies and contradictions to deal with but with HAL directing legislative efforts they should be resolved in time.
Since an amendment proposed by congress requires a vote of approval by 2/3 of both houses and by 3/4 of the states it could take years for the amendment to become real so we will have the 6-3 for quite awhile.
She was even wobbly on Griswold v. Connecticut, so I believe she’d toss out Roe v. Wade in a hot minute. I wouldn’t hold out much hope for Obergefell v. Hodges, or possibly even Lawrence v. Texas
Yes, she and Blanche have been playing this little game of, "But has anyone actually suggesting bringing back [segregation, bans of contraception, etc.]."
I notice that they don't mention reproductive choice when they mention their list of unimaginable scenarios. I wonder why? Prop 115, anyone?
And to answer Miss Thing's rhetorical question (Is anyone longing to bring back segregation?), ask your Proud Boys and your white supremacists.
Cook, as for Obergefell and Roe, I suspect those will survive only if Roberts and Gorsuch decide overruling them is a stretch too far. But I would expect those two to side with the far right on chipping away at abortion rights and allowing a right of conscientious objection for anyone objecting to a same sex marriage.
Justices Thomas and Alito already have their sights set on overturning Obergefell because it "violates religious freedom."
Despite the wishes of some who post on this site, the US is basically a centrist nation, with a slight tilt to the left due to socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare. It will be interesting to see how a Supreme Court, and appellate courts, dominated by the hard right and the Federalist Society, fit into the national mix.
You're not gonna like it.
Unless living in an autocracy appeals to you.
I favor both court expansion and term limits. but i favor shorter terms, 10-year terms would be fine. Otherwise, you could have a judge who still gets to be on the bench for 40 years, including SCOTUS. Life tenure in the 18th century was a helluva lot shorter than it is now.
One scholar who looked at the problems of the Supreme Court suggested a statutory approach:
Set it so new members would have about an 18 year term and begin rotating off so each 2 year session of the Senate would get one slot to advise and consent on.
If the Rs don't like Ds to pack the court like they have been maybe they'll be OK w/unpacking the court. Impeach a couple of them.
I say impeach/remove a whole bunch of federal judges.
Make it look like non-partisan good government at the beginning.
There are 1800 federal judges.
1. Find the bottom 10 (drunk, senile, molester, whatever).
2. Pick one nominated by Clinton. Impeach and remove.
3. Pick one nominated by either Bush. Impeach and remove.
4. Pick one nominated by Obama. Impeach and remove.
– Do this at a weekly pace. That is, one judge every week.
5. Pick one nominated by Trump. Impeach and remove.
6. Repeat #5 seven times.
7. Pick one nominated by a Democrat. Impeach and remove.
8. Repeat #5 thru #7 for 4 years.
Results:
1. Public become inured to the process.
2. 160+ Trump judges removed in 4 years.
Except you likely never get the 2/3 of the senate to vote for removal, even if you can get an impeachment from the house
This makes for good clown punching material, but it'll never happen. Even if Unca Joe wins the presidency and Dems take control of the Senate, it'll be about "reaching across the aisle" and "building bridges," same as always. Dems at the national level are sniveling cowards.
If it's a blow-out, I think there will be substantive changes. If it's a squeaker then yes, it'll be compromise. If we can get to 53 or 54 Dem Senators, and Biden wins with 315 electoral votes where most states are won by 2% or more, then there's political juice for real change.
I respect your optimism.
But.
If ACA case really re-defines preexisting conditions and alters the ACA in other way (s) that effectively eliminates health care for 21million – they MUST do health care first.
Then immigration reform (no more cages or effective poor people punishment like having to seek asylum in every intermittent country) and Dreamers.
And all the executive orders, judges, subpoena laws, investigations and litigation and indictments and and and
It may be possible to multi task – but it requires the Senate to be D, and cooperative.
The juice is there. But that has not generally stopped the D's from screwing themselves.
Feinstein? or some other D will die. And there will be litigation or freakshow that screws the majority.
I agree with you about Unca Joe, however I think VP Harris and a number of younger D's can and will dissuade him on major appointments and any major compromises or pardons.
Today is World Standards Day.
To the tune of The Boss' "Streets of Philadelphia"
Have you noticed that state legislative Republican candidates don't identify their party in their ads? (My mom was the same, to the extent that a lot of her voters assumed she was a Democrat.)
I think that is also true for Democrats.
My state rep is just "Serena" on her signs.
. . . Filing that one under: You-can't-spell-"conservative"- without-c-o-n.
Have you noticed how few bank robbers and stick-up crooks wear name tags?
20 days and we can flush the big orange turd down the toilet.
“The White House has embraced a declaration by a group of scientists arguing that authorities should allow the coronavirus to spread among young healthy people while protecting the elderly and the vulnerable — an approach that would rely on arriving at ‘herd immunity’ through infections rather than a vaccine,” the New York Times reports.
Although the declaration’s website claims the petition has been signed by more than 15,000 scientists, Sky News found dozens of fake names on the list of signatories, including Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename, and Dr. Johnny Bananas.
Ah, yes. I predict the infamous Dr. I.P Freely will be interviewed soon on Fox News.
I had an appointment with Dr. Bananas, and all he would tell me was to "put de lime in de coconut & drink em bot up…"
Guarantee Dr Nick signed it.
Wut?
I've read it about 10 times and I still can't figure out what he is trying to say…WTF?
translation:
Making America great is hard work. Really hard. You do it everyday and you know. You need me. Ill pay you- I have already, I will again. Your children shouldn't have to go to college or war. Ethanol is beautiful. Ivanka is hot. I've been nominated for multiple Nobel prizes. Trust me. What you think might be true is fake. I am the one who loves you. I and only I can make this work and great and NOT Biden. Remember her emails. Remember the black guy. I saved your neighborhood. The only thing I want to defund is the big cities.
I know because my uncle was there and his ex wife explained it to the family. She was paraphrasing, but it all adds up.
You think he was talking about Eric?
I think it shows $rump’s pathology. Denying a child an inheritance because dad didn’t “like” him is what Trump’s father did to his other kids. Donald was the golden boy.
Of course, Donald tried repeatedly to control all his father’s estate and leave his siblings out…and partly succeeded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/donald-trump-father-will/