Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

briany

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its kind of hard to get on with trying to enact policy when you have a mainstream media out to spin every Trump story in a negative manner.

Hard for Trump, because he couldn't have been 100 percent focused on being president when he spent so much time on Twitter complaining about CNN and the New York Times. It wasn't all mainstream media, of course, because Trump was quite complementary about Fox News, much of the time, up until the end of Trump's term when Fox had the absolute gall to question Trump's ravings about electoral fraud.

And Trump, because he just could not keep his mouth shut, made an enemy of John McCain with needless comments about McCain's war record, and then McCain as the deciding Senate vote, scuppered Trump's health bill.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You are right though, Trump would have been relected but for Covid.
It stalled the economy and Trumps handling of it was poor, all he had to do was act Presidential but his ego prevented that.

Funny how such a useless President was so close to being relected, it took a once in a lifetime pandemic to stop him.

If the captain of a ship unnecessarily goes to pieces when a storm is encountered, instead of just getting on the wheel, then they're not really a good captain.

Melanchthon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rubbish article. Par for the course for The Telegraph. The policies Murray decries aren't socialist, they are simply fairness. Rebalancing the Supreme Court - fair. Taxing the rich - fair. To point out how slavery has woven itself into white supremacy - fair. As for Biden preferring victory over calm just as Trump did, well that's just horsesh1t.

I am curious if you think this situation is fair? Isn't this the government endorsing racism?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/white-farmers-sue-seeking-government-loan-forgiveness-77397183

Professor Moriarty

Melanchthon wrote: »

I am curious if you think this situation is fair? Isn't this the government endorsing racism?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/white-farmers-sue-seeking-government-loan-forgiveness-77397183

That's racism. Good to see that they are reviewing it.

duploelabs

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Jim Acosta calling Fox News the bs factory.
The pot calling the kettle black.
People in glasshouses shouldnt throw stones.

I like the way that you acknowledged the bias of the mainstream media though.

Identify a retracted story by Jim Acosta, there are many from fox

hotmail.com

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

salmocab

hotmail.com wrote: »

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

For a person who used to constantly question why Irish people had an interest in talking about American politics you seem to have quite the interest yourself, it’s like you had an agenda in wanting people to not talk about the administration at that stage but now want the current one to be talked about.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, here's the 411 on changes.

Originally SCOTUS was six judges, four was required for a quorum.
In 1800 after losing an election, and with the resignation of the Chief Justice, John Adams nominated his replacement, then the congress (also getting thrown out) reduced the size of the court to 5, effective after the next resignation/death so Jefferson couldn't appoint anyone.

This was immediately repealed by the Jefferson administration and Congress a couple of months later, and since nobody had died or resigned, the number remained at 6.

As federal court circuits were added, first to seven, then to nine, the amount of judges was increased accordingly, by Jefferson and his Congress, then Jackson and his.

Lincoln added a tenth circuit in 1863, and with it a 10th justice, convenient for him as he wanted to overturn Dredd Scott (notorious even today slavery case). It didn't last long. After Lincoln was killed, Congress and Johnson were not seeing eye to eye, and they dropped the number back down to seven to make sure he couldn't appoint anyone. Again, as the judges were appointed for life, they couldn't be fired or forced to resign.

After Johnson was voted out and replaced by Grant, the number was returned to nine again.

Yep. And right now there are 13 Federal Court circuits...

Faugheen

hotmail.com wrote: »

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

Actually ordinary Americans care a lot about the SCOTUS

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Or cancel culture.

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

salmocab

Hhhhh wrote: »

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

The phrase is so broad it’s almost meaningless. Anyone that objects to things others are objecting to, shout cancel culture without a drop of self awareness

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

The phrase is so broad it’s almost meaningless. Anyone that objects to things others are objecting to, shout cancel culture without a drop of self awareness

It may an over used phrase yes, but it still exists. No different to how racism, homophobia, and other such terms are over used. These things still exist however.

Tell me how

Hhhhh wrote: »

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries, Donald Trump tried to cancel Jim Acosta and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

Indeed cancel culture in its modern form started with McCarthyism in the 60's, and in the 90s there were attempts 'cancel' Eminem and Marilyn Manson by, in particular, the religious right.

Unfortunately, in even more recent times the progressive left have taken up the mantra and have been far more successful then they're 90's counterparts, and are making a good go at taking McCarthyists crown.

Tell me how

Hhhhh wrote: »

Indeed cancel culture in its modern form standard with McCarthyism in the 60's, and in the 90s there were attempts 'cancel' Eminem and Marilyn Manson by, in particular, the religious right.

Unfortunately, in even more recent times the progressive left have taken up the mantra and have been far more successful then they're 90's counterparts, and are making a good go at taking McCarthyists crown.

Can you give examples of cancel culture by the progressive left that you think are ridiculous.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give examples of cancel culture by the progressive left that you think are ridiculous.

I can, but I suspect no matter how many examples will be given, there will still be a denial that it is a thing or endless excuses.

Donald McNeill is a recent example. Excuse away

Cody montana

Tell me how wrote: »

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries, Donald Trump tried to cancel Jim Acosta and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

It’s the right that seems to be trying to cancel ever from Starbucks to Goodyear tyres.

briany

Cancel Culture would have been around in the 80s if smartphones had been invented by then. The smartphone and social networking apps have made it effortless to express outrage. There used to be a time where if you were annoyed by a TV show or something, you'd have to write a letter, and then post it off, with only a slim chance it would even be read on a programme like Right to Replay. Nowadays, you can do it from the bog. You can do it sat in from of the TV, when your annoyance is still at its freshest, and you can easily network and agree with people of the same opinion which amplifies the whole thing exponentially.

In the 80s, the 'woke' student type, now blamed for driving this phenomenon, was hilariously lampooned through the character of Rik from the Young Ones.

"Neil! Are these lentils South African???!!!!"

Neil: "Uh..."

Rik: "YOU BAST*RD!!! YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER BAST*RD!!!! Why dont you just go out and become a Policeman? Become a Pig? there's no difference you know?! I suppose you hate gay people too! Hippie!"

If you want to solve Cancel Culture, I have a very simple solution - ignore it, and also realise that the celebrities being cancelled has little to do with any altruistic intentions and much more to do with advertisers being terrified of seeing their bottom line drop even a little bit.

extra gravy

Cody montana wrote: »

It’s the right that seems to be trying to cancel ever from Starbucks to Goodyear tyres.

https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1388675644003921922?s=19

They'll be cancelling Joe next. Such a strange, hypocritical bunch.

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court. it’s already recently been packed, once by keeping open a court seat for almost a year, hindering the work of the Supreme Court, and still in another notable case where they rammed through a religious fundamentalist onto the court within days of a vacancy and while as many as 50 million votes were already cast, despite defending the need for the first year long vacancy because ‘we simply can’t support filling the seat in an election year’


Not very Democratic.

Fixed your post. Took a lot of fixing.

Faugheen

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

It wasn’t one seat.

They blocked any hearings for Merrick Garland because it was the seat of an ultra-conservative. They did so on the guise of it being an election year and that the people should decide.

Then 4 and a half years later, when a liberal Justice dies after 50 million people have voted for President. The same people who blocked Garland rushed through a protege of the previously mentioned ultra-conservative.

So the Republicans made up the rules to suit themselves and then broke the same rules to suit themselves. About time they got it back to them. They’ve already packed the court through their sh*thousery.

You know this, but hey it’s ‘democracy’ when it suits you.

Overheal

Faugheen wrote: »

It wasn’t one seat.

They blocked any hearings for Merrick Garland because it was the seat of an ultra-conservative. They did so on the guise of it being an election year and that the people should decide.

Then 4 and a half years later, when a liberal Justice dies after 50 million people have voted for President. The same people who blocked Garland rushed through a protege of the previously mentioned ultra-conservative.

So the Republicans made up the rules to suit themselves and then broke the same rules to suit themselves. About time they got it back to them. They’ve already packed the court through their sh*thousery.

You know this, but hey it’s ‘democracy’ when it suits you.

Mark my words too if they can manage to delay that until another Republican wins the WH they will pass it themselves then, and we will have a 10-3 majority to wrangle with.

Cody montana

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1388675644003921922?s=19

They'll be cancelling Joe next. Such a strange, hypocritical bunch.

There is a video of a presenter saying the dandelion was planted or joe to pick.
Technically he’s right.

Overheal

Two weeks ago they wouldn’t shut up about how Biden was still locking up children etc. this week they’ve gone back to calling him a socialist liberal

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-christie-says-bidens-governing-as-a-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-way-out-socialist-liberal/

I’m not sure what the message is when all you do is shout now meaningless labels around. Marxist is another nonsense term so often horribly misapplied that it has zero weight.

Professor Moriarty

Cody montana wrote: »

There is a video of a presenter saying the dandelion was planted or joe to pick.
Technically he’s right.

Here's some of what Newsmax's Grant Stinchfield said:

“Biden bizarrely gives Jill a dandelion.”

“And he stops and picks up—I think it’s a dandelion? But it’s a dandelion that hasn’t even blossomed into a flower yet, like it gives everybody asthma.”

"You blow it, it goes everywhere, and then everybody starts sneezing,”

“He picks up the weed and gives it to Jill in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of a sweet gesture, I say it was a planted dandelion there. Who knows?"


Climate change, pandemic, massive deficit etc. Forget that, Biden gave his wife a dandelion. Pathetic.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's some of what Newsmax's Grant Stinchfield said:

“Biden bizarrely gives Jill a dandelion.”

“And he stops and picks up—I think it’s a dandelion? But it’s a dandelion that hasn’t even blossomed into a flower yet, like it gives everybody asthma.”

"You blow it, it goes everywhere, and then everybody starts sneezing,”

“He picks up the weed and gives it to Jill in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of a sweet gesture, I say it was a planted dandelion there. Who knows?"


Climate change, pandemic, massive deficit etc. Forget that, Biden gave his wife a dandelion. Pathetic.

Was thinking who the fu°k is stupid enough to say dandelions gives everyone asthma, and who would be stupid enough to believe it, never mind the Biden angle. But given who make up their audience I'm not surprised.

Professor Moriarty

DubInMeath wrote: »

Was thinking who the fu°k is stupid enough to say dandelions gives everyone asthma, and who would be stupid enough to believe it, but given who make up their audience I'm not surprised.

Exactly. This is a country where 70% of Republicans still believe that Biden didn't win. So dandelions are important news.

Cody montana

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's some of what Newsmax's Grant Stinchfield said:

“Biden bizarrely gives Jill a dandelion.”

“And he stops and picks up—I think it’s a dandelion? But it’s a dandelion that hasn’t even blossomed into a flower yet, like it gives everybody asthma.”

"You blow it, it goes everywhere, and then everybody starts sneezing,”

“He picks up the weed and gives it to Jill in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of a sweet gesture, I say it was a planted dandelion there. Who knows?"


Climate change, pandemic, massive deficit etc. Forget that, Biden gave his wife a dandelion. Pathetic.

A comedy writer for a sitcom couldn't make this up.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. This is a country where 70% of Republicans still believe that Biden didn't win. So dandelions are important news.

The above is the reason cousins shouldn't procreate.

Dillonb3

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's some of what Newsmax's Grant Stinchfield said:

“Biden bizarrely gives Jill a dandelion.”

“And he stops and picks up—I think it’s a dandelion? But it’s a dandelion that hasn’t even blossomed into a flower yet, like it gives everybody asthma.”

"You blow it, it goes everywhere, and then everybody starts sneezing,”

“He picks up the weed and gives it to Jill in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of a sweet gesture, I say it was a planted dandelion there. Who knows?"


Climate change, pandemic, massive deficit etc. Forget that, Biden gave his wife a dandelion. Pathetic.

I'd imagine the right leaning media is going to get worse coming up to the midterms. Fox announced they got rid of one of their anchors who dared to question trump supporters over the Jan 6th riots

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-parts-ways-with-anchor-months-after-he-disappeared-from-the-air/

Manic Moran

Tell me how wrote: »

Yep. And right now there are 13 Federal Court circuits...

Correct. However, Congress apparently had the same thought you did, and effectively removed that argument about 150 years ago, and did so practically about 100 years ago.

Prior to 1869, Supreme Court judges performed what was known as "Circuit Riding" by default. They would be an active participant in the circuits and travel to the circuits to hear cases (It used to be two of the six judges were required to hear, but that was very quickly dropped to one per circuit as unreasonable). Hence the argument for one judge per circuit, they had to have the manning for circuit season, as it were. At the same time that Congress returned the number of Supreme Court Judges to 9 under Grant after that Johnson disagreement , Congress also created permanent Circuit court judgeships, thus dramatically reducing the requirements for S.C. judges to travel to the circuit courts (and thus also eliminating the argument for restoring the tenth judge).

Circuit Riding was officially eliminated altogether by Congress in 1911 at the same time that the circuit courts were abolished. (Well, the law was 1911, the abolishing was 01 JAN 1912). Thus there is no longer an argument to equate the amount of SCOTUS judges with the amount of circuits.

Faugheen wrote: »

It wasn’t one seat.

They blocked any hearings for Merrick Garland because it was the seat of an ultra-conservative. They did so on the guise of it being an election year and that the people should decide.

Then 4 and a half years later, when a liberal Justice dies after 50 million people have voted for President. The same people who blocked Garland rushed through a protege of the previously mentioned ultra-conservative.

So the Republicans made up the rules to suit themselves and then broke the same rules to suit themselves. About time they got it back to them. They’ve already packed the court through their sh*thousery.

You know this, but hey it’s ‘democracy’ when it suits you.

I agree with the argument, but not the required endstate. The argument being made about "successor should appoint" etc was total BS, and I doubt many people failed to see through the theater to see this. What surprises me is that they put forward that stupidity as there was no need to create the argument in the first place. It is up to the Senate to confirm judges, if they don't want to, they don't have to, and they don't have to provide an excuse for it. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time the Senate simply said "No, we won't appoint your choice because it's you"

It's worth noting that with the possible exception of Lincoln's, and the threat by FDR, the 'political' changes to the court makeup have been generally to deny appointments, not to pack the court. A subtle but important difference given the effective length of a denial vs an appointment.

[Edit. That's not to say I particularly approve of a blank refusal, I'm just saying it wasn't necessary to come up with a BS statement to do it. One would -hope- that for practical reasons, the Senate would at least consider a nominee, just the President would have to nominate someone acceptable to the Senate]

Faugheen

Manic Moran wrote: »

I agree with the argument, but not the required endstate. The argument being made about "successor should appoint" etc was total BS, and I doubt many people failed to see through the theater to see this. What surprises me is that they put forward that stupidity as there was no need to create the argument in the first place. It is up to the Senate to confirm judges, if they don't want to, they don't have to, and they don't have to provide an excuse for it. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time the Senate simply said "No, we won't appoint your choice because it's you"

It's worth noting that with the possible exception of Lincoln's, and the threat by FDR, the 'political' changes to the court makeup have been generally to deny appointments, not to pack the court. A subtle but important difference given the effective length of a denial vs an appointment.

[Edit. That's not to say I particularly approve of a blank refusal, I'm just saying it wasn't necessary to come up with a BS statement to do it. One would -hope- that for practical reasons, the Senate would at least consider a nominee, just the President would have to nominate someone acceptable to the Senate]

Garland was acceptable. If I remember correctly some top Republican Senators said Obama wouldn’t have the balls to nominate a moderate like Garland. When he did, McConnell blocked any hearing because he knows he wouldn’t be able to whip the GOP moderates to voting against him, so he came up with an excuse instead not anticipating that RBG’s seat would come up.

Professor Moriarty

duploelabs wrote: »

How can an account with only 13 posts know what this thread was like before?

Ouch!

EddieN75

duploelabs wrote: »

How can an account with only 13 posts know what this thread was like before?

Finishing move

Tom Mann Centuria

Not a fan of Biden particularly, but nice touch of his to visit Jimmy Carter. Didn't realise how cut off he'd been from the Democratic party and all their Presidents that followed him.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/maureen-dowd-biden-brings-jimmy-carter-in-from-the-cold-1.4553680

Carfacemandog

Brian? wrote: »

The “PC Brigade” don’t exist.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Or cancel culture.

They do I my opiniom. But they have existed for decades if not centuries, and on both sides of the political aisle. Just look at how Germany react to holocaust deniers, RTEs policy towards Sinn Fein, or George Bush's free speech zones (where free speech was not allowed outside of) for some quick examples. Likewise for rules for public speaking, hate speech laws, etc etc.

It's not always a bad thing and those who blindly "I don't have to what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it" without any context whatsoever are no different than some 19yo in a Che Guevara t shirt (without really knowing who he was) calling for a socialist revolution (without really knowing what it is) when it comes to naivete. They tend to fall silent, dodge the question or change their tune (even if only temporarily) when some hard examples are put to them.

It's the pretending that this is something new from certain bad faith actors and from the products of data scientists on social media that I find irritating, and the lack of critical thinking that I find

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, here's the 411 on changes.

Originally SCOTUS was six judges, four was required for a quorum.
In 1800 after losing an election, and with the resignation of the Chief Justice, John Adams nominated his replacement, then the congress (also getting thrown out) reduced the size of the court to 5, effective after the next resignation/death so Jefferson couldn't appoint anyone.

This was immediately repealed by the Jefferson administration and Congress a couple of months later, and since nobody had died or resigned, the number remained at 6.

As federal court circuits were added, first to seven, then to nine, the amount of judges was increased accordingly, by Jefferson and his Congress, then Jackson and his.

Lincoln added a tenth circuit in 1863, and with it a 10th justice, convenient for him as he wanted to overturn Dredd Scott (notorious even today slavery case). It didn't last long. After Lincoln was killed, Congress and Johnson were not seeing eye to eye, and they dropped the number back down to seven to make sure he couldn't appoint anyone. Again, as the judges were appointed for life, they couldn't be fired or forced to resign.

After Johnson was voted out and replaced by Grant, the number was returned to nine again.

And that is part of the argument for 13 today as there are now 13 Federal Circuit courts.

It's not a number just randomly picked out of the air.

And as can been seen by the helpful potted history above from Manic , pretty much every single change to the numbers on the court was an attempt by one side or the other to limit their opponents.

Muahahaha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's some of what Newsmax's Grant Stinchfield said:

“Biden bizarrely gives Jill a dandelion.”

“And he stops and picks up—I think it’s a dandelion? But it’s a dandelion that hasn’t even blossomed into a flower yet, like it gives everybody asthma.”

"You blow it, it goes everywhere, and then everybody starts sneezing,”

“He picks up the weed and gives it to Jill in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of a sweet gesture, I say it was a planted dandelion there. Who knows?"


Climate change, pandemic, massive deficit etc. Forget that, Biden gave his wife a dandelion. Pathetic.

I just looked it up and it turns out dandelions originated in Eurasia so its not even a native American flower. This could be Bidens dijon mustard moment, its completely un-American to hand someone a dandelion

Overheal

Muahahaha wrote: »

I just looked it up and it turns out dandelions originated in Eurasia so its not even a native American flower. This could be Bidens dijon mustard moment, its completely un-American to hand someone a dandelion

You know mustard is a flower too

We are through the looking glass here folks

Cody montana

Muahahaha wrote: »

I just looked it up and it turns out dandelions originated in Eurasia so its not even a native American flower. This could be Bidens dijon mustard moment, its completely un-American to hand someone a dandelion

Surprised the haven't accused of him murdering the dandelion.

EddieN75

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-proving-progressives-wrong-they-re-loving-it-n1265089

The progressives are loving Joe Biden reports NBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/75-percent-of-stock-owners-wont-pay-bidens-likely-capital-gains-tax-hike.html

3/4 of stock owners won't be liable for tax increases reports CNBC.
This is because 3/4 bought stick as part of their pension or 401k as it is known plan.
The regular people.
The millionaires will pay extra tax though

There is something for everyone from Joe

Overheal

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-proving-progressives-wrong-they-re-loving-it-n1265089

The progressives are loving Joe Biden reports NBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/75-percent-of-stock-owners-wont-pay-bidens-likely-capital-gains-tax-hike.html

3/4 of stock owners won't be liable for tax increases reports CNBC.
This is because 3/4 bought stick as part of their pension or 401k as it is known plan.
The regular people.
The millionaires will pay extra tax though

There is something for everyone from Joe

If you’ve been following up with Robinhood and Gamestonks etc. that’s unsurprising, most stock holders are in for a penny. Including myself.

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And that is part of the argument for 13 today as there are now 13 Federal Circuit courts.

It's not a number just randomly picked out of the air.

And as can been seen by the helpful potted history above from Manic , pretty much every single change to the numbers on the court was an attempt by one side or the other to limit their opponents.

Correct, with two very large caveats.

The first is my second post on the matter: Congress did a major reorganisation of the US's judicial system over a century ago and divorced any requirement to align the number of judges with the number of federal circuits. Arguing "13 circuits means 13 judges" is just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope it sticks.

The other being that the changes were generally made to limit opponents, as opposed to enabling selves.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

If you’ve been following up with Robinhood and Gamestonks etc. that’s unsurprising, most stock holders are in for a penny. Including myself.

I've been putting money into stock for years and it wouldn't touch me.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Correct, with two very large caveats.

The first is my second post on the matter: Congress did a major reorganisation of the US's judicial system over a century ago and divorced any requirement to align the number of judges with the number of federal circuits. Arguing "13 circuits means 13 judges" is just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope it sticks.

The other being that the changes were generally made to limit opponents, as opposed to enabling selves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't a bipartisan commission been set up to make reccomendation and everything else is guesswork?

Tell me how

Brian? wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't a bipartisan commission been set up to make reccomendation and everything else is guesswork?

Yes, and it's likely not going to report back until late in the year meaning that it'll be next year before there is any meaningful conversation about this and next year is an election year which further complicates things.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't a bipartisan commission been set up to make reccomendation and everything else is guesswork?

Yes, and sortof. It is limited in breadth. The 1869/1911 legislation which removed the argument for one Supreme Court Judge per Federal Circuit were pieces of legislation which reworked the entire US judicial system. However, https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/09/biden-releases-names-of-members-of-his-judicial-reform-commission/
One interesting aspect of the Commission is that its mandate will be limited to considering proposals to reform the Supreme Court only

Thus if the commission is not tasked with anything relating to the functioning of the Federal Circuits, it seems unlikely that an argument aligning the Supreme and Circuit courts which currently function with very little Supreme Court input will pass muster.

That's not to say the commission may or may not argue in favor of increasing the size of the Court (though that writer believes it unlikely) but it seems the circuit argument will be poorly founded.

FWIW,
this is a genuinely bipartisan and cross-ideological group.[...]I won't go through their credentials here. But the commissioners, both left and right, are an impressive group with a vast array of knowledge and experience collectively including almost every aspect of the Supreme Court's work.

As I predicted back in January, the composition of the Commission is also bad news for advocates of court-packing, who may have hoped that it will produce a report endorsing the idea. Obviously, I am confident none of the right-of-center members would endorse such an idea. But several of the liberals (including co-chair Bob Bauer and Laurence Tribe) are also on record opposing it.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, and it's likely not going to report back until late in the year meaning that it'll be next year before there is any meaningful conversation about this and next year is an election year which further complicates things.

Crazy how roughly every other year is an election year. Surely one must become sick to death of politics living over there.

Overheal

Hhhhh wrote: »

Crazy how roughly every other year is an election year. Surely one must become sick to death of politics living over there.

Literally every other year, and in some cases yearly with some states having off-beat elections.

ohnonotgmail

Hhhhh wrote: »

Crazy how roughly every other year is an election year. Surely one must become sick to death of politics living over there.

nothing roughly about it. There are federal elections at least every 2 years. there are sometimes federal election on off-years as well when special elections required due a death or resignation.

Manic Moran

We had city elections on Saturday. Mayor, city council, and a couple of propositions.