Packing the courts would be overdoing it @inwa

@Zuluzeit That therapist was probably either dumber or less brave than you. Very unbecoming for a therapist.

and relevant to the scotus discussion is that fact that the Democrats can only pack the court if they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency in order to change the number ... and if they might very well control both houses if Trump fanatics in GA get their way https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/26/trump-conspiracies-georgia-senate-440776

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWBPmHv9jY0&feature=emb_title

Amazing

How do you know Republicans will not pack the courts in retaliation ?

(they'd be idiots not to)

They will

I want 100k SC justices

I want to be one of them; I hear they get good perks

But if it’s “packed “ to a balance there would be less of a motivation to

meh

I disagree

well yes, there would be less

Could start a precedent to keep the court balanced

but not enough less

"well, HAL, I feel that doubt is with me constantly, and I agree that those were odd circumstances. How do you feel about this yourself?"

Also, Verily pulling from Beijing due to biologics and MindRay is like ex NSA victim shaming...a Mork and Mindy episode, actually. Nanu-nanu.

:vomit:

@Doc She was a good person. I felt bad for her for most of the year I knew her. She did help me though, for sure. I am not easy to work with. I knew when we were done. Haven't seen a therapist since then.

I don't want balance between politically motivated judicial activists and non-activists

Until someone comes along and breaks norms again @realz

the activists must go

I don't want to set a new norm

@Zuluzeit yes you have.

I want to _destroy_ it

the SC is a 9umvirate

as long as they espouse judicial activism, they are taking over the role of the legislatures

@Doc lol cryptic

What is judicial activism anyways

@Zuluzeit what do you call this?

😄

cant you see me?

Hahaha

@james j it is where a judge says "I will make the judgement that results in the best '_moral_' outcome instead of making a judgement on what the constitution or law says"

(then they "interpret" the constitution and law around that)

it is basically an explicit injection of politics into the legal system

@Doc to be clear, that wasn't my issue though. It was much more silly than that.

@Zuluzeit No such thing. Every topic worth honestly approaching another human with always touches on existence, if you peal it.

Can’t people just using tactics to say this is or is not constitutional with their own interpretations @realz I think having a dogmatic constitution could be just as much of a problem

@Doc rather, less directly threatening.