Thank you for sewing it all together so neatly; I haven’t wanted to drink at 9 am in a long time.
If we win back the senate, other than some whining and false equivalency, what does the GOP do in response? Is there a danger of the GOP filing suit against the reforms in the same pellet blast style that’s used against Roe? Filing every suit they can think of in every state until they find a way in?
There’s a persuasive argument they can make to the electorate about cheating when their suits get filed only in jurisdictions where newly appointed/democratic appointed judges will reject or rule against them. It wouldn’t be about facts (again) but how you can sell that.
Is there a remedy to that? Or do we just batten down the hatches?
Thank you for tying these court cases together to tell such a clear, compelling story. There's an equally alarming pattern on voting rights cases in appellate courts, many populated with new Trump-nominated majorities. Hence Mitch McConnell's blockade of President Obama's circuit court nominations. It wasn't just Merrick Garland.
If a (knock on wood) Biden administration and Democratic-controlled Congress decide to move forward with any of the court reform proposals you mention, it's going to be really important to present them in a context that most ordinary voters can understand and appreciate. R's will engage in their usual projection, labelling them as evidence of D brute political calculation. If all we can say is "well you did it, so..." we'll fall into their trap.
Ironically, I think we're fortunate that Joe Biden has expressed skepticism on these ideas. He'll need to be convinced by something more than political tit-for-tat. That should help with the court of public opinion.
I just... I don't get how modern democracy has gotten to this point. A $75M donation from ONE individual? How on earth does this hold up to the one voice, one vote standard? How on earth can the top court argue that the mass public influence bought by $75M(!) is equal to the influence from a Walmart shift supervisor's vote?
Keep fighting Dan, I'm glad someone is unashamedly pushing for a larger top court.
Thank you for sewing it all together so neatly; I haven’t wanted to drink at 9 am in a long time.
If we win back the senate, other than some whining and false equivalency, what does the GOP do in response? Is there a danger of the GOP filing suit against the reforms in the same pellet blast style that’s used against Roe? Filing every suit they can think of in every state until they find a way in?
There’s a persuasive argument they can make to the electorate about cheating when their suits get filed only in jurisdictions where newly appointed/democratic appointed judges will reject or rule against them. It wouldn’t be about facts (again) but how you can sell that.
Is there a remedy to that? Or do we just batten down the hatches?
Thank you for tying these court cases together to tell such a clear, compelling story. There's an equally alarming pattern on voting rights cases in appellate courts, many populated with new Trump-nominated majorities. Hence Mitch McConnell's blockade of President Obama's circuit court nominations. It wasn't just Merrick Garland.
If a (knock on wood) Biden administration and Democratic-controlled Congress decide to move forward with any of the court reform proposals you mention, it's going to be really important to present them in a context that most ordinary voters can understand and appreciate. R's will engage in their usual projection, labelling them as evidence of D brute political calculation. If all we can say is "well you did it, so..." we'll fall into their trap.
Ironically, I think we're fortunate that Joe Biden has expressed skepticism on these ideas. He'll need to be convinced by something more than political tit-for-tat. That should help with the court of public opinion.
I just... I don't get how modern democracy has gotten to this point. A $75M donation from ONE individual? How on earth does this hold up to the one voice, one vote standard? How on earth can the top court argue that the mass public influence bought by $75M(!) is equal to the influence from a Walmart shift supervisor's vote?
Keep fighting Dan, I'm glad someone is unashamedly pushing for a larger top court.