![](/static/790fef6/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemm.ee/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fslrpnk.net%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fe82bd59d-d50f-4917-9301-ab6ce08a6c80.png)
Australia doesn’t have neighbors…
Australia doesn’t have neighbors…
There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it’s just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.
Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it’s not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.
On that last part, you’re not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an “official act”.
Biden doesn’t. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.
What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn’t have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.
Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it’s not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R’s will respect the filibuster if it’s in their way at this point though.
Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.
So we need record turnout for that. Vote.
He’s not a dictator. Most of those would never pass in the Senate.
Owning a house is fine, being a landlord is despicable.
It is thinner, and would absolutely pour off a spoon slowly like lava.
Type-C ports are a lot more sensitive to dirt in my experience. I can keep it working if I clean the port every couple weeks, but at this point I just pretend phones don’t have charging ports.
That in the very real and current contest between Biden and Trump that Biden at least supports Ukraine, whereas Trump supports Russia and would likely support Isreal to the extent of starting WWIII in the middle east to bring about the apocalypse for his evangelical base, who earnestly believe they’ll be raptured to heaven while the rest of us live through a nightmarish helscape. Which is looking less crazy by the day because some people won’t vote for an old man who doesn’t 100% align with their political views vs fanatical insanity spearheaded by an also old man.
And then got virtually all of their demands pushed through?
He’s the commander in chief of the US military. If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority, it’s essentially unlimited.
Kamala Harris, the Vice President becomes President for the remainder of the term. If the President and Vice president die at the same time, the speaker of the house becomes president. There’s a very long list of successors beyond that as well.
Yep, my wife has seen my little baby wiener. The awkward teenage pictures were far more embarrassing though. Hers are buried in a hoarder house so I might never get to see her embarrassing school band photos.
Conservative: “Then they need to increase taxes! Oh wait…”
Conservatives literally believe that lowering taxes increases tax revenue by increasing the total revenue to be taxed by more than the decrease caused by a lower rate.
Honestly I’m kinda OK with that.
A) the legal drinking age, age of consent, voting age, and age of Draft/ military eligibility should be the same. Whether that’s 21 or 18 or whatever is up for debate, but if you’re old enough to kill people at your country’s behest you should be old enough to decide what goes in your body.
B) Lots of countries are pretty lax about kids drinking small amounts of alcohol, and it doesn’t lead to increased negative outcomes.
Dying won’t do you much good at getting the future you want. There’s a long history of violent anarchists and socialists that killed or died for their beliefs, and none of that violence led to progress.
I think maybe your ego is a little beyond realistic. My life or yours are will make barely more than an infinitesimal difference in the world. But enough slightly above infinitesimal add up. Maybe be the person that made the world very very slightly better rather than the one that died for nothing?
Reform has made huge differences in our lives, from the magna carta to union activity to the civil rights struggle. Things are immensely better than they were in the 1500s, and it was all incremental.