politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
honestly you changed my mind on it. I was leaning toward a 15 member court but a 31-35 member court would (1) get so fucking much done and (2) allow each president to seat enough justices that they felt they made a sizable historical dent on the court that hopefully they wouldn't try to ratfuck it so much (and my pony will breath fire). we've been talking (at least amongst my legal circles) about massively expanding the appellate courts for years, why are we not talking the same about the supreme courts?
part of the problem is ruling on nationwide edicts. they'd need to seat the entire damn court en banc and vote en banc (latin legal term. it means the whole damn group of judges). i'm not sure how to make it seem fair otherwise. which slows the court back down to its current pace.
I'm not too worried about the speed, slowing down the process would probably be good in many cases.
I don't see a problem in seating them all. They have to show up for work every day, like anyone else. If it's a court day, they're expected to be there.
justice delayed is justice denied. i know it's a quip but it's true. when you have to go through the legal system what little justice you get comes far too late as it is. we need more judges so we can process things faster so people don't have to sit in jail waiting for their cases because they can't afford bail (which shouldn't exist in the first place but don't get me started. or let me go off further)