Election 2020

[Classic-Xer]

(09-21-2020, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 05:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 04:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 03:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 05:17 AM)Isoko Wrote: ClassicX, 

It dosent matter. You cannot in a Democratic election say you would like to sign an executive order to ban the other guy from running. Especially if you are the president. 

Eric is right. Presidents in the past have been impeached for less. A whole lot less. Nixon barely did anything or said anything wrong compared to what Trump is doing. I see Eric and the other boomers point on here with this one.

Dude, we can say whatever we want in this country and agree with whatever we want in this country. Yes. Eric is right. Trump was recently impeached for less and I wouldn't be surprised to see him impeached again by the Democrats in Congress before they leave office. You must be young or wet behind the ears to see what Trump said as troublesome. Me, I had a large group of Left wing rioters and looters and some protestors raising hell less than two miles away from my home which was way more troublesome. I'm glad they got smart and decided it was wise to turn around or I may have had to shoot some of them.

Dude, you are free to be very wrong. You have no right to turn your beliefs into the reality that others know without winning consent.

You are free to believe that the Earth is flat.

True. I'm free to be wrong, you're free to be wrong and Isoko is free to be wrong too. I'm free to believe the Earth is round or flat and free to express it too. You're free to vote for Biden and elect Biden without my consent as well. Hell, you're even free to tell everyone that I believe the Earth is flat or tell everyone whatever I have to say about some black person on the Democratic side that you don't like or believe is true is racist or fascist too.

Given the level of reality denial that exists in the USA today, I would not be surprised if Classic Xer or some conspiracy wackos or Trump himself begins to claim that the Earth is flat.

I even have friends already to, when asked to prove that contrails are chemtrails that have aluminum and barium deliberately inserted to poison the people and cause global warming, they point to the sky and say, see!

I've been on a large body of water and seen the tips of tree's as we were approaching land.

[David Horn]

(09-21-2020, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Yeah, BTW! Biden is speaking well now and not stumbling over his words. I don't know why, but his senility is no longer blatantly obvious. I'm not so sure about you Classic Xer, as your ideas and values are totally sclerotic.

I suspect he was less senile than a bit out of practice in the speech department.  He has a serious stuttering problem, and that never totally disappears.  Regular practice keeps it under control, so Biden should be as good as he'll get by debate time.   Trump continues to just ramble and bluster, which is just what his followers (and no one else) prefer.

[David Horn]

(09-21-2020, 03:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Reagan didn't start showing some obvious signs until the end of his second term. Woodrow Wilson doesn't matter today. I'm sorry but Trump is still pretty sharp and able to think on his feet and still pretty  energetic as well.

Trump just rambles ... no thought is involved, as far as I can tell.

[pbrower2a]

(09-22-2020, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 03:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Reagan didn't start showing some obvious signs until the end of his second term. Woodrow Wilson doesn't matter today. I'm sorry but Trump is still pretty sharp and able to think on his feet and still pretty  energetic as well.

Trump just rambles ... no thought is involved, as far as I can tell.

It may be little more than intellectual laziness. Most people find something interesting enough aside from their pleasure and self-esteem to attract their attention. I must; I bore myself.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-22-2020, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 03:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Reagan didn't start showing some obvious signs until the end of his second term. Woodrow Wilson doesn't matter today. I'm sorry but Trump is still pretty sharp and able to think on his feet and still pretty  energetic as well.

Trump just rambles ... no thought is involved, as far as I can tell.

He'll ramble about some trivial stuff that doesn't matter to us.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-22-2020, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Yeah, BTW! Biden is speaking well now and not stumbling over his words. I don't know why, but his senility is no longer blatantly obvious. I'm not so sure about you Classic Xer, as your ideas and values are totally sclerotic.

I suspect he was less senile than a bit out of practice in the speech department.  He has a serious stuttering problem, and that never totally disappears.  Regular practice keeps it under control, so Biden should be as good as he'll get by debate time.   Trump continues to just ramble and bluster, which is just what his followers (and no one else) prefer.

We'll see in a couple weeks.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-22-2020, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Yeah, BTW! Biden is speaking well now and not stumbling over his words. I don't know why, but his senility is no longer blatantly obvious. I'm not so sure about you Classic Xer, as your ideas and values are totally sclerotic.

I suspect he was less senile than a bit out of practice in the speech department.  He has a serious stuttering problem, and that never totally disappears.  Regular practice keeps it under control, so Biden should be as good as he'll get by debate time.   Trump continues to just ramble and bluster, which is just what his followers (and no one else) prefer.

He's a career politician. He's not campaigning like Trump because he's unable to campaign like Trump.

[pbrower2a]

(09-22-2020, 11:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-22-2020, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Biden is the first senile (it's blatantly obvious) Presidential candidate running for office we've ever seen. By all right's,  he shouldn't be running for President of The United States.

Actually, we've had several.  Reagan's last run certainly qualifies, and Woodrow Wilson's may have as well. The most recent was in 2016, and Mr. Senility won. BTW, he's running again.

Yeah, BTW! Biden is speaking well now and not stumbling over his words. I don't know why, but his senility is no longer blatantly obvious. I'm not so sure about you Classic Xer, as your ideas and values are totally sclerotic.

I suspect he was less senile than a bit out of practice in the speech department.  He has a serious stuttering problem, and that never totally disappears.  Regular practice keeps it under control, so Biden should be as good as he'll get by debate time.   Trump continues to just ramble and bluster, which is just what his followers (and no one else) prefer.

He's a career politician. He's not campaigning like Trump because he's unable to campaign like Trump.

I heard a Labor Day speech by Biden. At first it was awful. Once he warmed up, he was more than adequate. Maybe he needs to rehearse a little before giving a speech, but that is fine. All good actors rehearse. Think of Ronald Reagan. 

In contrast, Donald Trump sounds more like a shock jock, someone who is satisfied to offend a large part of a national audience. That takes little learning... maybe some market research onto how to excite some people. Someone like "Rash Libel" can offend or bore 70% of Americans and please 30%. Guess what that makes him? A star! Someone who can have a mansion in Beverly Hills and a getaway in Carmel. Someone able to own a fleet of expensive cars. 

....

OK, Classic X'er -- Trump is unique in American politics for his style, at least within the twentieth and twenty-first  century. I see a catastrophic failure as President in part because he did none of what one expects of someone who becomes President. He has never held elective office. He has never been a soldier of high rank. He has never been a cabinet official. He has been a businessman, but although we have had Presidents who had business interests before going into politics, those have little bearing on how someone did politics.  Did it really matter that Jimmy Carter was a peanut grower? Did it matter that for a short time that Harry Truman was a haberdasher and had made investments in oil that he sold out too soon? 

Trump is typical of tycoons and executives in operating on a "my highway or the highway" basis in relationships to others. Such people manage in part by making people dependent upon them for sustenance or for the ability to deal with an 'account'. Trump may not quite have the power of a Josef Stalin who can wield the power of life and death over a subordinate, but he can make things so that one loses a job and has to start well below where he was. Maybe an accountant that he fires for the fun of it doesn't have to live off his retirement funds before getting desperate and having to work as a store clerk, but anyone who works in the American capitalist system knows that everything that he has he can lose with an extended term of unemployment. 

The government of the United States is one of the largest enterprises in existence. It is not a business. The chain of command of the President may in theory go down to the letter carrier, but for obvious reasons the President doesn't command that person down to the level of determining that letter carrier's route. Federal judges are not responsible to him; we have an independent judiciary. No elected official is responsible to the President. Your side had no loyalty to Obama, and ours has none to Trump. Loyalty to someone in our political system is to be earned. It is easy to lose. 

He has earned my contempt and has kept expanding it.  

I am not going to say that Donald Trump is the last of his type. Maybe in seventy-five to eighty years, when  the oldest people in responsible positions will have never known him no longer heed the warning signs we will be vulnerable to a demagogue as callow as he. It could be a left-wing demagogue like the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, perhaps exploiting change that has moved too fast for the comfort of some, economic distress that hasn't been relieved fast enough (eighty years from now America will be in another Crisis Era), and in which people dread giving up some old habits that they can't imagine abandoning.

[David Horn]

(09-22-2020, 11:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-22-2020, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: I suspect (Biden) was less senile than a bit out of practice in the speech department.  He has a serious stuttering problem, and that never totally disappears.  Regular practice keeps it under control, so Biden should be as good as he'll get by debate time.   Trump continues to just ramble and bluster, which is just what his followers (and no one else) prefer.

He's a career politician. He's not campaigning like Trump because he's unable to campaign like Trump.

Trump just doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, so having massive rallies without masks is fine, as long as everyone near him has one on. If they get too sick to vote, he'll be pissed about that--pissed at them!

[Eric the Green]

If we don't want to let Classic Xer have his way, and have to consider the pros and cons of secession, then the Democrats need a big win in the Senate.

RBG's untimely death is in my opinion potentially the worst USA national tragedy since JFK. The congress needs to use all available tactics to block the vote for her successor.

If that fails, the Democrats need to win a several-seat majority this November so that they can overturn the filibuster and pack the Court. They will need more than a majority so that a few reluctant Democrats can't stop filibuster and Court reform. The Democrats currently lead by 5 points or more in Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina, the 4 states they need to take control if Harris becomes VP. They are also tied or a point ahead in Georgia (Ossoff vs. Perdue), South Carolina (Harrison vs. Graham) and Iowa (Greenfield vs. Ernst), and are about 1 point behind in Montana (Bullock vs. Daines). If the Democrats surge, they are within about 5 points in Alaska, Texas, Georgia (Warnock vs. Loeffler), and Kansas, and Amy McGrath is getting lots of donations to throw against Moscow Mitch in Kentucky. Some claim that the Democrats can win in Mississippi. Democratic Senator Jones in Alabama seems likely to be deposed.

If Kelly in AZ and Warnock in GA both win their special elections, they could take office in late November and stop the nomination if it is blocked that long. I don't know if McConnell or the governor of AZ could block them from taking office, but by law they are supposed to be seated right away. Blocking until January might be easier too when Kelly takes office.

Fall back measures if the Democrats win include reducing the filibuster to 55 rather than eliminating it, but if they can only do that, they should put back the filibuster to 55 for the Supreme Court too. The Democrats also need to make Puerto Rico a state and provide DC with two senators as soon as they can, to help balance the electoral college and the senate from its rural and southern majority, originally created to keep slave states in the union in 1787.

Term limits for the Court have also been suggested, and I wonder if this could be made retroactive. I doubt it. Another idea is that the extra justices could be seated with the proviso that when future justices are added, they don't need to be replaced on death or retirement until the number goes back down to 9. The fanatical and extreme, ruthless nature of the Republican minority that now controls our country through the Senate, Electoral College and Supreme Court is, in my estimation, a temporary aberration, and so these court packing and filibuster measures could be made temporary as well.

[David Horn]

(09-23-2020, 01:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fall back measures in the Democrats win include reducing the filibuster to 55 rather than eliminating it, but if they can only do that, they should put back the filibuster to 55 for the Supreme Court too. The Democrats also need to make Puerto Rico a state and provide DC with two senators as soon as they can, to help balance the electoral college and the senate from its rural and southern majority, originally created to keep slave states in the union in 1787.

The filibuster is arbitrary, so it can be changed at the beginning of any new Congress. For now, it needs to go, if and only if the Dems intend to fight fire with fire, and legislate like crazy. Roe v Wade needs to be Federal Law, not a SCOTUS ruling. And the court? That needs to be restructured and quick.

Eric Wrote:Term limits for the Court have also been suggested, and I wonder if this could be made retroactive. I doubt it. Another idea is that the extra justices could be seated with the proviso that when future justices are added, they don't need to be replaced on death or retirement until the number goes back down to 9. The fanatical and extreme, ruthless nature of the Republican minority that now controls our country through the Senate, Electoral College and Supreme Court is, in my estimation, a temporary aberration, and so these court packing and filibuster measures could be made temporary as well.

Terms can be limited if the court is restructured. Suitable options: Every President gets 2 nominees per term, and the Justices serve a single 18 year term. It's been discussed in the past, and now may be the time.

[Eric the Green]

Presidential election polling averages Sept.23, 7 PM EDT
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol.../national/

National Biden +7.3

Arizona Biden +3.8
Colorado Biden +10.1
Florida Biden +1.7
Georgia Trump +1.1
Iowa Trump +1.0
Kansas Trump +9.3
Louisiana Trump +10.7 (included this time; to be watched to see if Trump's lead here slips into leaning territory)
Michigan Biden +7.5
Minnesota Biden +9.2
Missouri Trump +6.7
Montana Trump +8.0
Nevada Biden +5.8
New Hampshire Biden +6.9
North Carolina Biden +1.2
Ohio Trump +1.0
Pennsylvania Biden +4.6
South Carolina Trump +6.8
Texas Trump +0.7
Virginia Biden +11.3 (I might omit this state from the list if Biden's lead here grows further)
Wisconsin Biden +6.8

[Bob Butler 54]

Tonight Rachel Maddow got into a specific plan that she believes Trump has to void the election.  The first step is creating doubt about mail in elections.  The next step depends on the state legislatures.  It is traditional that electoral college members are selected by the winners of elections held by the state, but the Constitution says the states determine the method.  The states deciding means the state legislators.  In any states where the Republicans hold the legislatures, they can technically throw out the votes and select electors by the vote of the legislatures only… after a supposedly rigged and fraudulent mail in process is already going on.

This method of legislators selecting electors has not been used in a century or so, but the Trump national campaign has reportedly already contacted the legislatures in preparation for doing this.

The third step is getting a majority of the Supreme Court to go along with it.  That is part of why he is trying to get someone seated there ASAP.

Rachel is not the only one to take Trump’s talk of getting rid of the ballots seriously.  Representative Schiff of California and the House Intelligence Committee is pushing it too.

Definitely worth watching.

[Eric the Green]

Yes, this is even worse than I thought.

Wisconsin is the most-likely scene, and probably North Carolina.

What can we do if Trump is installed as president in this way?

[Eric the Green]

(09-23-2020, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-23-2020, 01:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fall back measures in the Democrats win include reducing the filibuster to 55 rather than eliminating it, but if they can only do that, they should put back the filibuster to 55 for the Supreme Court too. The Democrats also need to make Puerto Rico a state and provide DC with two senators as soon as they can, to help balance the electoral college and the senate from its rural and southern majority, originally created to keep slave states in the union in 1787.

The filibuster is arbitrary, so it can be changed at the beginning of any new Congress.  For now, it needs to go, if and only if the Dems intend to fight fire with fire, and legislate like crazy.  Roe v Wade needs to be Federal Law, not a SCOTUS ruling. And the court?  That needs to be restructured and quick.

Eric Wrote:Term limits for the Court have also been suggested, and I wonder if this could be made retroactive. I doubt it. Another idea is that the extra justices could be seated with the proviso that when future justices are added, they don't need to be replaced on death or retirement until the number goes back down to 9. The fanatical and extreme, ruthless nature of the Republican minority that now controls our country through the Senate, Electoral College and Supreme Court is, in my estimation, a temporary aberration, and so these court packing and filibuster measures could be made temporary as well.

Terms can be limited if the court is restructured.  Suitable options: Every President gets 2 nominees per term, and the Justices serve a single 18 year term.  It's been discussed in the past, and now may be the time.

Absolutely. Some Democrats have cold feet, and Durbin was tepid about all this on the Newshour tonight. We need to put fires under them. I wrote him and others an email.

[Eric the Green]

‘Chilling’: Hayes Unpacks Trump’s Vast And Ongoing Project To Steal The Election

[Bob Butler 54]

The last time there was a contested election similar this was the election of 1896 - 1877.  Both major candidates presented electors for three southern states, with lots of accusations about voter intimidation, fraud and ballot box stuffing.  It was found the Constitution did not specify what to do.  Congress created a commission with members of the House, Senate and Supreme Court to decide.  Behind the scenes, a deal was struck that the Republicans would get the presidency, but the Democrats (who at that time were the rural, southern, racist party, unlike today) got the federal troops occupying the south to leave, the Reconstruction to end, and as it turned out the Jim Crow era soon commenced.

One way to get around a messy situation is for the election to be so lopsided that the states with Republican controlled legislatures do not have enough electoral votes to change the result.  Biden could then concede the madness and still win.  This is especially possible if the Republican plans to void the election cannot be kept secret.  It is hard to get the state legislatures involved to try to throw away the election in a premeditated fashion... secretly.  Somebody will leak the obvious.  We might even have Republicans with a conscience, though so far such people have been rare indeed.

Another way, should the election not result in a clear winner, is to declare no firm result.  A state that cannot present a clear result gets no electors. Trump's first term ends on January 20th, and given the lack of a decisive election the Speaker of the House becomes president.  The Democrats could put Biden in by verifying him as Vice President, then Nancy resigns.

One other question is how loyal the Supreme Court justices are to the party that nominated them.  Will a majority of the Court give blessing to an obvious coup.

Lots of plans and counter plans.  We will see how it plays out.

[Bob Butler 54]

A summary of the relevant part of Rachel's show posted as the full show link has been apparently deleted.  The full show would include Schiff's comments as well, but these just reinforced Rachel.

[pbrower2a]

(09-23-2020, 01:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If we don't want to let Classic Xer have his way, and have to consider the pros and cons of secession, then the Democrats need a big win in the Senate.

RBG's untimely death is in my opinion potentially the worst USA national tragedy since JFK. The congress needs to use all available tactics to block the vote for her successor.

Potentially as important: Democrats need to get a Senate majority so that they can filibuster any Trump hack as a nominee for Associate Justice  between January 3 and January 21, 2021.  The optimal solution would be for the President to nominate some moderate (as if moderation is any way a part of the President's character) in return for a binding commitment by Democrats to not pack the Court. It is not up to any Party to change the rules of politics at its convenience -- unless that Party is to become a "leading force" (the language that recognized Communist Parties as dominant in some countries until 1989. .  

Quote:If that fails, the Democrats need to win a several-seat majority this November so that they can overturn the filibuster and pack the Court. They will need more than a majority so that a few reluctant Democrats can't stop filibuster and Court reform. The Democrats currently lead by 5 points or more in Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina, the 4 states they need to take control if Harris becomes VP. They are also tied or a point ahead in Georgia (Ossoff vs. Perdue), South Carolina (Harrison vs. Graham) and Iowa (Greenfield vs. Ernst), and are about 1 point behind in Montana (Bullock vs. Daines). If the Democrats surge, they are within about 5 points in Alaska, Texas, Georgia (Warnock vs. Loeffler), and Kansas, and Amy McGrath is getting lots of donations to throw against Moscow Mitch in Kentucky. Some claim that the Democrats can win in Mississippi. Democratic Senator Jones in Alabama seems likely to be deposed.

I am not sure of whether the lame-duck Vice-President or the incoming one is the President of the Senate between Junary 3 and January 21. Kamala Harris may have cause to not rush abandoning a Senate seat until January 21. 

Quote:If Kelly in AZ and Warnock in GA both win their special elections, they could take office in late November and stop the nomination if it is blocked that long. I don't know if McConnell or the governor of AZ could block them from taking office, but by law they are supposed to be seated right away. Blocking until January might be easier too when Kelly takes office.

Count on Mitch McConnell telling defeated Republican Senators to not quit early. The Republican Party has become an authoritarian, cadre Party and will remain one until at least January 3, if not January 21. The analogy to Communist Parties in central and Balkan Europe is not perfect. For America to remain a democracy (and don't give me the spurious claim that America is a republic and not a democracy; there have been plenty of undemocratic regimes that simply took over a republican system) must either reform itself or die. If the current Republican Party should die, then we might have the start of the 1T as another Era of Good Feelings before a big-tent Democratic Party becomes so unwieldy and itself splits, perhaps into something like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as in Germany.   

Quote:Fall back measures if the Democrats win include reducing the filibuster to 55 rather than eliminating it, but if they can only do that, they should put back the filibuster to 55 for the Supreme Court too. The Democrats also need to make Puerto Rico a state and provide DC with two senators as soon as they can, to help balance the electoral college and the senate from its rural and southern majority, originally created to keep slave states in the union in 1787.

What began as a measure to frustrate the complete intransigence of a ruthless minority as a cadre Party has become a tool of the same cadre  Party now the majority. Remember well: America has several economic elites dedicated to grabbing everything possible so long as poverty induces people to work two jobs to avoid death from starvation and exposure. Those elites (large corporate farms, urban landlords, tycoons, and executives) have imposed inequality almost as severe as that which exists in countries in which some royal family owns the oil resources that are the "only game in town" in their country. Of course a fine line exists between destitution and famine, and should 'our' economic elites let things go so bad as to allow starvation, then we are on the brink of a revolution -- and of course the issue of Crisis or non-Crisis will be the least of human concerns in a rotten order in need of toppling. 

Quote:Term limits for the Court have also been suggested, and I wonder if this could be made retroactive. I doubt it. Another idea is that the extra justices could be seated with the proviso that when future justices are added, they don't need to be replaced on death or retirement until the number goes back down to 9. The fanatical and extreme, ruthless nature of the Republican minority that now controls our country through the Senate, Electoral College and Supreme Court is, in my estimation, a temporary aberration, and so these court packing and filibuster measures could be made temporary as well.

The term limit that effectively applied in the time of the Founding Fathers was that few people, even in the upper echelons of life, reached the ages of 70 and higher. To be sure, smart people holding the dream job of judge (it is mostly ceremony as one is on the bench, it is highly stimulating intellectually, and it is not the sort of work that brings wear and tear to a body as does hard labor) typically did not retire until they were no longer able to do the job or had some things to cross off the 18th-century and early-19th-century equivalent of a bucket list. Good personal habits might have fostered a long lifespan by standards of the time, but people did not generally know those. 

Note well: it is up to the elected officials to nominate and approve judges. I wish we had wiser politicians than what we have now, but consider well that the super-rich fund much of the political process. We live in a borderline plutocracy, and when the economic elites believe that nothing matters except their power, indulgence, and gain (note the first initials and what those spell!) who cling to the idea that no human suffering can ever be in excess in stoking the power, indulgence, and gain of those elites (limited only by the fear of a proletarian revolution that would kill those elites upon success). Money does not simply talk in our system; it shouts!

[Eric the Green]

From the New Yorker,

".... some Republican state legislatures, relying on some obscure language in Article II of the Constitution, could even try to nullify the actual votes entirely and appoint slates of Party loyalists as electors to the Electoral College. If you think this sounds too outlandish even for Trump and today’s G.O.P. to consider, think again. Citing Republican sources at the local and national levels, The Atlantic’s Barton Gellman reports that the Trump campaign is making contingency plans along precisely those lines. “With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly,” Gellman writes.

Any attempt by Trump and the Republicans to reverse the election results and finagle their way to victory would likely escalate into a constitutional crisis. While any initial rulings would be made at the local level, one or more of the cases could well end up in the Supreme Court. That’s what happened in 2000. After Al Gore demanded manual recounts in four Florida counties, a Florida district court and the Florida Supreme Court both issued rulings. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, halted the recounts and allowed the initial vote certification, which showed George W. Bush as the winner, to stand.

Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on Friday, there is now a 5–3 conservative majority on the Court. Evidently, Trump doesn’t think this margin is sufficient to wait until after the election for a vote on a ninth Justice. Perhaps he is worried that Chief Justice John Roberts, in a last-gasp effort to protect the reputation and independence of the Court, could join the liberal Justices and rule against him. Perhaps he doesn’t want to take the risk.

In any case, the inner workings of Trump’s mind aren’t of much consequence. As the President, what matters are his words and actions. Right now, he is launching a dangerous attack on U.S. democracy. ...."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colum...t-its-core

I sent this article to my senators via email.