<div dir="ltr">--- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but<br>*balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then ---------<div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we should conceive politics as utterly and completely a choice between the two of them. God forbid that we conceive of judges using any other dimensions. In fact, let's enshrine it in law that we must forever focus on exactly whether we have a "balance" of "left" and "right". Ugh!<div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:echarles@american.edu" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Ha! I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my drinking arm!" when<br>
someone offers to buy me one... the only one to twists my drinking arm<br>
this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe Stephen and his circle<br>
on "ZoomGrappaNight".<br>
<br>
I don't like the language around "packing the court". I don't think<br>
"reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the court". Clearly,<br>
the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would* pack the court... add<br>
6 more justices and make sure they are ALL conservative leaners. Pete<br>
Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my earshot, and HIS version<br>
sounded pretty reasonable... reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but<br>
*balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then<br>
leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the remaining 5 (through<br>
some arcane process?). What the Republicans have been building up to<br>
for decades is "packing the courts". <br>
<br>
Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on social norms and<br>
standards, but I think it might be "as good as it gets", at least for<br>
the time being.<br>
<br>
- Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, u\u01ddl\u0183 \u2199\u2199\u2199 wrote:<br>
> Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel member's phrasing suggestion for Kamala Harris in response to Pence's question about packing SCOTUS. The elaborated version was: "Because confirming Barrett, NOW, is such a horribly wrong thing to do, we have no choice BUT to pack the court." ... I.e. now look what you made me do. That was my dad's favorite phrase to justify whatever abuse he chose to mete out that day. He once ran over my bicycle with his truck. I *made* him run over my bike because I left it laying in the driveway. It's a running joke with my fellow drinkers who *regularly* FORCE me to drink more than I should. There is no free will. I live to serve.<br>
><br>
> On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
>> Look what you made me do,<br>
<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br>
FRIAM-COMIC</a> <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>