Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (731176)	11/6/2020 2:36:44 PM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Recommended By John Carragher Respond to of 793964

Breyer is not getting any younger and Sotomayor isn't getting any healthier This has been my biggest fear if Trump loses - it'll be a very short conservative majority - even without court packing.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (731176)	11/6/2020 5:05:38 PM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bearcatbob Sdgla Respond to of 793964

Will Mitch bring a vote on a replacement to the floor? I hope he fills all open slots and does not fill any of Biden's if he stays in control. District or SC. The SC can get along just fine with a 6-2 setup.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (731176)	11/6/2020 7:47:48 PM
From: Triffin	Respond to of 793964

going to be interesting if a Supreme Court vacancy comes up Got an idea the other day for a way to take politics out of the Supreme Court .. In every other lower court case tried before a jury you need a unanimous decision by the jury to secure a conviction .. Who would want to be found guilty by a jury of your peers for some heinous crime by 7-5 ?? Since the Supreme Court hears only the most difficult or contentious legal cases in the land why not require that the Justices reach a unanimous consensus in order to change the law ?? If they can't agree 9-0 then existing law remains in place .. Would we then care if the court is leaning left or leaning right ?? Gaming the appointment process or pursuing court packing schemes wouldn't be necessary .. We'd save a lot of time and treasure with this one reform to how the Supreme Court operates .. Mandate unanimous decisions in order to effect change .. Just a thought and I have no idea what "laws" or "precedent" would be needed in order to effect such a change, but we'd at least have a less political court if we tried this .. Just my 2 cents .. Triff ..