All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

In case anyone ever says I never speak badly about Democrats.....

Murphy vetoes landmark criminal justice bill but AG ends many mandatory minimum sentences

wait for it

Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday conditionally vetoed a landmark criminal justice bill that would end mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent crimes after a controversial amendment was added to it.

But Attorney General Gurbir Grewal immediately issued a directive that would end many of the mandatory minimum sentences.

now

But it drew scrutiny from Murphy after Sen. Nicholas Sacco, D-Hudson, quietly added an amendment to the bill eliminating mandatory minimums sentences for official misconduct, which is sometimes used to prosecute politicians, police officers and other public workers.

The son of Sacco’s girlfriend is facing an official misconduct offense for allegedly submitting false timesheets in North Bergen, where Sacco is the mayor.

Thank you, Gov Murphy

“During our year-and-a-half-long push to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug and property crimes, the legislation was amended in a way that would have eliminated mandatory prison sentences for a number of public corruption offenses, including official misconduct. After much deliberation, I have determined that I cannot sign this bill,” Murphy said in a statement.

Since the amendment, Murphy has publicly said he did not support the bill if it applied to official misconduct charges. If Murphy did not take action on the bill by Monday, it would have become law.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It's not 'packing the court'. It's already packed. It's been packed with three justices in one term to create a conservative supermajority.

If anything, we're unpacking it.

Okay, but how do we "unpack" it without giving Qpublicans a way to block such a measure? I've been of the opinion Mitch McConnell sacrificed the 2018 midterms to put Kegger Kavanaugh on the bench, what won't he and the GQP do to maintain that supermajority?

[CaptainEurope]

Over here in Germany, the Green Party (nothing like those idiots in the US) is doing so well in the polls that they have picked a candidate for chancellor for the first time, ever.

Her name is Annalena Charlotte Alma Baerbock, and she seems very popular: There's graffiti with her initials everywhere!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Over here in Germany, the Green Party (nothing like those idiots in the US) is doing so well in the polls that they have picked a candidate for chancellor for the first time, ever.

Her name is Annalena Charlotte Alma Baerbock, and she seems very popular: There's graffiti with her initials everywhere!

For a hot second there, I thought that graffiti was the title of a Genesis song. My bad.

[Tami]

Okay, but how do we "unpack" it without giving Qpublicans a way to block such a measure? I've been of the opinion Mitch McConnell sacrificed the 2018 midterms to put Kegger Kavanaugh on the bench, what won't he and the GQP do to maintain that supermajority?

As I said the first step would be to legally tie the size of the Court to the number of Circuits. That way the size can not change unless the Court of Appeals changes or unless the US suddenly starts growing bigger [Don't worry Canada, Mexico, or Greenland].

Once the number is fixed in a way that is logical and legal, the next step is to consider term limits. I don't think it was fair to force RBG to work until her death. You can set the age of retirement to 80 if you want, but place something there.

After that, a law can be written requiring all vacancies in the Supreme Court to be filled within a fixed amount of time [4 months or something like that]. If something like that had been in place, McConnell would not have been able to block Obama.

[Malvolio]

If Democrats try to pack the court, Republicans will obviously respond when they have the next chance to do so. This assumes that Sinema and Manchin would be on board, which is unlikely.

There is an argument for term limits. One suggestion I've heard is that there should be an 18-year limit. A result is that presidents would be more willing to pick older accomplished jurists. Right now, the incentives are to pick people who are younger and can be guaranteed to stick around for a long long time. In the last 25 years, every Supreme Court justice confirmed ranged in age from 48-55. It isn't ideal to reject candidates in their 60s, who may have a greater depth of experience.

There are potential ways to make the process less partisan. A rule could be that reforms won't take into effect after the next presidential election. This way it isn't about short-term partisan advantage, but what's best for the court.

You may be expecting too much of the intelligence of that group if you think they'll be aware of Jackson, let alone what he looks like.

I'm not sure how much they could tell you about everyone on Mt Rushmore, to be honest.

Trump often said that Jackson was his favorite President. His picture is also on the $20 bill, so I think even people like Empty-G know what he looked like.

[Tami]

She survived Hurricane Sandy. Then climate gentrification hit

Kimberly White Smalls needed her coastal home rebuilt, but like other Black residents of New York’s Far Rockaway neighborhood, she was moved instead

Sitting beside her two grandchildren, Kimberly White Smalls recounted what it was like to flee from her family home as Hurricane Sandy hit the edge of New York City.

“It was a complete disaster,” said Smalls, who lives on the Rockaway peninsula in Queens. “When we came back the next day, I [had] lost three cars, a scooter, and the house was destroyed.”

Smalls was born and grew up in Edgemere, a majority Black coastal community in Far Rockaway, and never dreamt of leaving. She and her husband, Don, had raised their family there. Grateful to still be alive, Smalls hoped to rebuild their home with her husband, two children, and infant grandchild on Beach 43rd Street. She had hoped that the city and Fema would help rebuild and even elevate her home, so that it would be safe from flooding the next time a natural disaster strikes.

But for the next several years, Smalls struggled to navigate byzantine aid programs from city, state and federal sources – only to be told, in 2016, that her home was no longer eligible for relief funds. The one option left, she says, was selling the house to the city, and finding a new place to live.

[Malvolio]

For a hot second there, I thought that graffiti was the title of a Genesis song. My bad.

Don't feel bad. I thought the same thing.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Once the number is fixed in a way that is logical and legal, the next step is to consider term limits. I don't think it was fair to force RBG to work until her death. You can set the age of retirement to 80 if you want, but place something there.

Forced to work? I thought it was more like RBG refused to retire. As for setting a retirement age for Justices at 80, that sounds reasonable to me (hell, that should apply to members of Congress as well), even though the AARP crowd would go berserk and scream ageism, still, you don't want someone on the bench who could be subject to possible mental debilitation, like Alzheimer's as they grew older. Would Democrats agree to that? Would Qpublicans? God only knows.

[babyblob]

As I said the first step would be to legally tie the size of the Court to the number of Circuits. That way the size can not change unless the Court of Appeals changes or unless the US suddenly starts growing bigger [Don't worry Canada, Mexico, or Greenland].

Once the number is fixed in a way that is logical and legal, the next step is to consider term limits. I don't think it was fair to force RBG to work until her death. You can set the age of retirement to 80 if you want, but place something there.

After that, a law can be written requiring all vacancies in the Supreme Court to be filled within a fixed amount of time [4 months or something like that]. If something like that had been in place, McConnell would not have been able to block Obama.

No one forced her to work until her death. She had several health issues and could have retired while Obama was president. She chose not to step down knowing she was older and in bad health. if I remember right a few people asked her to step down and she said no. No one forced her to do anything.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No one forced her to work until her death. She had several health issues and could have retired while Obama was president. She chose not to step down knowing she was older and in bad health. if I remember right a few people asked her to step down and she said no. No one forced her to do anything.

Yeah, RBG put her own vanity and career of wanting to be a long-term SCOTUS over her civic duty.

Speaking of which, why hasn't someone in Biden cabinet met Breyer in the hallway and whispered to the effects of "How fast can you run?"

[Tami]

No one forced her to work until her death. She had several health issues and could have retired while Obama was president. She chose not to step down knowing she was older and in bad health. if I remember right a few people asked her to step down and she said no. No one forced her to do anything.

I do know that, but still, it would have been easier for her if there was a rule or policy in place that took the decision out of their hands. That may sound harsh, but it is worth considering.

[Adam Allen]

Forced to work? I thought it was more like RBG refused to retire. As for setting a retirement age for Justices at 80, that sounds reasonable to me (hell, that should apply to members of Congress as well), even though the AARP crowd would go berserk and scream ageism, still, you don't want someone on the bench who could be subject to possible mental debilitation, like Alzheimer's as they grew older. Would Democrats agree to that? Would Qpublicans? God only knows.

Lol, dude ... when you say older folks would "scream ageism" and immediately follow it with a statement about mental debilitation and Alzheimer's, you're kind of proving their point. Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch are all younger, but how reassuring is that?

Also, respectfully disagreed with everyone critical of RBG for not stepping down. Planning to do the most that you can while you're alive is more admirable than stepping aside and waiting to die. Abdicating because you're old doesn't seem the automatically most responsible choice, to me.

[babyblob]

I do know that, but still, it would have been easier for her if there was a rule or policy in place that took the decision out of their hands. That may sound harsh, but it is worth considering.

Ill agree with there should be a term limit. Just the way you phrased it. "didnt think it was fair to force her to work to her death." That is what I was responding to. You make it sound like she had no choice in stepping down.

i would say a term limit of maybe 22 years? Dont know. And a President can not appoint a replacement if there is an election with in 90 days.

[Mister Mets]

Forced to work? I thought it was more like RBG refused to retire. As for setting a retirement age for Justices at 80, that sounds reasonable to me (hell, that should apply to members of Congress as well), even though the AARP crowd would go berserk and scream ageism, still, you don't want someone on the bench who could be subject to possible mental debilitation, like Alzheimer's as they grew older. Would Democrats agree to that? Would Qpublicans? God only knows.

The President was 78 during his inauguration. Should Biden resign on his 80th birthday?

As I said the first step would be to legally tie the size of the Court to the number of Circuits. That way the size can not change unless the Court of Appeals changes or unless the US suddenly starts growing bigger [Don't worry Canada, Mexico, or Greenland].

Once the number is fixed in a way that is logical and legal, the next step is to consider term limits. I don't think it was fair to force RBG to work until her death. You can set the age of retirement to 80 if you want, but place something there.

After that, a law can be written requiring all vacancies in the Supreme Court to be filled within a fixed amount of time [4 months or something like that]. If something like that had been in place, McConnell would not have been able to block Obama.

How would an obligation to require vacancies to be filled in a fixed amount of time work?

If there's a scandal with a nominee, does that mean there's still an obligation to have a new justice within 4 months of the vacancy?

One of the arguments about the Kavanaugh hearing was that there should have been more time to investigate the allegations. That can't be done with a ticking schedule.

And what happens at the end of the four months? Can the President just appoint whoever he or she wants, without Senate confirmation? That seems pretty easy to game.

Why the Supreme Court ended up with nine justices—and how that could change

There is an argument that the size of the Supreme Court should reflect the number of States in some way.

Each member of the Supreme Court, in theory, represents one of the Circuits. There were 6 Circuits originally, currently, there are 13 Circuits, including the Federal Circuit. That is where President Biden came up with the number 13.

If you frame it in that way, there is justification for increasing the size of the Supreme Court to match the growing size of the Country. D.C. and Puerto Rico are already represented, so it is unlikely that the number would grow past 13 [unless the U.S. begins collecting strays].

I wasn't in favor of 'packing the court', however, if this relationship is made legally official, then the Supreme Court size will grow to 13 regardless. At that point, it will be fixed in place, unless someone get's the bright idea of altering the arrangement of the United States courts of appeals or decides to acquire more States somehow.

How would it stay fixed in place? Wouldn't Republicans be able to change it the next time they have the White House and Senate, making the Supreme Court so full of federalist society approved conservative jurists that we'll need a new building for them?

I'm not fond of expanding the court, but after two stolen seats it's time to stop pretending that there's anything the Republicans won't do

They had the Senate and the White House, and they didn't try adding new seats to the court.

Yeah, RBG put her own vanity and career of wanting to be a long-term SCOTUS over her civic duty.

Speaking of which, why hasn't someone in Biden cabinet met Breyer in the hallway and whispered to the effects of "How fast can you run?"

I'd imagine they want to handle that carefully rather than risk a pissed off Breyer sticking around until Republicans take the Senate and/ or the White House.

According to her daughter, RBG stayed on the court partially because she wanted the first female President to select her President.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/m...sor-obama.html

That impulse was not worth the risk.

Ill agree with there should be a term limit. Just the way you phrased it. "didnt think it was fair to force her to work to her death." That is what I was responding to. You make it sound like she had no choice in stepping down.

i would say a term limit of maybe 22 years? Dont know. And a President can not appoint a replacement if there is an election with in 90 days.

A term limit based on years of service makes sense.

Political scientist Larry Sabato has been making the argument on this for a while.

https://centerforpolitics.org/crysta...ts-for-judges/

It allows Presidents to consider older candidates, rather than just those who achieved a high post in their 40s.

A limit on replacements prior to elections gets complicated. Is it 90 days after a justice dies/ leaves, or 90 days after a nominee is selected?