Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
JoanofArgh
JoanofArgh's Journal
JoanofArgh's Journal
October 27, 2020
It underwent five full legal implementations:
1789-1807: six seats
1807-1837: seven seats
1837-1866: ten seats
1866-1867: nine seats
1867-1869: eight seats
1869-present: nine seats
Thread:
And twice, legislation changed its size but was never implemented for various reasons, notably the Judiciary Act of 1801 (or Midnight Judges Act), which would have reduced its size to five upon the next vacancy but was repealed by the Judiciary Act of 1802.
Another attempt that was never (fully) implemented was the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, which would have provided the next three justices not be replaced when they retire; however, only two seats were eliminated before the Circuit Judges Act altered the size to nine seats.
But why all the fluctuation?
Well, the way our judiciary system is set up is having three levels of federal courts.
At the district level, the lowest, there are 673 federal judges.
They're overseen by 179 appeals judges (circuit courts).
At the top: 9 SCOTUS justices.
Over time, the expansion of the United States in both land and population required a greater workload, which meant more district judges, more appeals judges, etc.
For example, the Seventh Circuit was added in 1807, along with a SCOTUS justice to match in labor.
That's how we eventually got to nine justices, to correspond with nine circuit courts. There's a lot of political maneuvering between parties here, tho, which is why we went from 7 to 10 to 9 to 8 to 9.
(Are you getting the feeling the court has always been political? Correct.)
It's also fair to note that the practice of SCOTUS justices "riding circuit", as in literally taking a tour of courts in their corresponding region, fell out of practice with time.
What didn't change is that we STILL altered the federal judiciary LONG after 1869. Like recently.
For example, in 1978, Congress authorized 117 additional district judges and 35 circuit court judges (the appeals judges) to be appointed by the President.
In 1984, there were 24 additional circuit court judges authorized.
Fast-forward to Obama's presidency, when despite Democrats winning two presidential elections in a row, McConnell and GOP Senators blocked over 100 judicial nominations by Obama.
There was "no will of the people" nonsense. He just blocked them. Didn't even consider them.
There are 870 federal judgeships that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, authorized under Article III fo the Constitution.
Through this egregious process, Trump and McConnell have slammed through 220 confirmations at those three levels. In 4 years.
For comparison, Obama put through 329 over EIGHT years through a good faith process.
For those doing the math, Trump has confirmed about 25% more federal judges annually. That's a lot. And it was done so through an intentional rigging of the process at stunning speed.
The size of the Supreme Court has been legally changed 7 times
https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1320901046101827584?s=20It underwent five full legal implementations:
1789-1807: six seats
1807-1837: seven seats
1837-1866: ten seats
1866-1867: nine seats
1867-1869: eight seats
1869-present: nine seats
Thread:
And twice, legislation changed its size but was never implemented for various reasons, notably the Judiciary Act of 1801 (or Midnight Judges Act), which would have reduced its size to five upon the next vacancy but was repealed by the Judiciary Act of 1802.
Another attempt that was never (fully) implemented was the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, which would have provided the next three justices not be replaced when they retire; however, only two seats were eliminated before the Circuit Judges Act altered the size to nine seats.
But why all the fluctuation?
Well, the way our judiciary system is set up is having three levels of federal courts.
At the district level, the lowest, there are 673 federal judges.
They're overseen by 179 appeals judges (circuit courts).
At the top: 9 SCOTUS justices.
Over time, the expansion of the United States in both land and population required a greater workload, which meant more district judges, more appeals judges, etc.
For example, the Seventh Circuit was added in 1807, along with a SCOTUS justice to match in labor.
That's how we eventually got to nine justices, to correspond with nine circuit courts. There's a lot of political maneuvering between parties here, tho, which is why we went from 7 to 10 to 9 to 8 to 9.
(Are you getting the feeling the court has always been political? Correct.)
It's also fair to note that the practice of SCOTUS justices "riding circuit", as in literally taking a tour of courts in their corresponding region, fell out of practice with time.
What didn't change is that we STILL altered the federal judiciary LONG after 1869. Like recently.
For example, in 1978, Congress authorized 117 additional district judges and 35 circuit court judges (the appeals judges) to be appointed by the President.
In 1984, there were 24 additional circuit court judges authorized.
Fast-forward to Obama's presidency, when despite Democrats winning two presidential elections in a row, McConnell and GOP Senators blocked over 100 judicial nominations by Obama.
There was "no will of the people" nonsense. He just blocked them. Didn't even consider them.
There are 870 federal judgeships that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, authorized under Article III fo the Constitution.
Through this egregious process, Trump and McConnell have slammed through 220 confirmations at those three levels. In 4 years.
For comparison, Obama put through 329 over EIGHT years through a good faith process.
For those doing the math, Trump has confirmed about 25% more federal judges annually. That's a lot. And it was done so through an intentional rigging of the process at stunning speed.
October 27, 2020
Thread:
Holy shit—Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which was too extreme for Kennedy or O'Connor.
This is a red alert. I can't believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276432/10-26-20-DNC-v-Wisconsin-SCOTUS-Order.pdf
Replying to
@mjs_DC
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and make sure it's counted.
But arguably the bigger news is that Brett Kavanaugh endorsed a theory so radical that the court refused to adopt it in Bush v. Gore. My God.
This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behind an extreme theory that would severely limit state courts' ability to protect voting rights. It's the revenge of Bush. v. Gore. Actually, it's much worse.
How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting that federal courts should keep their noses out of a state court's interpretation of its own state's election laws.
Roberts is now the moderate on voting rights.
Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run.
We should be extremely worried that Kavanaugh would use this Trumpian rhetoric to describe counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. 18 states and DC count these ballots. Does Kavanaugh think that creates "chaos and suspicions of impropriety"?
Holy Jesus H. Christ on an amicus brief -Charlie Pierce On Kavanaugh's new brief on voting rights
https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/1320879588944338944?s=20Thread:
Holy shit—Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which was too extreme for Kennedy or O'Connor.
This is a red alert. I can't believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276432/10-26-20-DNC-v-Wisconsin-SCOTUS-Order.pdf
Replying to
@mjs_DC
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and make sure it's counted.
But arguably the bigger news is that Brett Kavanaugh endorsed a theory so radical that the court refused to adopt it in Bush v. Gore. My God.
This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behind an extreme theory that would severely limit state courts' ability to protect voting rights. It's the revenge of Bush. v. Gore. Actually, it's much worse.
How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting that federal courts should keep their noses out of a state court's interpretation of its own state's election laws.
Roberts is now the moderate on voting rights.
Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run.
We should be extremely worried that Kavanaugh would use this Trumpian rhetoric to describe counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. 18 states and DC count these ballots. Does Kavanaugh think that creates "chaos and suspicions of impropriety"?
October 25, 2020
https://twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1320203317641945088?s=21
Great campaign slogan! Oh my god.
Check out this tweet from Christopher Hale who's running for the House(TN)
https://twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1320198584751489024?s=21https://twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1320203317641945088?s=21
Great campaign slogan! Oh my god.
October 24, 2020
The photo is jarring.
An angry Lyndon Johnson, on the steps about to board an airplane, is pointing his finger and angrily shouting. Presidential candidate John Kennedy is a step or two above him, a serious look on his face, and reaching down to Johnson in an effort to cool him down.
American historian Michael Beschloss, who specializes in the U.S. presidency, tweeted that photo on Sunday. He called the photo “one of the most evocative photographs ever made of American political history.” And it was taken this week in 1960, and right here in River City, right here in Amarillo by Globe-News photographer Richard Pipes. Today, it’s archived in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
Just as Kennedy was about to speak on the makeshift platform to a crowd about to hang on his every word, an aircraft taxied not far away. It then revved its engines. That annoyed the crowd, which was waiting for the plane or jet — it’s not clear what it was — to take off so they could hear Kennedy. But the aircraft never moved. Its engines just roared and roared.
. It was political dirty tricks. The photo showed Johnson wanted to fight somebody. He was embarrassed by Amarillo in his home state. He likely filed that one away.
https://www.amarillo.com/local-news/news/2017-11-06/beilue-one-politics-most-evocative-photos-taken-amarillo
One of the most evocative political photographs taken a week before election 1960
https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/status/1320033092950757377?s=20The photo is jarring.
An angry Lyndon Johnson, on the steps about to board an airplane, is pointing his finger and angrily shouting. Presidential candidate John Kennedy is a step or two above him, a serious look on his face, and reaching down to Johnson in an effort to cool him down.
American historian Michael Beschloss, who specializes in the U.S. presidency, tweeted that photo on Sunday. He called the photo “one of the most evocative photographs ever made of American political history.” And it was taken this week in 1960, and right here in River City, right here in Amarillo by Globe-News photographer Richard Pipes. Today, it’s archived in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
Just as Kennedy was about to speak on the makeshift platform to a crowd about to hang on his every word, an aircraft taxied not far away. It then revved its engines. That annoyed the crowd, which was waiting for the plane or jet — it’s not clear what it was — to take off so they could hear Kennedy. But the aircraft never moved. Its engines just roared and roared.
. It was political dirty tricks. The photo showed Johnson wanted to fight somebody. He was embarrassed by Amarillo in his home state. He likely filed that one away.
https://www.amarillo.com/local-news/news/2017-11-06/beilue-one-politics-most-evocative-photos-taken-amarillo
October 24, 2020
ATTEND OUR GRASSROOTS CONCERT
Chip in any amount to attend our "I Will Vote" concert in support of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Democrats across the country. Hosted by George Lopez and Ana Navarro, the concert will feature performances by:
A$AP Ferg, Sara Bareilles, Aloe Blacc, Black Eyed Peas & Jennifer Hudson, Jon Bon Jovi, Cher, Ciara, Darren Criss, Andra Day, Jermaine Dupri, NE-YO, Johnta Austin & Friends, Foo Fighters, Macy Gray, John Legend, Dave Matthews, P!nk, Ben Platt, and more.
And special guests Joe Biden & Jill Biden, Kamala Harris & Doug Emhoff, La La Anthony, Jaime Camil, Margaret Cho, Whoopi Goldberg, Dave Grohl, Armie Hammer, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Helen Mirren, Maren Morris, Billy Porter, Amy Schumer, will.i.am, Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Tan France, Antoni Porowski & Jonathan Van Ness, and more.
You can catch it exclusively on Sunday, October 25th at 8:00 p.m. ET.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/bvf2020_grfr_concert
There's an I Will Vote concert tomorrow night
https://twitter.com/pink/status/1319728431727144961?s=21ATTEND OUR GRASSROOTS CONCERT
Chip in any amount to attend our "I Will Vote" concert in support of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Democrats across the country. Hosted by George Lopez and Ana Navarro, the concert will feature performances by:
A$AP Ferg, Sara Bareilles, Aloe Blacc, Black Eyed Peas & Jennifer Hudson, Jon Bon Jovi, Cher, Ciara, Darren Criss, Andra Day, Jermaine Dupri, NE-YO, Johnta Austin & Friends, Foo Fighters, Macy Gray, John Legend, Dave Matthews, P!nk, Ben Platt, and more.
And special guests Joe Biden & Jill Biden, Kamala Harris & Doug Emhoff, La La Anthony, Jaime Camil, Margaret Cho, Whoopi Goldberg, Dave Grohl, Armie Hammer, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Helen Mirren, Maren Morris, Billy Porter, Amy Schumer, will.i.am, Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Tan France, Antoni Porowski & Jonathan Van Ness, and more.
You can catch it exclusively on Sunday, October 25th at 8:00 p.m. ET.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/bvf2020_grfr_concert
October 23, 2020
This reporter is rightfully getting slammed in the comments. Trump may have been a little less shouty but he sure as hell wasn’t more disciplined.
This is why I think if a smart, competent authoritarian is ever elected, we are sooo fucking screwed.
This seems to be the media's take on Trump last night.
https://twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1319461690136760323?s=21This reporter is rightfully getting slammed in the comments. Trump may have been a little less shouty but he sure as hell wasn’t more disciplined.
This is why I think if a smart, competent authoritarian is ever elected, we are sooo fucking screwed.
October 22, 2020
I hate this fucking asshole.
One of Trump's guests is expected to be Tony Bubolinski
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1319415210793459718?s=20I hate this fucking asshole.
October 22, 2020
This seems like a problem ( voter intimidation in Florida)
https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1319210950038310912?s=21
October 21, 2020
This is why Ratcliffe held that press conference
and didn’t take any questions.
https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1319063522756743173?s=21
https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1319063939808923648?s=21
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHome country: USA
Current location: Charlotte, NC
Member since: Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:15 AM
Number of posts: 14,971
