Leave a comment

Comments 7

guppiecat July 12 2014, 01:13:11 UTC
I observe that supreme court justices, technically, do have term limits.

I worry that these decisions will, within my lifetime, bring someone to realize this and take action.

Reply

novapsyche July 12 2014, 01:36:10 UTC
Hmm. I appreciate your point, but I don't think most citizens consider any one Justice worth making such a gesture. It's too broad of a body. Much easier, as I'm sure Booth surmised, to take out the point at the top of the pyramid.

I do wish there were a better way to remove Justices, but there isn't & there won't be any time soon.

Reply

guppiecat July 12 2014, 03:46:10 UTC
One, no. Five ... during a time when one party controls both house and senate. That could be interesting.

More importantly, that could result in decisions that affect generations.

Reply

pstscrpt July 13 2014, 02:42:17 UTC
If there was a way to remove justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and possibly O'Connor would have been removed in 2001. As much as I'd like to Scalia, Alito and Thomas gone (not so sure about Roberts), I think I prefer the current system.

Reply


harvey_rrit July 12 2014, 03:26:39 UTC
I would have supposed most transgender people are like SF fen: they have learned to expect stupidity and would find its absence jarring, like a top step that isn't there.

(Unless I have misunderstood your intent, in which case I'm almost sure the algae don't really care.)

Reply

novapsyche July 12 2014, 03:37:35 UTC
Well, it's not like I'm not surprised that mainstream journalists have gotten this all twisted. However, as a committed ally, I find it utterly offensive for "transgender" to be equated with "intersex" on a biological scale. They are not the same by any means socially, so to use either as a shorthand in journalistic headlines bothers me. Very much.

Reply

harvey_rrit July 12 2014, 04:00:06 UTC
Fibromyalgia makes me tired all the time.

I'm with you in spirit.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up