I absolutely agree about being able to sue before being directly affected by a bad law.

My general thought on standing is that if a court is going to rule on whether or not someone is eligible to sue, then they have to be crystal clear on who can sue. And if they aren't going to do that, they everyone has standing, everyone can sue.

Also, the legislative branch needs to be more proactive in impeaching justices that overstep the bounds of its remit. No more legislating from the bench. That guarantees a culture flame point.

One of the points of SCOTUS is to be a trailing indicator of law. There is a very solid reason that it takes both of the other branches to decide on a justice (and yes, both of those branches are elected) along with the lifetime appointments and the need for a multiplicity of them. It is a smoothing factor.

The real reason it is so fraught isn't SCOTUS itself (usually) but congress abdicating its job. A whole lot more laws need to be tossed back as unconstitutional.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"


Remember "elections have consequences?" Well, this is what a consequence looks like. Screaming about packing the courts at the first opportunity? What self imposed limit does that show?

As of now, the R's have never to my knowledge said anything, or shown anything about increasing the numbers of justices. But as soon as the Dem party figures out that they might be on the losing end of the nomination process, they scream bloody murder and then plot to stuff the courts.

Girlfriend, please.

Indeed on the justices, but why stop at ten? It might be easier to reduce it by [how many the Dems introduce] to get it back in "balance."

Also, this:

I agree with Chip, on this one issue at least. This is why I didn't list any rules changes up above when I first answered this question.


Everyone thinks their shit don't stink.

Everyone's shit stinks.

“look how well he rides that high horse!”

OK, that is the funniest thing I have read in weeks.


The politics were "you crushed my guy, I will crush your guy."

No more, no less. Stated views, past votes, none of that matters. It is tit-for-tat in the crunch.

And your comment only makes sense if you know nothing about politics.

What happens when Trump nominates a Latina woman such as Barbara Lagoa?

Or does being conservative automagically make someone white? Is this done with tricknology?

Switch Bork with Garland, and it applies equally.

What is the mathmatical term for this?

And this is why you can't have nice things.

No amendment needed, just some simple civics lessons."Your party will not always win." Followed by "the future does not have a liberal bias."

And a strong dose of "hamartia, koros, hubris, atê, nemesis"