"If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F--- it. Eat our dust.
"Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it,"
They bloody well should do it.
The GOP would do it if the shoe were reversed.
The shenanigans not confirming Obama's nominee for SCOTUS is part of why the Court is as it is today.
The GOP already have control of all three branches, and are explicitly not packing the court. I imagine there’s some pressure on Thomas (77) and Alito (76) to retire this summer, if it looks like the mid-term Senate races might be close.
I agree that GOP antics in the Senate in 2016 were wrong through, at least when compared to their same antics in 2020 when the boot was on the other foot.
Could you explain?
As I see see it, they have already explicitly packed SCOTUS, and Trump is getting the rulings he wants about 90% of the time - including overthrowing parts of the USA Constitution and due process, and gutting the possibility of holding him to account.
A number of the Trump supporting group have voted against their statements in their confirmation hearings, especially around overturning important precedents an fprinciples. And there are a couple - notably to me Thomas and Robertson, who have been blatant.
"If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F--- it. Eat our dust.
"Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it,"
They bloody well should do it.
The GOP would do it if the shoe were reversed.
The shenanigans not confirming Obama's nominee for SCOTUS is part of why the Court is as it is today.
The GOP already have control of all three branches, and are explicitly not packing the court. I imagine there’s some pressure on Thomas (77) and Alito (76) to retire this summer, if it looks like the mid-term Senate races might be close.
I agree that GOP antics in the Senate in 2016 were wrong through, at least when compared to their same antics in 2020 when the boot was on the other foot.
They are not packing the court as their shenanigans have already packed it to a 6-3 advantage.
If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had a 6-3 advantage but the GOP won elections across the board to the Presidency and both houses of Congress do you seriously think they would sit back and do nothing?
There’s quite the difference between slow-walking one vacancy in 2016, and packing the court from nine to 13 members.
I actually don’t think either side would pack the court, but Mr Carville, a well-respected and influential strategist, just handed his opponents a free hit by even suggesting it.
The story of conservative domination of the Supreme Court is rather more complicated than that. The court has had a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents for almost fifty years now. But the seriously organised effort to reshape what the court is and how it makes decisions goes back around four decades. (Note there is no real liberal equivalent to the Federalist Society.)
The NYT is publishing some interesting stories (clearly based on insider leaks) on how the Roberts court has developed the power of the shadow docket, which it effectively originated. There's a good legal analysis of their latest story here:
Remarkable reporting from the New York Times provides a peek behind the curtain of the February 2016 rulings that ushered in the modern emergency docket. And what it reveals is pretty discouraging. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/221-chief-justice-roberts-and-the
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Leaves Cooper vs Miliband
Or as Old King Cole suggested, maybe it could be Emily Thornberry? If Starmer is forced out before the ‘young cardinals’ are ready or able to replace him, it may be we that they vote for an ‘old Pope’, in the hope that their turn comes around soon.
I’ve had £9 on Emily Thornberry to be next PM at average odds nearly 600.
Thornberry? You may as well hand Farage the keys to No 10 on a plate
Can you develop that point.
She's immensely dislikable, has a history of being very snobbish about Labour's traditional WWC base, and has been averagely useless at everything she's ever done.
She's like all the worst attributes of the "NU10K" packaged up into one particularly unattractive package.
If she is in contention, we've scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard we're through the ground beneath and Australia is hoving into view. She actually make that prize pratt Burnham look good by comparison, and he's a deeply unimpressive sack of stupidity.
Ed Miliband has said a Labour MP who tweeted a picture of a house with three England flags and a white van parked outside was "disrespectful". Emily Thornberry quit Labour's shadow cabinet and subsequently apologised over the picture, which was branded "snobby" by the family living there. The Labour leader said he was "furious" about the tweet, external, which gave a "misleading impression".
She posted a picture with no commentary
All the inferences were drawn by the people who viewed it. It says more about them than it does about Emily Thornberry
The only comment I recall Emily Thornberry made, after the criticisms of her post were made, was that she thought a house draped in flags so you couldn't see out of the windows was "extraordinary".
It seems others considered that she was guilty of a thought crime.
This was over a decade ago.
Is this really the only evidence of her snobbery? Why does it persist?
Social Media never forgets...
And people who want to be offended (pretty much all of us, it's emotionally very satisfying) will stay offended. Because taking offence can be exciting.
Oh, and good news: unemployment figures down
Bad news: measured to the end of February.
Is it really good news if it’s mainly down to a rise in economic inactivity ?
Depends how you think of it?
The rise of the UBI class.
Genuinely so depressing that UBI is talked about in this way. A clever idea from Friedman, lots of support from libertarians (including our very own BartholomewRoberts).
FWIW I think it only works in a simple, flat way and in freebie Britain there’s no way it would survive contact with political reality - too many interest groups like WASPI. But even a flawed version would be better than what we have now,
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Leaves Cooper vs Miliband
Or as Old King Cole suggested, maybe it could be Emily Thornberry? If Starmer is forced out before the ‘young cardinals’ are ready or able to replace him, it may be we that they vote for an ‘old Pope’, in the hope that their turn comes around soon.
I’ve had £9 on Emily Thornberry to be next PM at average odds nearly 600.
Thornberry? You may as well hand Farage the keys to No 10 on a plate
Can you develop that point.
She's immensely dislikable, has a history of being very snobbish about Labour's traditional WWC base, and has been averagely useless at everything she's ever done.
She's like all the worst attributes of the "NU10K" packaged up into one particularly unattractive package.
If she is in contention, we've scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard we're through the ground beneath and Australia is hoving into view. She actually make that prize pratt Burnham look good by comparison, and he's a deeply unimpressive sack of stupidity.
Ed Miliband has said a Labour MP who tweeted a picture of a house with three England flags and a white van parked outside was "disrespectful". Emily Thornberry quit Labour's shadow cabinet and subsequently apologised over the picture, which was branded "snobby" by the family living there. The Labour leader said he was "furious" about the tweet, external, which gave a "misleading impression".
She posted a picture with no commentary
All the inferences were drawn by the people who viewed it. It says more about them than it does about Emily Thornberry
The only comment I recall Emily Thornberry made, after the criticisms of her post were made, was that she thought a house draped in flags so you couldn't see out of the windows was "extraordinary".
It seems others considered that she was guilty of a thought crime.
This was over a decade ago.
Is this really the only evidence of her snobbery? Why does it persist?
Social Media never forgets...
And people who want to be offended (pretty much all of us, it's emotionally very satisfying) will stay offended. Because taking offence can be exciting.
Oh, and good news: unemployment figures down
Bad news: measured to the end of February.
Is it really good news if it’s mainly down to a rise in economic inactivity ?
Depends how you think of it?
The rise of the UBI class.
Or early retirees like me.
Getting rid of the bed blockers frees up opportunities for the young
China down to 300 million people by the end of the century. Much of the rest of Developed Asia too
China won't be able to afford a single lock with that.
Good morning, everyone.
When it comes to demographics, China's in poor shape. But South Korea is looking at something absolutely horrendous.
How much of the world is going to come to the conclusion that the answer is immigration, just as supply is tightening, and will we get to the point where we bemoan the fact we can no longer attract immigrants in a couple of decades time because so many other countries are competing for them?
I'm not sure the answer here, because over the long term demographics never quite go where you think they were going, but I remain in favour of a level of immigration that balances our current demographics and dependency ratio with the ability to provide housing and services, and this can be done consistently with our population reaching a plateau in the next decade and perhaps even dropping gently after that.
Small, wealthy countries have a large advantage over very large countries, of course.
Small, wealthly countries are also very hard on immigrants when it comes to state support and a path to citizenship. Their immigration is seen as temporary, as opposed to the West who see immigrants as more permanent, the latter creating a Ponzi scheme of increasing population who will mostly end up dependent on the state.
Another 1,040 Russian troops and 83 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine this morning.
Context: in only 7 years did the annual number of dead and injured US combatants in the Vietnam war exceed this Russian daily total. The highest annual total - in 1968 - had a number of US dead and injured that would be the equivalent of just over a fortnight of these Russian numbers. The population of the USA was 200m in 1968. The Russian population today is estimated at c.145m.
The Russian graph in the FT piece is pretty impressive too.
The UN predicts Russias population to be between 74-112 million by the end of the century.
I am a little suspicious of demographic projections more than a couple of decades into the future as so subject to change in either direction, but the Russian government itself has projected a population of 130 million in 2046.
I think it has Russian total population projected at 125 million, it's the working age population that's 74-112 million.
It's all based on UN data and doubt it allows for the current destruction of much of Russia's young male population.
India and China feel more predictable in their relative rise and falls in terms of workers.
I suspect China will be sufficiently rich to be considered a developed nation by the time it's working population falls so dramatically. It will automate or outsource the lower value end of its current economy as its working population declines.
China down to 300 million people by the end of the century. Much of the rest of Developed Asia too
China won't be able to afford a single lock with that.
Good morning, everyone.
When it comes to demographics, China's in poor shape. But South Korea is looking at something absolutely horrendous.
As are Taiwan, Singapore Japan in terms of a greying population, but we shouldn't be complacent. Our population would collapse similarly, albeit more slowly, without immigration.
I suspect those African projections are too high, fertility rates are dropping quickly there too, albeit still expansionary.
Lots of countries have that sort of problem, but South Korea's is such that in a few generations they're going to be in a catastrophe if they don't fix the problem.
The obvious fix for them is reunification with the North but what that government would look like...
If Xi was smart, he would arrange unification (drop support for the North on the following terms -
- guarantee the borders of the United Korea. - massive loan at super low rates to fund it - only stipulation, no foreign military of any country in Korea
The last would get a major American presence out of the region.
The result would be a country, very friendly to China and one that could never be a threat. Think Canada to the US, strategically.
"If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F--- it. Eat our dust.
"Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it,"
They bloody well should do it.
The GOP would do it if the shoe were reversed.
The shenanigans not confirming Obama's nominee for SCOTUS is part of why the Court is as it is today.
The GOP already have control of all three branches, and are explicitly not packing the court. I imagine there’s some pressure on Thomas (77) and Alito (76) to retire this summer, if it looks like the mid-term Senate races might be close.
I agree that GOP antics in the Senate in 2016 were wrong through, at least when compared to their same antics in 2020 when the boot was on the other foot.
Could you explain?
As I see see it, they have already explicitly packed SCOTUS, and Trump is getting the rulings he wants about 90% of the time - including overthrowing parts of the USA Constitution and due process, and gutting the possibility of holding him to account.
A number of the Trump supporting group have voted against their statements in their confirmation hearings, especially around overturning important precedents an fprinciples. And there are a couple - notably to me Thomas and Robertson, who have been blatant.
“Packing the court” refers specifically to increasing the number of Justices, as opposed to the process of filling vacancies as they arise.
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Leaves Cooper vs Miliband
Or as Old King Cole suggested, maybe it could be Emily Thornberry? If Starmer is forced out before the ‘young cardinals’ are ready or able to replace him, it may be we that they vote for an ‘old Pope’, in the hope that their turn comes around soon.
I’ve had £9 on Emily Thornberry to be next PM at average odds nearly 600.
Thornberry? You may as well hand Farage the keys to No 10 on a plate
Can you develop that point.
She's immensely dislikable, has a history of being very snobbish about Labour's traditional WWC base, and has been averagely useless at everything she's ever done.
She's like all the worst attributes of the "NU10K" packaged up into one particularly unattractive package.
If she is in contention, we've scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard we're through the ground beneath and Australia is hoving into view. She actually make that prize pratt Burnham look good by comparison, and he's a deeply unimpressive sack of stupidity.
Ed Miliband has said a Labour MP who tweeted a picture of a house with three England flags and a white van parked outside was "disrespectful". Emily Thornberry quit Labour's shadow cabinet and subsequently apologised over the picture, which was branded "snobby" by the family living there. The Labour leader said he was "furious" about the tweet, external, which gave a "misleading impression".
She posted a picture with no commentary
All the inferences were drawn by the people who viewed it. It says more about them than it does about Emily Thornberry
The only comment I recall Emily Thornberry made, after the criticisms of her post were made, was that she thought a house draped in flags so you couldn't see out of the windows was "extraordinary".
It seems others considered that she was guilty of a thought crime.
This was over a decade ago.
Is this really the only evidence of her snobbery? Why does it persist?
Social Media never forgets...
And people who want to be offended (pretty much all of us, it's emotionally very satisfying) will stay offended. Because taking offence can be exciting.
Oh, and good news: unemployment figures down
Bad news: measured to the end of February.
Is it really good news if it’s mainly down to a rise in economic inactivity ?
Depends how you think of it?
The rise of the UBI class.
Or early retirees like me.
Getting rid of the bed blockers frees up opportunities for the young
I don't think he can survive this. Final thrust of the dagger from that most unlikely assassin, Diane Abbott.
MC Donnell and Abbott are a stain on the true Labour Party
Been stealing a living that should be investigated under the trades descriptions act. They have never been Team Labour. Only when Labour was hijacked by London Communists.
That said. They delivered far better questions that Twitter queen
Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives (called either delegates or resident commissioner, in the case of Puerto Rico) are representatives of their territory in the House of Representatives, who do not have a right to vote on legislation in the full House but nevertheless have floor privileges and are able to participate in certain other House functions. Non-voting members may introduce legislation and may vote in a House committee of which they are a member.
(For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives (called either delegates or resident commissioner, in the case of Puerto Rico) are representatives of their territory in the House of Representatives, who do not have a right to vote on legislation in the full House but nevertheless have floor privileges and are able to participate in certain other House functions. Non-voting members may introduce legislation and may vote in a House committee of which they are a member.
(For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
She's one of six: Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives (called either delegates or resident commissioner, in the case of Puerto Rico) are representatives of their territory in the House of Representatives, who do not have a right to vote on legislation in the full House but nevertheless have floor privileges and are able to participate in certain other House functions. Non-voting members may introduce legislation and may vote in a House committee of which they are a member.
(For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
Comments
As I see see it, they have already explicitly packed SCOTUS, and Trump is getting the rulings he wants about 90% of the time - including overthrowing parts of the USA Constitution and due process, and gutting the possibility of holding him to account.
A number of the Trump supporting group have voted against their statements in their confirmation hearings, especially around overturning important precedents an fprinciples. And there are a couple - notably to me Thomas and Robertson, who have been blatant.
The court has had a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents for almost fifty years now. But the seriously organised effort to reshape what the court is and how it makes decisions goes back around four decades. (Note there is no real liberal equivalent to the Federalist Society.)
The NYT is publishing some interesting stories (clearly based on insider leaks) on how the Roberts court has developed the power of the shadow docket, which it effectively originated.
There's a good legal analysis of their latest story here:
Remarkable reporting from the New York Times provides a peek behind the curtain of the February 2016 rulings that ushered in the modern emergency docket. And what it reveals is pretty discouraging.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/221-chief-justice-roberts-and-the
FWIW I think it only works in a simple, flat way and in freebie Britain there’s no way it would survive contact with political reality - too many interest groups like WASPI. But even a flawed version would be better than what we have now,
It's all based on UN data and doubt it allows for the current destruction of much of Russia's young male population.
India and China feel more predictable in their relative rise and falls in terms of workers.
I suspect China will be sufficiently rich to be considered a developed nation by the time it's working population falls so dramatically. It will automate or outsource the lower value end of its current economy as its working population declines.
- guarantee the borders of the United Korea.
- massive loan at super low rates to fund it
- only stipulation, no foreign military of any country in Korea
The last would get a major American presence out of the region.
The result would be a country, very friendly to China and one that could never be a threat. Think Canada to the US, strategically.
Won’t fly with the old guard in China, but…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
DC also has a non-voting representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton: https://norton.house.gov/
She's one of six: (For the record: I have long favored returning the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, other, of course, than the key parts of the federal govenment.)
To save the golf courses from Trump?
I think you'll find the parts taken from Virginia were returned to it in 1847. It's just former Maryland now.