1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.CULTURE.CHINA

  • [Biden 2022] Joe Biden is a "lame duck"

    From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 31 04:37:18 2021
    "Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa says Joe Biden is a "lame duck" president - with half the people in his party ready to "pounce" on him. "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlM-QU3wcKI

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From A. Filip@21:1/5 to ltlee1@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 1 18:10:17 2022
    ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 12:37:20 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa says Joe Biden is a "lame duck" president - with half the people in his party ready to "pounce" on him. "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlM-QU3wcKI

    Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa, however, saw a curve ball.
    If the SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, there would be widespread protest in various states which would increase Biden's chance.

    Don't know whether democratic commentators have reached the same concludion. The New York Times did have three articles
    related to Roe V during the last two days. All assuming Roe V Wade would be overturned by the conversative court.

    "Why the Supreme Court Needs (Short) Term Limits
    It is the best way to address the crisis in the court’s functioning and legitimacy.
    By Rosalind Dixon
    Dec. 31, 2021"

    "Joe Biden Can’t Save Roe v. Wade Alone. But He Can Do This.
    It’s time to think creatively.
    By David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    "Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve?
    It has become a willing participant in a war for the soul of the country.
    By Linda Greenhouse
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    IMHO: Shortening (time limiting) terms of *future* SCOTUS judges may be "somehow doable". It is unlikely++ for *current* SCOTUS judges.
    Such talk serves as a political smoke screen.

    Shortening terms of judges elected for unlimited terms (death limited)
    would make "judicial politics" *too* obvious.

    --
    A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
    | There's no easy quick way out, we're gonna have to live through our
    | whole lives, win, lose, or draw. (Walt Kelly)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 1 09:58:35 2022
    On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 12:37:20 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa says Joe Biden is a "lame duck" president - with half the people in his party ready to "pounce" on him. "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlM-QU3wcKI

    Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa, however, saw a curve ball.
    If the SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, there would be widespread protest in various states which would increase Biden's chance.

    Don't know whether democratic commentators have reached the same concludion. The New York Times did have three articles
    related to Roe V during the last two days. All assuming Roe V Wade would be overturned by the conversative court.

    "Why the Supreme Court Needs (Short) Term Limits
    It is the best way to address the crisis in the court’s functioning and legitimacy.
    By Rosalind Dixon
    Dec. 31, 2021"

    "Joe Biden Can’t Save Roe v. Wade Alone. But He Can Do This.
    It’s time to think creatively.
    By David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    "Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve?
    It has become a willing participant in a war for the soul of the country.
    By Linda Greenhouse
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to A. Filip on Sat Jan 1 11:11:43 2022
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 6:11:07 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
    ltlee1 wrote:
    On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 12:37:20 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa says Joe Biden is a "lame duck" president - with half the people in his party ready to "pounce" on him. "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlM-QU3wcKI

    Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa, however, saw a curve ball.
    If the SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, there would be widespread protest in various states which would increase Biden's chance.

    Don't know whether democratic commentators have reached the same concludion. The New York Times did have three articles
    related to Roe V during the last two days. All assuming Roe V Wade would be overturned by the conversative court.

    "Why the Supreme Court Needs (Short) Term Limits
    It is the best way to address the crisis in the court’s functioning and legitimacy.
    By Rosalind Dixon
    Dec. 31, 2021"

    "Joe Biden Can’t Save Roe v. Wade Alone. But He Can Do This.
    It’s time to think creatively.
    By David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    "Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve?
    It has become a willing participant in a war for the soul of the country. By Linda Greenhouse
    Dec. 30, 2021"
    IMHO: Shortening (time limiting) terms of *future* SCOTUS judges may be "somehow doable". It is unlikely++ for *current* SCOTUS judges.
    Such talk serves as a political smoke screen.

    Shortening terms of judges elected for unlimited terms (death limited)
    would make "judicial politics" *too* obvious.

    --
    A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
    | There's no easy quick way out, we're gonna have to live through our
    | whole lives, win, lose, or draw. (Walt Kelly)

    All other things the same, and if life term averaged to 36 years, an one 18 years
    would effectively increase the number to 18 Justices over 36 years.

    Theoretically speaking:
    With 9 Justices, the probability of 6 on one side and 3 on the other is 16.4%. With 18 Justices, the probability of 12 on one side and 6 on the other is 7.08%.
    But then only 10 votes are needed to win a case. The probability of 10 on one side is 16.7%.

    The bigger court per se would not necessarily make the court more bipartisan. Life term would, more or less, shield the Justices from partisan politics.

    And of course, you are right that shortening terms of judges elected at this juncture
    would make "judicial politics" *too* obvious. And makes the court more less trustworthy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 2 13:50:23 2022
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 7:11:45 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 6:11:07 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
    ltlee1 wrote:
    On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 12:37:20 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa says Joe Biden is a "lame duck" president - with half the people in his party ready to "pounce" on him. "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlM-QU3wcKI

    Curtin University Professor Joe Siracusa, however, saw a curve ball.
    If the SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, there would be widespread protest in various states which would increase Biden's chance.

    Don't know whether democratic commentators have reached the same concludion. The New York Times did have three articles
    related to Roe V during the last two days. All assuming Roe V Wade would be overturned by the conversative court.

    "Why the Supreme Court Needs (Short) Term Limits
    It is the best way to address the crisis in the court’s functioning and legitimacy.
    By Rosalind Dixon
    Dec. 31, 2021"

    "Joe Biden Can’t Save Roe v. Wade Alone. But He Can Do This.
    It’s time to think creatively.
    By David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché
    Dec. 30, 2021"

    "Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve?
    It has become a willing participant in a war for the soul of the country.
    By Linda Greenhouse
    Dec. 30, 2021"
    IMHO: Shortening (time limiting) terms of *future* SCOTUS judges may be "somehow doable". It is unlikely++ for *current* SCOTUS judges.
    Such talk serves as a political smoke screen.

    Shortening terms of judges elected for unlimited terms (death limited) would make "judicial politics" *too* obvious.

    --
    A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
    | There's no easy quick way out, we're gonna have to live through our
    | whole lives, win, lose, or draw. (Walt Kelly)
    All other things the same, and if life term averaged to 36 years, an one 18 years
    would effectively increase the number to 18 Justices over 36 years.

    Theoretically speaking:
    With 9 Justices, the probability of 6 on one side and 3 on the other is 16.4%.
    With 18 Justices, the probability of 12 on one side and 6 on the other is 7.08%.
    But then only 10 votes are needed to win a case. The probability of 10 on one
    side is 16.7%.

    The bigger court per se would not necessarily make the court more bipartisan.
    Life term would, more or less, shield the Justices from partisan politics.

    And of course, you are right that shortening terms of judges elected at this juncture
    would make "judicial politics" *too* obvious. And makes the court more less trustworthy.

    On the other hand IF the Congress can manage to phase in a staggered 18-year terms for
    Supreme Court justices, it would offer political insulation as well as senile justices. In
    addition, it would assure that each president had an equal number of seats to fill per term.
    In contrast, the current system allowed Jimmy Carter no appointments. Similarly one
    term president, however, Donald Trump got to appoint three justices.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)