Ser Scot A Ellison

I will be legitimately floored if that is how they go.

I don’t mind the idea of increasing the number of Justices. But… we need to strip as much politics out as possible. 10-15 year single terms for Justices. Stop allowing the President to pick them with Senatorial confirmation. Allow the Bar and Judiciary to create an “exam”. Allow people with prior judicial experience to take the exam. If they pass then randomly select people from that pool. Enact and enforce a serious code of ethics for Justices and get serious about removing Justices who violate that code. This will not be perfect or a pancea either… all Human created structures can and will be abused… but… hopefully it will make the existing structure better.

With difficulty. Changing entrenched institutions is always difficult. But if we give up saying such workis impossible to accomplish… it will never happen. I would respectfully suggest working to institute ranked choice voting in local elections might be a start. Get people comfortable with the idea and work from their to remove “First Past The Post” as the common election method. Then move up the chain. Alaska has ranked choice voting (for example) and localities and States don’t require Constitutional Amendments to change how they run their local elections. I’m not claiming this will be easy or a panecea. Or that there aren’t any other alternatives. I’m suggesting that continuing to say “change is impossible” will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

I appreciate that point. Particularly with “first past the post” as the rule in most jurisdictions. That said we have to get past this election to continue to have an opportunity to reform anything. Beat Trump and his fascist allies then reform the process to make it more difficult for vocal minorities to hijack the existing system.

I’ve been saying that we need to reform the US Government for a very long time. I simply do not understand how declaring “fascism has already won” is in any way helpful or is anything but defeatist whining?

So… don’t vote for Biden in the 2024 Presidential Election… fully recognizing who is the direct beneficiary of such an action?

So… you want people to give up? Really?

They’re making KJA’s fanfiction into a TV series… aren’t they? https://screenrant.com/dune-prophecy-tv-spinoff-story-cast/

“He’s not the messiah!! He’s a very naughty boy!!!”

You are missing my distinction. If the aid is proposed as a bill the President can Veto. I’m asking about ongoing aid after the bill has been adopted the Congress (both the House and Senate) and signed by the President… does any President (given Trump’s impeachment for unilaterally withholding such aid) ever have the authority to unilaterally withhold previously approved aid?

Veto… absolutely. My question is about after passage and signing. Would any President, given the rationale for Trump’s impeachment, have authority to unilaterally threaten to withhold or withdraw ongoing aid after it has been legally authorized?

My point is this… if Trump was impeached for seeking to withhold aid that had previously been authorized by Congress… does a President… any President… have individual discretion or authority to unilaterally withhold aid once that aid has legally been authorized?

Yes… but one of the keys was Trump refusing to send aid after that had been approved by Congress… wasn’t it?

I have an odd question… wasn’t Trump’s first impeachment brought for threatening to withhold Congressional authorized aid too Ukraine?

Will the Israeli Navy… resist?

I first voted in 1990… I turned 18 in 1989. But… I’m a citizen of the US. We are to a degree all responsible for what the Government we elect does. That’s the nature of Representative Government. I couldn’t vote… but boy did I cheer for the Reagan Administration when I was in grade school. There is some responsibility there.

Here you go. Offer a defense for regimes engaging in genocide (as the Khmer Rouge were) still seems problematic to me. Now… I’m happy to condemn the US’s support for the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s after the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide. I… as a citizen of the US… own some responsibility for the US’s actions in supporting the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s. https://libcom.org/article/chomsky-and-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia

Okay.

Didn’t he wait years to do that?

Why not? It is not problematic that he defended a Genocidier?

Indeed. On some occasions you are correct. Why don’t you give a fuck about Norm Chomsky defending genocide?

Your thoughts on Norm Chomsky’s defense of Pol Pot?

Norm Chomsky flat out defended Pol Pot.

I like the word apologia. It encompasses much of what people here do (myself included) in not quite endorsing particular points of view but attempting to walk back claims those views are really bad. It is pointing out nuance… and isn’t all that bad a thing to do.

Noting the 9/11 hijackers put their lives on the line isn’t complementing bravery and by extension… apologia?