States AGs are filing lawsuits, state legislatures are enacting “open carry” and CW carry permitted without a permit and Governors are declaring federal mandates on gun controls will not be enforced. Lot of political theater but unless the stooges that are driving the incremental disarmament of the citizenry efforts are voted out?
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Oryx
103
“The national opinion poll, conducted on Thursday and Friday, found that 63% of adults supported term or age limits for Supreme Court justices. Another 22% said they opposed any limits and the rest did not express an opinion.”
“The poll also found that only 38% would support expanding the size of the court by adding four more justices. Another 42% said they would oppose doing so and the rest were unsure.”
Considering the whole point of lifetime appointments is now moot, I would have to agree with the notion of doing away with them.
The point was to keep the justices from being swayed by politics. We see how that worked out.
1 Like
Oryx
105
Do you think the court’s decisions are more political now than they have been in the past, or just the way justices are chosen and confirmed?
Also this from the article: “Some Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, a move that they believe would restore public confidence in the judicial branch.”
Expanding the court would restore public confidence?! 
1 Like
Of course not. Any old excuse though… Like it matters anyway. Our “public servants” pretty much do whatever they feel like and we let them. So there’s that. We can’t really do anything about SC justices, even if we want to. Another notch for solid reasons to do away with lifetime appointments.
1 Like
WuWei
107
I believe term limits on any of them would simply speed up the rate of decay.
Maybe, but it’s kind of like de-regulation. We’re already down that path and we’re already already past the point of no return, imo. Might as well get it over with.
WuWei
109
We are most definitely not down the path of deregulation.
conan
110
Majority of Americans don’t support court packing…but that’s not stopping you libs.
conan
111
Like I said…we need to push the walls of Marble Palace to compensate the 16 new justices once republicans take over the senate and pres.
You seem confused. I said it’s LIKE de-regulation. Carter started it and Reagan sped it up.
The genie is out of the bottle as far as political activism on the bench too.
That would be enough to give the administration unchecked power to do ANYTHING if they are sycophants to the party in power. Absolutely anything.
conan
114
And what do you think libs are trying to do now?
If they pack SCOTUS with 4 new justice the moment their is repug pres with repug senate we need to round the court with 29.
I see what some are trying to do and have spoken out against it. 4 would be bad enough. Your 16 is end of the game stuff.
They won’t get their 4.
conan
116
And that is precisely what we are going to push for if libs get their way with this.
And libs can bitch all they want.
So if they do this…they better remodel that building to accommodate 29 justices. 
WuWei
117
I’m not at all confused. There is no deregulation.
Yeah ok. 
"In 1993, President William Clinton replaced Executive Order 12,291 with Executive Order 12,866, which remains in effect today, despite the very different regulatory rhetoric of Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, who succeeded him. Executive Order 12,866 retained OIRA’s review of significant new regulations. It also reinforced the philosophy that regulations should be based on an analysis of the benefits and costs of all available alternatives, and that agencies should select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits to society unless otherwise constrained by law.
Will Regulatory Budgeting be Milestone 5? Is the American public witnessing the next wave of regulatory reform? President Trump has made deregulation a high priority. Although he has retained Executive Order 12,866, he has overlaid its requirements to maximize net regulatory benefits with an incremental regulatory budget. Executive Order 13,771, which President Trump issued in 2017, requires agencies to remove two regulations for every new one issued and to offset the costs of new regulations by removing or modifying existing rules. The emphasis on reducing regulatory costs reflects a dramatic departure from the focus on net benefits that has prevailed for social regulations.
To date, Executive Order 13,771 has led to a sharp reduction in the issuance of new regulations, as well as to the modification and removal of some existing regulations. Nevertheless, President Trump’s initiatives have not come close to achieving his promise of cutting regulations by 75 percent, and that is due to the regulatory process that previous reforms have instituted."
Oryx
120
In response I’ll just quote myself from this very thread:
1 Like
And you better prepare for outright tyranny. You think republicans could control themselves with absolute power like that? I got a bridge to sell ya.
