Corporations are people my friend.

The scripting of replies to issues is not just a Think Tank thing for politicians. It is invading many areas such as MSM where they are given a written and pre tested, sound boarded set of words to say even as they pretend this is local curated content.

If you read these articles, they are all about what I explicitly acknowledged -- the drafting of proposed legislation by advocacy groups (which of course are often industry-funded groups).

You suggested that donors would be drafting responses to things like Warnock's speech, which I highly doubt. That speech wasn't some sort of seminal moment in American political history that required an immediate response from corporate America. It was a junior senator going on the record about voting rights and the fantasy of bipartisanship in the modern political arena. I like Warnock fine, but his thoughts weren't especially novel. He was just repeating what many other Democratic legislators have said. I would be very surprised if corporate America or related advocacy groups paid much attention at all to Warnock's speech.

Your starting point is that legislation is presumptively a bad idea and should be avoided. But a lot of bills need to be passed in order for government to function in any sort of effective way.

I am not sure why you would doubt.

I am talking about the Think Tanks not only ghost writing legislation but also preparing the gov't people with tested Q&A on what to expect as objections and what to give as rebuttals. The NRA example is the perfect example of that. They advocate legislation while handing out over practiced replies to any and all rebuttals they think the gov't official would face.

I am not suggesting that someone is sitting ghost writing a direct rebuttal to address Warnocks speech directly, what i am suggesting is that the ghost writing of the elements of his speech are already circulating and being used and will continue to be refined.

The answer to why the filibuster must be preserved such as .... 'this august tradition of the world's greatest deliberative body is one that is steeped in bipartisanship and bipartisanship is an important element that must be fought for and persevered' they know sounds much better than 'my donors do not want the change'.


I would say, if indeed you are correct and the Think Tanks refuse or see no opportunity in 'refining the message and rebuttals' then the think tanks are dumb and missing an obvious opportunity. I may start a think tank and put many of them out of business. No hyperbole intended as they would have this laughably huge exploit in value sitting right in front of them that competitors could exploit and donors would support.

No one wants Marjorie Taylor Greene to try and logic out and think what rebuttal she needs to offer from the floor. You want her pre-prepared with a list of talking points and hope she sticks to the script Sarah Palin style as what comes out of their mouths naturally is often not good.

Unlike roughly 99% of the laws passed by Congress, at least naming Post Offices doesn't trample on the freedoms and/or purses of the citizenry.

I'm fine with a simple majority if the cost of the proposed legislation is under $1M.

Yes, my presumption is that legislation should almost always be avoided.

If a bill needs to be passed, it should easily meet the 60% threshold.

And 60% might be too low of a threshold for my taste.

If you weren't suggesting that someone was ghost writing a response to Warnock's speech, then a lot of my comments are not relevant.

I acknowledged that ghost writing of potential responses might occur if a non-legislative comment was specifically industry-specific.

As an aside, I don't think it is as easy to script talking points for politicians as you might imagine. I am not suggesting that politicians are immune to influence. But a lot of them are resistant to coaching and resistant to being told exactly what to say in a press release or in front of a microphone. Senator GunNut might well have been influenced the NRA. He might well be inclined to say things that benefit the causes that the NRA supports. But that doesn't mean he is going to frame his advocacy in exactly the way the NRA would prefer. In addition to being pro-gun ownership, Senator GunNut may also be an arrogant prick. And arrogant pricks often think that they know best exactly what needs to done or said in a given situation.

Basically agree with everything above while saying I think the Think Tanks are increasingly creeping in closer and closer to their goals of having the politicians be the proxy voice for their issues without much original thought.

They know there is a basic laziness in people and an increasing lack of intelligence and curiosity in the politicians. SO they increasing want 'trusted parties' to give them the cliff notes about subjects which they then digest and repeat out as their original thought. As you say, some may change or adapt it but at its base it is still the others core thoughts as these people increasingly look now where else. Trump was an example of that. he was only being given cliff notes on most topics by a few trusted individuals to augment what he would grab from SM and tv.

Trump may have been more swayed by the more outlandish stuff on SM and TV but when he gave his speeches trying to look somewhat reasonable that would from a distillation of cliff notes handed to him by his handles, increasingly of which are Think Tank proxies, like Bannon and Steven Miller.

It would if there were no political parties that put heat on those who don't toe the line.

Well, congress does control the purse strings. That's by design.

We can keep it as it is now, where anything that might help the average citizen is just 'too hard' to get passed and 60% gladly vote for their donor's interests, or we can get back to a system that represents people instead of corporations.

I don't think we have the same idea of what trampled freedoms and purses are in practice.

Elizabeth Warren blasts 'Republican hijacking' of the Supreme Court and supports adding at least 4 more justices to the bench​

- Sen. Elizabeth Warren has come out in support of expanding more justices to the Supreme Court.
- The Massachusetts Democrat criticized the court's 6-3 conservative majority.
- "To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats," Warren wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday fiercely condemned the Supreme Court's current 6-3 conservative majority and came out in support for expanding the number of justices on the bench.

"I believe it's time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court," the Massachusetts Democrat she wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed. "I don't come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation."

Warren said that adding more justices would help "rebalance" the court, which she claims in recent years has undermined its legitimacy and independence because of a slew of "radical right-wing" decisions, particularly concerning voting rights, labor unions, and corporate power.

"This radical court has reversed century-old campaign-finance restrictions, opening the floodgates for corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to buy our elections. It has reversed well-settled law that once required employers to permit union organizers to meet with workers," Warren wrote. "And it has gutted one of the most important civil rights laws of our time, the Voting Rights Act, not once but twice."

The progressive lawmaker also called out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the highest-ranking Republican senator, for refusing to consider former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, nine months before the presidential election, but then four years later, swiftly confirming former President Donald Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, eight days before the 2020 election.

If we need another reason to expand the Supreme Court then few speak louder than this.
that the Trump blueprint to weaponize court delays to ensure the Check and Balance power of opposing Branches is effectively dead is something no one should accept.

This absolutely will be the blueprint going forward over the most contentious issues or with a Trump like leader, every issue.

An expanded SC could accommodate all such challenges such as State V State, Co equal Branch disputes and other such Constitutional issues where regardless of all lower court rulings it is going up to the SC regardless and do so in a manner where the Power of the entities is not lost.

This Trump tax issue will be well into its 3rd year before the SC hears and decides it. So even if in Co Equal Branch disputes start on Day 1 on a term, it is possible it could be delayed until the next election (and certainly through Midterms) where power could change and the challenge just ended.

That is not right. that is not how things were ever intended by the Founders. Check and Balance in name only with no actually ability to enforce is ridiculous.

If the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate in 2022, do you personally believe that the highly-principled Native-American senator will still support an expansion of the SC?

The timeline that you are complaining about has nothing to do with the number of justices on the SCOTUS. Generally speaking, the capacity of the SCOTUS is not a bottleneck. Cert petitions are filed on a schedule, and granted or denied on a schedule. (It's possible for the Court to defer decision on a petition, but it isn't common, and there usually are reasons for the deferral that have nothing to do with Court capacity.)

If the Court denies cert, you aren't left without guidance. To the contrary, denial just means that the decion of the federal appellate court stands. Those appellate decisions are binding on district courts in the Circuit and highly persuasive for district Courts outside the Circuit.

If you added justices, then it might well be possible to grant more petitions and issue more rulings. Whether you think that is a good idea depends on your politics and the ideological bent of the Court. If a Court with the same ideology as the current justices decided twice as many cases as the current Court does, I suspect you would be horrified by the results.

Agreed the only thing that allows all these delays is money and power.

So if the Dems had won the last election and their were 6 left leaning judges you would be OK with that?

The best answer is a term limit or must retire by a certain age.

I would not advocate it expanding the court to increase its capacity to take on more cases, if the expansion was done in a way that maintained the current ideology. I have gave my views on how adding more jurists will in fact widen the disparate views instead of tightening them and make room for more dissent and I think there is really no denying that. It will always be harder to get 100 people to act in unison than 2.

What I am suggesting here is that the S.Court have some mechanism to take on a series of cases more directly such as happens with State V State issues of Original Jurisdiction. That way you have one case and one ruling and the issue is done. I don't care if the S.C carves out and calls it a Constitutional Court or just keeps it the way it is but splits out appropriate jurists to handle the issue but it would be better than the status quo.


We know, and probably could always assume that any major battle between Co Equal branches of gov't are going to end up at the S.C. They pretty much need to as they are setting very important precedent on the Power Dynamics with each ruling. So to let Trump weaponize this procedure and run it through lower court after lower court when the ONLY ruling that will ultimately matter is the SC one and we will eventually get there is just silly, imo. This is too important to delay so just bump it to the SC.

But bumping it to the SC will not always be timely if they have a set docket as all the items before them can be argued to be critical. In making them designate this version of a Constitutional Court and giving them the resources (an abundance of jurists) you can now address this.

You know, had the Dems been willing to play true hardball with McConnell when he was posturing and testing them before pushing ACB thru as Trump's nominee. Had the Dems drawn a line in the sand that if he followed thru on that they, given power would counter it by packing the court and if instead they countered McConnell saying Nominate her, go thru the process and if Trump wins again then confirm her but if Biden wins know that we will not, then that might have stayed MItch's hand. If it did not it would be no shock or a lesser issue to pack the Court as you are only doing what you said you would do.

Ok but the Dem's did not do that. So now then had the Dem's prior or now, let the SC know as Roosevelt did with his SC issues that the threat of packing the SC was very real if they continue down this blatant path of using their power to shift the country right (allowing instead staying Texas law despite is clear unconstitutionality), then like Roosevelt got they might see a more reasonable Bench, where Roosevelt suddenly saw the SC turn from blocking almost 100% of his agenda to passing near 100% of his agenda.


But that is not how todays Dems operate. In fact the opposite. Biden and Pelosi almost always signal at the very beginning the opposite. They let Mitch and the SC know they are not in favour of court packing. They let Donors know 'don't worry, nothing really will change', and if you BEGIN your negotiations that way the other side has little reason to compromise as they know you may fight for what you want but they face no real losses or consequences if they block you.


Some think and argue that is just the 'nice' way Dems negotiate or they just trying to be more partisan but it is not. It is either just incompetent weakness of a deliberate giving away of their negotiation power as they do not want to really deliver on their promises and want to be thwarted.

I am quite convinced it is the latter. There is nothing the Dems want to run on more in 2024 then 'we need even more Dem's elected to ACTUALLY give you a $15 minimum wage and to actually give you the BBB. Give us more Dems so we can thwart the Republi.... oops Dems, who thwarted us the last time'.

Oh and of course 'plus we are the lesser of two evils.'

Be OK with what? I wasn't complaining about anything.

I didn't understand that you were citing the article as evidence of why the Court's original jurisdiction should be expanded. That a very different proposal than increasing the size of the Court. I guess that I was confused because you prefaced your citation of the article with:

It's odd to me that you set court packing proposals in opposition to "lesser of two evils" decision-making. To my mind, the best argument for expanding the Court is that it is the lesser of two evils.

In other words, in a perfect world (i.e., a world in which nominations were handled rationally and fairly), it's obvious to me that a proposal by the party in power to expand the Court would be a terrible idea.

The best argument for expansion is that we don't live in anything close to that perfect world. To the contrary, the country is so far gone that it makes sense for Democrats to do everything in their power to maximize short term advantages because fatal rot is inevitable in the long term no matter what the Democrats do.

I actually have some sympathy for that argument.

No sorry, I am confusing as I am meandering on this topic a bit.

I do think the court should be expanded such that they could either widen their Original Jurisdiction or otherwise create a Constitutional Court within it or whatever they felt was the best way.


The point being they need more jurists to clear and avoid a backlog that causes the same issue of time being used as a weapon.

I actually see Court packing as an absolute good. I see no issues, or negatives as a result and only a bunch of goods.

The closest bad I have seen was simply OP saying 'well it could result in less judicial review' which is properly hand waved away with 'well it could result ion more judicial review' as both outcomes are possible and there is no reason to say judicial review is necessary compromised by merely adding jurists. It may be, it might not. It might be improved.

Sorry was more agreeing with your comment and than asking others about the second part.