Musk Droppings (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

SpaceX’s Starship explodes in second failure for Musk’s Mars program

Back-to-back mishaps indicate big setbacks for program to launch satellites and send humans to the moon and Mars

www.theguardian.com

The failure comes just more than a month after the company’s seventh Starship flight also ended in an explosive failure. The back-to-back mishaps occurred in early mission phases that SpaceX has easily surpassed previously, indicating serious setbacks for a program Musk has sought to speed up this year.

 

[bird]

I agree with the first two. That third one doesn't follow.

The problem with it is is in a court setting if anything to have nine judges deliberating together is probably too many, five is better and it is three, or five judges, some times 7 which are most often used at the appeals level.

Your complaint appears to be that 9 judges cannot properly represent 347 million people. If we populated the Supreme court with the same ratio as is currently used to populate the House of Representatives, each judge would represent the views of about 800,000 people, and that is still not coming even close to a reasonable level of representation.

Having 439 judges on the supreme court and still not have a reasonable ratio between the people, and the judges which "represent" them. No that would be debilitating in the extreme.

Besides insofar as what judges do it's silly, if not wrong, to think that they represent the people at all. That's what the house and senate are supposed to do, not what the court does.

Judges are supposed to not even look at what the popularity of an issue is, nor even speak with citizens about a case they are working on. How could judges do that and represent the people at the same time???

I would prefer to have one justice per judicial circuits. That seems reasonable.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Your complaint appears to be that 9 judges cannot properly represent 347 million people.

My complaint is exactly what I said it was and I said nothing about representation.

In my opinion 9 people is too few people deciding the fate of 347 million people. As a check against corruption and group think, it should be a larger group. That has nothing to do with representation.

The population numbers are to show the scale of the potential harm that 9 people, 5 people actually, can inflict on people's rights and lives.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I would prefer to have one justice per judicial circuits. That seems reasonable.

That would currently be 94 Supreme Court justices, unless you mean regional circuits which would be twelve. I'd prefer 94, because that's an almost impossible court to ideologically or politically stack, and with current travel and communications technology it's easily feasible.

 

[SamAndreas]

My complaint is exactly what I said it was and I said nothing about representation.

In my opinion 9 people is too few people deciding the fate of 347 million people. As a check against corruption and group think, it should be a larger group. That has nothing to do with representation.

The population numbers are to show the scale of the potential harm that 9 people, 5 people actually, can inflict on people's rights and lives.

Everyone gets to have their own way at the same time, is my way.

Let me see if I can get your working thesis correct, you're saying that 9 people will do more harm to 347 million people than more than 9 will???

How many more than 9?

Do you want 11?

Perhaps Oceans 11 with Danny for Chief Justice?. Danny you know he defines debonair.

I think 11 would probably not stretch the envelope too much, so that number is fine with me. But I don't want 435.

 

[Dragon]

I agree with the first two. That third one doesn't follow.

The problem with it is is in a court setting if anything to have nine judges deliberating together is probably too many, five is better and it is three, or five judges, some times 7 which are most often used at the appeals level.

Your complaint appears to be that 9 judges cannot properly represent 347 million people. If we populated the Supreme court with the same ratio as is currently used to populate the House of Representatives, each judge would represent the views of about 800,000 people, and that is still not coming even close to a reasonable level of representation.

Having 439 judges on the supreme court and still not have a reasonable ratio between the people, and the judges which "represent" them. No that would be debilitating in the extreme.

Besides insofar as what judges do it's silly, if not wrong, to think that they represent the people at all. That's what the house and senate are supposed to do, not what the court does.

Judges are supposed to not even look at what the popularity of an issue is, nor even speak with citizens about a case they are working on. How could judges do that and represent the people at the same time?

Everyone gets to have their own way at the same time, is my way.

Let me see if I can get your working thesis correct, you're saying that 9 people will do more harm to 347 million people than more than 9 will???

How many more than 9?

Do you want 11?

Perhaps Oceans 11 with Danny for Chief Justice?. Danny you know he defines debonair.

I think 11 would probably not stretch the envelope too much, so that number is fine with me. But I don't want 435.

IMHO more than 9 is important because it is far harder to bribe or threaten 90+ than 9. Also all members should be term limited

 

[SamAndreas]

That would currently be 94 Supreme Court justices, unless you mean regional circuits which would be twelve. I'd prefer 94, because that's an almost impossible court to ideologically or politically stack, and with current travel and communications technology it's easily feasible.

What if it were to be that a Republican was President the day that wonderful expansion of the court were to occur?

By that I wonder if a Republican like Trump gets to picked al those judges to go from the original 9, all the way to 94, all in one day.

That would be 85 supreme court judges Trump would get to pick all in one day. What a Grand Old Party that would be. Uhhuh.

Does that suit you?

Perhaps would you think that a Democrat ought to get to pick out all 85 of those judges, all in one day.

 

[SamAndreas]

IMHO more than 9 is important because it is far harder to bribe or threaten 90+ than 9. Also all members should be term limited

That's a consideration, the way they expansion is to be enacted is also a consideration as I asked LA, what if a Republican were President the day 85+ judges were to be appointed. That's a 50 50 proposition to consider.

How that many judges could possibly function as a court is also a consideration. Legislative debate is one thing, I don't think more than 9 judges is a good idea.

We didn't alway have 9 to start out with.

We started with 6, finished with 9 in 1869. I would be OK I suppose with 11. It needs to be an odd number to avoid ties.

 

[Dragon]

The judges should have different term period starts - be ELECTED for 6 year terms with 1/6th on the ballot every year.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I don't buy the argument that it's too difficult to have 94 judges. Deciding what rights people do and don't have should be incredibly hard with lots of deliberation by lots of justices with diverse backgrounds, perspectives and opinions. That's how you prevent a tyranny by a minority of 6 people.

The status quo of the Supreme Court got us into this shirt. More of that status quo will not get us out of it. If it's broke, it stays broke until you fix it. A major expansion in the number of justices can be ramped up in a whole bunch of different ways that can be fair and equitable.

There doesn't have to be an odd number of justices. Tied decisions have happened before and they will happen again. When the Supreme Court justices split evenly on a decision, then the appellant courts decision stands. I think allowing for ties is actually a good thing, because it gives the appellant courts a little bit of a check on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court split on a decision in this very term. It wasn't very news worthy, because it was nothing new and it was no big deal.

 

[SFIDC3]

What Trump and his Republicans have shown is a common mistake that a lot of democratic governments make.

They make the mistake of thinking elected and appointed officials will act in good faith on too many things, so they broad stroke corruption and power abuse safeguards in their constitutions.

We can't just broad stroke it and rely on people to follow the broad strokes in good faith. We have to get more specific and we have to have a much larger Supreme Court. 9 people decided the rights and laws governing 347 million people and growing is absurd.

I don't disagree.....don't know if a larger SC is the answer but I'm all for term limits.....the lifetime appointments are so outdated and ridiculous....

 

[SamAndreas]

The judges should have different term period starts - be ELECTED for 6 year terms with 1/6th on the ballot every year.

If they are elected then they most certainly will become politicians.

California is the first state I've ever been to which elects judges, I never know who they are, or anything about them, and unless I know who they are, and what they are like, I skip voting on those lines.

 

[SamAndreas]

I don't buy the argument that it's too difficult to have 94 judges. Deciding what rights people do and don't have should be incredibly hard with lots of deliberation by lots of justices with diverse backgrounds, perspectives and opinions. That's how you prevent a tyranny by a minority of 6 people.

The status quo of the Supreme Court got us into this shirt. More of that status quo will not get us out of it. If it's broke, it stays broke until you fix it. A major expansion in the number of justices can be ramped up in a whole bunch of different ways that can be fair and equitable.

There doesn't have to be an odd number of justices. Tied decisions have happened before and they will happen again. When the Supreme Court justices split evenly on a decision, then the appellant courts decision stands. I think allowing for ties is actually a good thing, because it gives the appellant courts a little bit of a check on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court split on a decision in this very term. It wasn't very news worthy, because it was nothing new and it was no big deal.

That last is a good argument, even with an odd number there are time when one dies and a replacement hasn't been seated yet so ties do happen anyway.

I will answer your first argument with it's easy to see the tyranny which is occasionally brought about by the House and Senate, combined there are 535 of them. Case in point being the big ugly bill which is pending before them now.

 

[TampaJoe]

That last is a good argument, even with an odd number there are time when one dies and a replacement hasn't been seated yet so ties do happen anyway.

I will answer your first argument with it's easy to see the tyranny which is occasionally brought about by the House and Senate, combined there are 535 of them. Case in point being the big ugly bill which is pending before them now.

Your last paragraph is a good argument for a limited federal government.

 

[Dragon]

If they are elected then they most certainly will become politicians.

California is the first state I've ever been to which elects judges, I never know who they are, or anything about them, and unless I know who they are, and what they are like, I skip voting on those lines.

The US are electing other judges all the time. Why should a president chose the very people responsible for keeping him honest? This simple fact is a major reason why the US is in this situation today

 

[SamAndreas]

The US are electing other judges all the time. Why should a president chose the very people responsible for keeping him honest? This simple fact is a major reason why the US is in this situation today

That's only half of it, the Senate confirm, and once in a while they do reject someone who has been picked. They way that rejection often occurs seems to be the Senate signals that they are not going to approve someone so the President withdraws the nominee and picks another. In that case the rejection doesn't get counted as a down vote, but it produces the same result.

The example I'd give is when Bush appointed his personal lawyer, she wasn't even close to being qualified. The Senate signaled that wasn't going to fly and that's how we got Alito.

Maybe his personal lawyer would have been better than Alito.

 

[bird]

If they are elected then they most certainly will become politicians.

California is the first state I've ever been to which elects judges, I never know who they are, or anything about them, and unless I know who they are, and what they are like, I skip voting on those lines.

They already are politicians. It is a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, lame arse attempt to claim otherwise. They all come with preconceptions and belief structures. They are human, after all. That being said, sure, there are times when they put aside personal bias but there also times when they do not.

 

[Dragon]

That's only half of it, the Senate confirm, and once in a while they do reject someone who has been picked. They way that rejection often occurs seems to be the Senate signals that they are not going to approve someone so the President withdraws the nominee and picks another. In that case the rejection doesn't get counted as a down vote, but it produces the same result.

The example I'd give is when Bush appointed his personal lawyer, she wasn't even close to being qualified. The Senate signaled that wasn't going to fly and that's how we got Alito.

Maybe his personal lawyer would have been better than Alito.

A conservative senate/president could still do the same. When it comes to judges and state supreme court judges - even states with a republican governor/legislation has elected liberal judges (and tried in vain to annull the election). Maybe people look for other qualities in their judges than in their politicians

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The US are electing other judges all the time. Why should a president chose the very people responsible for keeping him honest? This simple fact is a major reason why the US is in this situation today

Too many people naively hold onto the myth that Supreme Court justices are currently not political. The system got us here. The system is broke. If we don't fix the system it will stay broke and things won't get better until we fix it.

I believe our society will come out of this as democratic society and become more equal, equitable and inclusive. I think that things will look very different with either a drastically amendment constitution or a completely new one altogether.