328
Mitch McConnell shares GOP's ‘worst nightmare’ scenario of a Harris-Walz White House
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
328 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2590 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fun fact, Congress can change the size of the Supreme Court at will for any reason.
They SHRUNK the court in 1866 from 9 to 7 because they just fucking hated Andrew Johnson THAT MUCH and they wanted to deny him a nomination.
After Johnson was out, they raised it back up to 9 in 1869, Granting 2, and it stayed that way ever since.
https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
"The Supreme Court had just ruled that paper money was unconstitutional, which would have 'wreaked havoc' with the U.S. Treasury, says Marcus. But Grant and Congress quickly confirmed two new justices who reversed the Court’s decision in the earlier case, saving the Republicans from having to undo the nation’s entire system of legal tender."
Jesus and I thought our court was making the most dumbass decisions. Wierdly gives me hope that the Harris administration can fix a whole bumcha bullshit though.
I misread Harris as Harrison and I thought that you were making a joke that it was the 1880s again...
The dream of the 90s is alive in Portland...
https://youtu.be/0_HGqPGp9iY
They also shrank the court to 8 in 2016.
That was a little different, they didn't actually change the size of the court, they just maintained the vacancy.
In 1866 they actually went and said "Nah, 7 is good." Which not only kept Johnson from filling a vacancy, it bounced someone else out.
Paper money unconstitutional? Wow.