• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle

  • Term limits in SCOTUS would increase the current president’s power to exert influence in the court. That sounds great, until we realize that about half the time, the president is a complete asshole who shouldn’t be in charge of a McDonald’s franchise, let alone the country.

    To reduce a president’s undue influence on the court, we need to strictly limit the number of justices they can add per term. If three justices reach their term limits, and two others die or retire, the president is flipping five justices. That’s a terrible idea.

    What we could do is eliminate the fixed size of the court. Eliminate the requirement that the court must consist of 9 people. Instead, the president appoints two justices per term, shortly after their first and third years in office. The court’s size will likely fluctuate between 10 and 15 justices.

    To further remove political influence, we could introduce a means of replenishing the court without political grandstanding. Should the court membership fall below 5 members due to some kind of disaster or tragedy, (or should the president fail to appoint or the Senate confirm a presidential appointment, or should too many members of the current court have a conflict of interest and not be eligible to hear a case) appellate court justices are elevated to the supreme court in order of seniority.








  • A “silky mom” is one whose kids have all the sleek, modern gadgets, fancy clothes, etc. They hate dirt, and just want to watch their screens. They eat nothing but processed foods. They use fabric softener and dryer sheets. They are primarily concerned with keeping up appearances.

    A “crunchy mom” is one whose kids have mostly wooden toys, hand-me-down clothes. You’ll find them jumping in mud puddles and eating wild raspberries. They line-dry their clothes. They are primarily concerned with the happiness of everyone around them.

    “Crunchy” is (usually) not a pejorative, and even if it were, a “crunchy mom” wouldn’t concern themselves with such meaningless criticism.

    https://www.youtube.com/@ReallyVeryCrunchy


  • (Caveat: IANAL)

    The specific property, no, probably not.

    However, a child is owed “support” from both parents, normally in the form of direct care. Where one parent is not providing direct care, they can be ordered to provide financial support to the parent who is providing direct care.

    If Alex and Maya have come to an agreement where Alex will provide that mansion in lieu if direct support or financial support, Maya has a claim to the property. If Alex is subject to a support order that includes providing the mansion to Maya, Maya has a claim. Barring a scenario including the house as support, Alex will owe money to caregiver Maya (or Maya will owe money to caregiver Alex) but will not owe the house itself.