The court hasn't been expanded since the Civil War so I'm not sure what pattern you have in mind when you say:
We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.
Yes - if the Democrats do it, I don't think that the next time Republicans are in power they'll just accept the Democrats' Supreme Court.
Not literally revolving justices, but rather adding enough new justices each time to establish a majority.
You might as well just have a rule that says each new President can appoint a fresh set of judges, because that would be the practical effect of such a change. I suppose that to many people, the idea of a Republican court during Republican presidential administrations and a Democratic court during Democratic presidential administrations is more appealing than the current court, but I'm not at the point yet where I would favor undermining the independence of the judicial branch even if that would lead to better short-term outcomes.
Climate change isn't going to destroy the planet. The world has been a much warmer place in the (geological) past than it is projected to become, without triggering an apocalypse. There will still be large areas of land that support food production and a pleasant lifestyle, for those with the resources to aquire and hold that land.
I used to think it was somehow dehumanizing to talk (or rather type) to an AI but now that I've gotten into the habit of doing it I actually find it quite satisfying. It has improved my life.
Yet another reason why California's ballot initiative system is a bad idea.
They say the bond spending would pay for itself, since Prop. 38 ensures that 10% of the revenue generated from research would go back to the state’s coffers. And cures funded with Prop. 38 money must be cheaper when sold to California residents — 20% less than the average national price.
Source. If that was actually a good investment then the private sector would have provided the funds...
In the words of a blogger I like,
The great thing about California is that it’s not just a state where a few big special interests can money-pump the public. Anyone, no matter how small or humble, if they try hard and believe in themselves, can become a special interest that money-pumps the public.
Any space can be a parking space if you just believe.
It's called a beak.
It makes the candidate weaker than he would otherwise be if everything else was equal, but you're right that a candidate opposed by special interests can overall be stronger than a candidate not opposed by them. My point is just that you can't judge a candidate's strength or weakness as something independent of those attack ads.
Being the sort of candidate who motivates special interests to spend a fortune trying to stop you from getting elected makes you a weaker candidate, if all else is equal, where "weaker" here is referring to electability rather than ideology or the preferences of a Platonic ideal public.
Benson is the governor-elect.
My dog's muzzle with her nose very close to the camera.
