Jay Robertson
@ijeftomi.bsky.social
know a lot about a little and a little 'bout a lot
That doesn't get us anything but Vance until 2029.
November 29, 2025 at 3:29 AM
That doesn't get us anything but Vance until 2029.
Nothing passive about the last question in that post.
What's your answer to it? 🤔
What's your answer to it? 🤔
November 29, 2025 at 1:43 AM
Nothing passive about the last question in that post.
What's your answer to it? 🤔
What's your answer to it? 🤔
You seem to be assuming that I support this.
Yes, there are thirteen districts but 13 is also an unruly number of SCOTUS justices.
Yes, there are thirteen districts but 13 is also an unruly number of SCOTUS justices.
November 29, 2025 at 1:38 AM
You seem to be assuming that I support this.
Yes, there are thirteen districts but 13 is also an unruly number of SCOTUS justices.
Yes, there are thirteen districts but 13 is also an unruly number of SCOTUS justices.
We're never gonna have 60 that want to do this.
November 29, 2025 at 1:29 AM
We're never gonna have 60 that want to do this.
It won't stay "representative" for long...there will just be 13 seats to play with instead of 9.
Throwing in term limits will only make SCOTUS control an even more volatile topic in electoral politics because SCOTUS vacancies would become scheduled rather than random.
Throwing in term limits will only make SCOTUS control an even more volatile topic in electoral politics because SCOTUS vacancies would become scheduled rather than random.
November 29, 2025 at 1:20 AM
It won't stay "representative" for long...there will just be 13 seats to play with instead of 9.
Throwing in term limits will only make SCOTUS control an even more volatile topic in electoral politics because SCOTUS vacancies would become scheduled rather than random.
Throwing in term limits will only make SCOTUS control an even more volatile topic in electoral politics because SCOTUS vacancies would become scheduled rather than random.
What does success look like?
That by the end of 48's term, SCOTUS has 13 seats and 48 got to pick all 4 new ones?
How is that any more fair than if Trump and MAGA were to decide to do it now and *they'd* get to choose the 4 new ones?
That by the end of 48's term, SCOTUS has 13 seats and 48 got to pick all 4 new ones?
How is that any more fair than if Trump and MAGA were to decide to do it now and *they'd* get to choose the 4 new ones?
November 29, 2025 at 1:09 AM
What does success look like?
That by the end of 48's term, SCOTUS has 13 seats and 48 got to pick all 4 new ones?
How is that any more fair than if Trump and MAGA were to decide to do it now and *they'd* get to choose the 4 new ones?
That by the end of 48's term, SCOTUS has 13 seats and 48 got to pick all 4 new ones?
How is that any more fair than if Trump and MAGA were to decide to do it now and *they'd* get to choose the 4 new ones?
Reforming the judiciary is too esoteric to hold the public's attention as a top priority for two years.
The GOP will wait it out because they know the public will eventually become irate about the other things being neglected. The media will let the GOP decide and disseminate what those things are.
The GOP will wait it out because they know the public will eventually become irate about the other things being neglected. The media will let the GOP decide and disseminate what those things are.
November 29, 2025 at 12:55 AM
Reforming the judiciary is too esoteric to hold the public's attention as a top priority for two years.
The GOP will wait it out because they know the public will eventually become irate about the other things being neglected. The media will let the GOP decide and disseminate what those things are.
The GOP will wait it out because they know the public will eventually become irate about the other things being neglected. The media will let the GOP decide and disseminate what those things are.
Pardon power is constitutionally absolute.
No legislation changes that.
No legislation changes that.
November 29, 2025 at 12:38 AM
Pardon power is constitutionally absolute.
No legislation changes that.
No legislation changes that.
Keep in mind that this, like all polls, is asking the opinion of a thoroughly degenerate population that has elected Trump twice.
I treat their opinions accordingly 😗
I treat their opinions accordingly 😗
November 29, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Keep in mind that this, like all polls, is asking the opinion of a thoroughly degenerate population that has elected Trump twice.
I treat their opinions accordingly 😗
I treat their opinions accordingly 😗
SCOTUS wouldn't even let Biden cancel student debt. I doubt they will let # 48 do "what it takes" to fix anything.
November 28, 2025 at 11:27 PM
SCOTUS wouldn't even let Biden cancel student debt. I doubt they will let # 48 do "what it takes" to fix anything.
That was true of the GOP last year, but "genocide" made it irrelevant.
November 28, 2025 at 9:57 PM
That was true of the GOP last year, but "genocide" made it irrelevant.
Americans have elected Trump twice now.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
Countries would be stupid to come back to us again.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
Countries would be stupid to come back to us again.
November 28, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Americans have elected Trump twice now.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
Countries would be stupid to come back to us again.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
Countries would be stupid to come back to us again.
They know that the US under Dems is also fleeting.
November 28, 2025 at 9:49 PM
They know that the US under Dems is also fleeting.
That doesn't remotely answer the question I asked.
November 28, 2025 at 9:43 PM
That doesn't remotely answer the question I asked.
They've made new deals with new countries.
Why should those new countries lose those deals?
Why should those new countries lose those deals?
November 28, 2025 at 9:40 PM
They've made new deals with new countries.
Why should those new countries lose those deals?
Why should those new countries lose those deals?
I don't think it ever would. I still think this is all fantasy.
November 28, 2025 at 9:34 PM
I don't think it ever would. I still think this is all fantasy.
Maybe Trump will decide to do this while he's still president...then the four new picks will be his.
November 28, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Maybe Trump will decide to do this while he's still president...then the four new picks will be his.
On paper, yes.
In practice, that doesn't answer the question.
In practice, that doesn't answer the question.
November 28, 2025 at 9:20 PM
On paper, yes.
In practice, that doesn't answer the question.
In practice, that doesn't answer the question.
If it did jump to 13, I can see it coming in the form of a deal that each party gets to pick two.
One party picking all 4 would be seen as a shameless power grab.
If the change came now rather than under a # 48,would you approve of Trump picking all 4?
One party picking all 4 would be seen as a shameless power grab.
If the change came now rather than under a # 48,would you approve of Trump picking all 4?
November 28, 2025 at 9:17 PM
If it did jump to 13, I can see it coming in the form of a deal that each party gets to pick two.
One party picking all 4 would be seen as a shameless power grab.
If the change came now rather than under a # 48,would you approve of Trump picking all 4?
One party picking all 4 would be seen as a shameless power grab.
If the change came now rather than under a # 48,would you approve of Trump picking all 4?
What's to prevent SCOTUS from overturning a law that expands SCOTUS?
November 28, 2025 at 9:12 PM
What's to prevent SCOTUS from overturning a law that expands SCOTUS?
I think any expansion of SCOTUS beyond nine is a fantasy.
November 28, 2025 at 9:08 PM
I think any expansion of SCOTUS beyond nine is a fantasy.
They won't have SCOTUS in their pocket....they'll have SCOTUS at their throat.
November 28, 2025 at 8:58 PM
They won't have SCOTUS in their pocket....they'll have SCOTUS at their throat.
Now you're just peddling the lies that fuel it.
November 28, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Now you're just peddling the lies that fuel it.
No they won't.
They'll get the same treatment that Schumer and Jeffries are getting now.
They'll get the same treatment that Schumer and Jeffries are getting now.
November 28, 2025 at 8:47 PM
No they won't.
They'll get the same treatment that Schumer and Jeffries are getting now.
They'll get the same treatment that Schumer and Jeffries are getting now.
Reposted by Jay Robertson
ICYMI: Reed Showalter is an antisemite who hides behind Israel to spread his bigotry & the same way the Nazis claimed the Rothschilds were using $ to control Western governments, Reed just replaces the Rothschilds with AIPAC.
The only chance you have of going to the Hill is on a guided fucking tour.
The only chance you have of going to the Hill is on a guided fucking tour.
November 27, 2025 at 12:19 AM
ICYMI: Reed Showalter is an antisemite who hides behind Israel to spread his bigotry & the same way the Nazis claimed the Rothschilds were using $ to control Western governments, Reed just replaces the Rothschilds with AIPAC.
The only chance you have of going to the Hill is on a guided fucking tour.
The only chance you have of going to the Hill is on a guided fucking tour.