Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

[Raw Shark]

I don't advocate the BURN IT ALL DOWN point of view, but if I wake up tomorrow and it is all burning down, I am an experienced leader who knows a lot of well-armed left-wingers. All is not lost. We shall fight the fascists in the hills. We shall fight the fascists in the dales. We shall defend our mountains. We shall never surrender.

[Elfdart]

On the subject of upgrading various US territories to full statehood, I'm thinking that should have been done ages ago purely so the people living there have representation in democracy. I'd say "no taxation without representation", but I don't know if those territories pay Federal taxes.

It's complicated. They don't pay income tax on internally earned money unless they're US gov't employees. They do pay into Social Security and Medicare, and pay import/export taxes. The Puerto Rican gov't also imposes its own taxes.

As to whether it should have been done ages ago or right now, I don't think there's been an answer to my question upthread, which needs to be answered before we consider yours:

Eight new Democratic senators would be VERY relevant.

Yes, they would, and I would love to see it happen. However, can Congress force a territory to become a state? The only one of those that I've heard inklings of a possibility for statehood is Puerto Rico, and the plebiscites they've conducted on the matter are inconclusive, if not leaning away.

Who said anything about forcing them to become states? Guam, Samoa, D.C. and the US Virgin Islands would JUMP at the chance to become states with full voting members of Congress plus senators. The only outlier is Puerto Rico because while the status quo has won in earlier referendums, it's in large part because the opposition is split between those wanting statehood and those wanting to break off and form their own country.

Bilateralrope is right about this being long overdue. John Oliver explains it further:

[houser2112]

Who said anything about forcing them to become states? Guam, Samoa, D.C. and the US Virgin Islands would JUMP at the chance to become states with full voting members of Congress plus senators. The only outlier is Puerto Rico because while the status quo has won in earlier referendums, it's in large part because the opposition is split between those wanting statehood and those wanting to break off and form their own country.

I guess I am the one equating "saying they should become states" with "forcing them to become states", because there is no apparent desire on their part to change the status quo (let alone going all the way to statehood). This suggests they are happy about it, or not bothered enough by it to make it known. Nothing here suggests people are screaming "We want to become a US state!":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam#Political_status

In a 1982 plebiscite, voters indicated interest in seeking commonwealth status. The island has been considering another non-binding plebiscite on decolonization since 1998. Governor Eddie Baza Calvo intended to include one during the island's November 2016 elections but it was delayed again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Politics
(nothing referencing desire for changing status quo)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ermination

A 1993 referendum on status attracted only 31.4% turnout, and so its results (in favor of the status quo) were considered void. No further referenda have been scheduled since.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I would gather Puerto Ricans have bigger issues than Statehood to concern them at present.

[Lonestar]

Neither Guam, NMI, or Samoa are big enough, under any credible stretch, to justify statehood.

My immediate area n my county has more people in it than Guam and NMI combined.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't advocate the BURN IT ALL DOWN point of view, but if I wake up tomorrow and it is all burning down, I am an experienced leader who knows a lot of well-armed left-wingers. All is not lost. We shall fight the fascists in the hills. We shall fight the fascists in the dales. We shall defend our mountains. We shall never surrender.

I feel much the same way, actually (though I don't think my skills are a match for yours'*). I don't want it to come to that, I'll try to do my part to make sure it doesn't come to that, but if it does anyway, I know which side I'm going to be on.

Anyhow, back on-topic, Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics ... index.html

Though reportedly not the most hardline conservative choice, he's still anti-Roe v Wade, and perhaps even more significantly (certainly for Trump), believes that the President should not be subject to lawsuits or investigations.

[The Romulan Republic]

More on just what an appalling Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be, from Bernie Sanders' Facebook page:

Let us be clear: President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will be a rubber-stamp for an extreme, right-wing agenda pushed by corporations and billionaires. The coming Senate debate over the replacement of retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is about the future of Roe v. Wade, campaign finance reform, voting rights, workers' rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection and gun safety.

Brett Kavanaugh, contrary to 200 years of Supreme Court precedent, believes a president "may decline to enforce a statute... when the president deems the statute unconstitutional." He ruled against a migrant teenager seeking to be released from custody in order to obtain an abortion. He believes a president can only be indicted after he leaves office and should not be subjected to civil suits while in office. He ruled the Consumer Financial protection Bureau was unconstitutional. And he would not uphold the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.

I do not believe a person with those views should be given a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. We must mobilize the American people to defeat Trump's right-wing, reactionary nominee.

Most disturbing there is the fact that he believes a president has the right to ignore the law when he deems fit, and should be immune to prosecution or lawsuits.

In short, Brett Kavanaugh believes that the United States should be a dictatorship.

[Raw Shark]

Kinda Funny Thing: Even the hippies here have guns. Like serious guns, that we are proficient with. It's slightly incongruous for an East-coaster, but I guess I've gotten used to it. I was raised to think that people with guns want you to hate the Muslims, gays, and abortion. Out here, we wear guns on our hips to defend against all that with the full acceptance of the heat. #paradigmshift. #ammendment 1-2.

[Alferd Packer]

And what is it, 22 states with trigger-laws on the books revoking the right to an abortion? I wonder what the most realistic timeline for overturning Roe v. Wade would be. This time next year?

[Alferd Packer]

And what is it, 22 states with trigger-laws on the books revoking the right to an abortion? I wonder what the most realistic timeline for overturning Roe v. Wade would be. This time next year?

Ghetto Edit: upon further reading, it only looks like there are 4 states with trigger laws on the books. A further 10 still have their old bans on the books, and would be enforceable upon the overturn.