He was known to have a temper and could be hotheaded, but I mean the people like Trump who call him a loser for getting shot down. The famously false allegation that won't die that claim he's responsible for the starting the deck fire on the USS Forrestal. The Keating Five corruption allegations, of which he was exonerated & he then made campaign finance reform a core tenant of his platform. Many decry McCain as a Democrat in GOP clothing due to his many moderate stances on GOP core issues. It's those views that I personally think made him a damn near perfect conservative.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...urt-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/ Be on your best behavior, Biden reads what we write.
Does he want Harris to lose or... what? What is the point of doing this 100 days from an election when there is no chance of an Amendment before then? I get that he wants to pad his less-than-stellar legacy, but this is not a W for Harris in any way.
The Supreme Court's approval rating is at historic lows, the immunity decision is both wildly unpopular and puts the focus on the fact that Trump is a criminal and is a danger in the office, and none of Biden's proposed changes are about expanding the court, but rather just eliminating corruption. This will be a popular proposal that benefits Democrats politically.
I disagree, I think this is a political negative. The Supreme Court's approval rating is irrelevant by design. I don't see how something that's obviously not going to happen is going to be a positive. The Democrats that are supportive of this were never going to vote for Trump otherwise, and independents have repeatedly shown they don't want broad systemic changes. Harris wins if the Democrats can manage to not do or say anything retarded for 3 more months.
That's why these reforms are so targeted. They're not really systemic changes, they're just getting back to the way things used to work (at least in the popular imagination). It requires that justices aren't corrupt and taking huge payouts from billionaires, and it eliminates the obnoxious partisan gamesmanship in filling the seats that has become the hallmark of Supreme Court politics over the last twenty years.
I don't think you're wrong, but Biden doesn't exactly have the eloquence needed to communicate it that way and other champions like Chief Warren aren't broadly popular enough to make it so. He needs to just shut up and eat his oatmeal from here on out.
It's a Democratic pollster, but according to Data for Progress: Term limits have a +55 approval among independents (72 to 17) Gift ban has a +64 approval among independents (76 to 12) Those are huge numbers, and both proposals even have positive support among Republicans. As long as Biden avoids opening the court-expansion pandora's box, I think this is an easy political winner.
I don’t see it as a net negative either. A lot of people, myself included, have been held to nearly unreasonable standards regarding the ethics of gift giving and receiving in the course of employment. I couldn’t even take a pen that was offered to me when I worked for the state, or a tshirt from a brewery that I was inspecting. But a Supreme Court justice can be completely bankrolled by people who had business before the court to the tune of millions with impunity is just a little too ridiculous. I worked for an ortho surgery clinc about a decade ago that was affiliated with the university of Texas. Drug reps who love to cater office lunches would leave food for us at the back door, say nothing and scurry away to avoid the appearance of impropriety. We would never even see them to turn it away. For some shitty fajitas. It was basically, “Oh look! A fajita tray just appeared out of no where. So strange.”
@xrayvision when I worked for the state of AL, I too had to do frequent ethics courses and avoid even the appearance of unethical behavior. I think anything over $20 value was supposed to be declined. (Not that I had the opportunity to take a gift with my specific job) As with many other law and ethics topics, the little guys are held to waaaaaay higher standards and risk of punishment than the upper echelon. It should be at least equal.
I work in the medical industry, and I've attended tech conferences where I did short presentations. Most of the vendors at the conferences entice people to listen to their presentations by giving out cheap trinkets - small capacity USB drives, laser pointers, fidget spinners. Some of the vendors went much bigger, giving out backpacks or large toys or clothing. Due to the stringent requirements on us as a medical device company, I was instructed that we couldn't even leave pens out, for fear someone might think we were trying to unduly influence potential customers. Guess I picked the wrong field, otherwise a vendor might conveniently leave an RV parked in my front yard.
My mom worked for a medical device manufacturer and she said there was a huge shift in that field away from the freebies and Mad Men days of old in her time there. I think drug companies still hire insanely attractive reps to pitch their stuff to doctors offices though now most if it is institutional as small practices were bought up by larger providers who have built in deals with the pharmaceutical companies.
I’ve been out of the biz a few years but last I knew: Yes…. Yes they do. And they’d bring food. I remember when I worked at the hospital a doc who’s a buddy of mine said he’d listen to the rep recite the alphabet because she was hot and fed us lunch.
That is pretty good. He actually has addressed it and swears he’s not wearing makeup. It’s just how his eyes are.
any bet on what he's actually going to present? I'm going for "holding empty file folder while stating this is the report and making up whatever he wants"