Things that went whizzing by that I want to remember: The people claiming that there would be a big employment boost from cutting off plague-time unemployment insurance always seemed to me to be incompetent. And, as of right now, it is looking as though they were wrong. But, as is more and more the case with the Republican Party and its tame sycophants these days, policy effectiveness and optimality is not the point. The cruelty is the point: Arindrajit Dube: Early Impacts of the Expiration of Pandemic Unemployment Insurance Programs...
"Some inflation now is necessary, and a sign that we are doing desirable things:"
Risingused car prices are due to shortages of chips for new cars. Rising hotel prices may be due to a staff shortage limiting room availability. If so, are we "doing the right things" or just bidding up prices due to scarcity of key components and sick staff?
The only reform that is needed and the only one that will work is that any major alteration to the Constitution be an Amendment. The Court will rule on minor changes. That's a Constitution. So, pick a major change and use the Amendment process to alter it, reacquainting citizens with Constitutionalism. In the meantime, in government, do what can to limit the scope of the constitutional decisions, whatever they are.
One of the more egregious lapses of cogent reasoning is to hold that Roe vs Wade can simply be overturned. Now, if the original ruling was overstepping the bounds of constitutional ruling, compounding it by now lurching backwards is far worse. You aren't going back, but going forward with the Court having yet another such overstepping of bounds. If you want Rose vs Wade overturned then your only remedy is an amedment.
Except that SCOTUS has already overturned precedent and Thomas has said that he would be prepared to overturn precedent. If the other conservative supremes think similarly, then there is no reason to believe RvW is really safe from being reversed. What is being tested now in the states is how far restrictions can be placed on abortion and still meet the constitutional support. European nations tend to place a time limit based on the viability of the fetus/baby. Texas has just tried to put a 6 week limit on abortions. But would 8/10/12 weeks pass muster?
It's even worse than you say. The Roberts approach is to say that he's following precedent while actually eviscerating it (or flat out misrepresenting it). They'll probably do that with Roe.
You say, "The right solution, in my opinion, is to make a Supreme Court appointment a twenty-year one-shot job, and appoint a new Supreme Court justice every year:". I would propose a similar but broader solution. Each President will appoint a slate of one new judge to reach federal district court, each federal appellate court, and the Supreme court in the first and third years of their terms. Mandatory senior status at age 70 required of all judges. The skates must be approved was a group, no sniping of individuals.
I have also seen a suggestion that the exodus was largely an illusion based on census [mis]counts. The local university just hired a Texas resident to move to CA as one anecdotal counterfactual to the exodus. The growth in towns outside the Bay Area seems to be a rerun of the 1990s when there was a huge shortage of homes in the Bay Area and people were moving to the commuter towns like Tracy.
"Some inflation now is necessary, and a sign that we are doing desirable things:"
Risingused car prices are due to shortages of chips for new cars. Rising hotel prices may be due to a staff shortage limiting room availability. If so, are we "doing the right things" or just bidding up prices due to scarcity of key components and sick staff?
The only reform that is needed and the only one that will work is that any major alteration to the Constitution be an Amendment. The Court will rule on minor changes. That's a Constitution. So, pick a major change and use the Amendment process to alter it, reacquainting citizens with Constitutionalism. In the meantime, in government, do what can to limit the scope of the constitutional decisions, whatever they are.
One of the more egregious lapses of cogent reasoning is to hold that Roe vs Wade can simply be overturned. Now, if the original ruling was overstepping the bounds of constitutional ruling, compounding it by now lurching backwards is far worse. You aren't going back, but going forward with the Court having yet another such overstepping of bounds. If you want Rose vs Wade overturned then your only remedy is an amedment.
Except that SCOTUS has already overturned precedent and Thomas has said that he would be prepared to overturn precedent. If the other conservative supremes think similarly, then there is no reason to believe RvW is really safe from being reversed. What is being tested now in the states is how far restrictions can be placed on abortion and still meet the constitutional support. European nations tend to place a time limit based on the viability of the fetus/baby. Texas has just tried to put a 6 week limit on abortions. But would 8/10/12 weeks pass muster?
It's even worse than you say. The Roberts approach is to say that he's following precedent while actually eviscerating it (or flat out misrepresenting it). They'll probably do that with Roe.
You say, "The right solution, in my opinion, is to make a Supreme Court appointment a twenty-year one-shot job, and appoint a new Supreme Court justice every year:". I would propose a similar but broader solution. Each President will appoint a slate of one new judge to reach federal district court, each federal appellate court, and the Supreme court in the first and third years of their terms. Mandatory senior status at age 70 required of all judges. The skates must be approved was a group, no sniping of individuals.
It could work…
Re: "Tech Workers Who Swore Off the Bay Area Are Coming Back"
Hmm, maybe the original NYTimes article was an exaggeration:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/The-New-York-Times-San-Francisco-tech-exodus-16318284.php
I have also seen a suggestion that the exodus was largely an illusion based on census [mis]counts. The local university just hired a Texas resident to move to CA as one anecdotal counterfactual to the exodus. The growth in towns outside the Bay Area seems to be a rerun of the 1990s when there was a huge shortage of homes in the Bay Area and people were moving to the commuter towns like Tracy.
Well, yes. But getting it right is not their forte…