Comments by "佐々木楓(^.^)" (@Kaede-Sasaki) on "Robert Reich" channel.

  1. Recommendation: Have reserved seats on the supreme court for each of the bill of rights, 1 justice for each that is concerned with. Make decisions by consensus if possible, or supermajority ¾ if not. If a constitutional issue, then just consensus (abstentions don't count against). If consensus cannot be reached on constitutional issues, by default the court rejects the law as unconstitutional. And each justice should have been an advocate for their respective fudnamental right (free speech & press, state vs federal, etc).
    4
  2. Ignoring doesn't make the problem go away. It actually fuels the rise of the reich...and I don't mean Robert.
    4
  3. Recommendation: Have reserved seats on the supreme court for each of the bill of rights, 1 justice for each that is concerned with. Make decisions by consensus if possible, or supermajority ¾ if not. If a constitutional issue, then just consensus (abstentions don't count against). If consensus cannot be reached on constitutional issues, by default the court rejects the law as unconstitutional. And each justice should have been an advocate for their respective fudnamental right (free speech & press, state vs federal, etc).
    3
  4. Recommendation: Have reserved seats on the supreme court for each of the bill of rights, 1 justice for each that is concerned with. Make decisions by consensus if possible, or supermajority ¾ if not. If a constitutional issue, then just consensus (abstentions don't count against). If consensus cannot be reached on constitutional issues, by default the court rejects the law as unconstitutional. And each justice should have been an advocate for their respective fudnamental right (free speech & press, state vs federal, etc).
    3
  5. Devils advocate, but if this is the case, should judges even try criminal and civil cases as they are not actual experts in everything brought to them? Conversely, what if there were specialised courts instead of federal agencies to make rulings (eg a federal environment court with 5 judge panel to make rulings on conflict between regulatatory agencies/depts and plaintiff?
    2
  6. Family separation, yeah, but the cages predate trump and postdate him too. Media are now not allowed inside those renamed "immigration centers".
    2
  7. Watch Second Thought on: 1) corporate duopoly 2) ratchet effect As long as the people are fighting each other, the elites can keep fleecing the country.
    1
  8. Devils advocate, but if this is the case, should judges even try criminal and civil cases as they are not actual experts in everything brought to them? Conversely, what if there were specialised courts instead of federal agencies to make rulings (eg a federal environment court with 5 judge panel to make rulings on conflict between regulatatory agencies/depts and plaintiff?
    1
  9. Devils advocate, but if this is the case, should judges even try criminal and civil cases as they are not actual experts in everything brought to them? Conversely, what if there were specialised courts instead of federal agencies to make rulings (eg a federal environment court with 5 judge panel to make rulings on conflict between regulatatory agencies/depts and plaintiff?
    1
  10. Devils advocate, but if this is the case, should judges even try criminal and civil cases as they are not actual experts in everything brought to them? Conversely, what if there were specialised courts instead of federal agencies to make rulings (eg a federal environment court with 5 judge panel to make rulings on conflict between regulatatory agencies/depts and plaintiff?
    1
  11. Devils advocate, but if this is the case, should judges even try criminal and civil cases as they are not actual experts in everything brought to them? Conversely, what if there were specialised courts instead of federal agencies to make rulings (eg a federal environment court with 5 judge panel to make rulings on conflict between regulatatory agencies/depts and plaintiff?
    1