#Supreme Court Vacancies

[aunti-christ-ine]

[tamilan-employment]

Supreme Court of India Recruitment 2024

Supreme Court of India Recruitment 2024 Notification Online applications are invited from eligible candidates for the vacant of 107 Court Master (Shorthand), Senior Personal Assistant, and Personal Assistant post in Supreme Court of India.  Supreme Court of India Vacancy Details: Notification No: F.6/2024-SC (RC) 1. Name of Post: Court Master (Shorthand) No.of Post Vacancies: 31 Salary: Rs.…

[jsrvanna]

Supreme Court Vacancies Recruitment 2024

Supreme Court Vacancies Recruitment 2024, all details given below, check now. Department Name : Supreme Court of IndiaNumber of Posts : 107Post Name : Court Master (Shorthand), Senior Personal Assistant, Personal AssistantJob Location : All IndiaApplication Mode : Online Mode Post Details Court Master (Shorthand) : 31 Senior Personal Assistant : 33 Personal Assistant : 43 Salary…

[boreal-sea]

Does anybody have that teacher with the baby meme? I need it.

"A sitting president has no control over the decisions made by the Supreme Court, he can only nominate judges when a vacancy appears"

"If candidates are similar on one issue, you need to evaluate their other policies to make a decision"

"Not voting will not prevent someone from taking office"

"The USA does not have a functional three party system"

"Inaction cannot create progress"

"Choosing not to vote is still a choice; it means you are OK with whatever result happens"

"Voting to reduce harm is taking responsibility as a citizen of this nation"

"The middle of a presidential election year is too late to suddenly demand things like ranked choice voting."

[wilwheaton]

It’s infuriating that a mostly-rural state, with a total population smaller than the county I live in, has this much influence over the majority of the nation.

It’s such bullshit that land gets more representation in the Senate than people.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Biden’s plan to Venezuela-ize the US Supreme Court - TheHill

Progressives have been pushing for Supreme Court reforms since, well, since right-leaning justices became the majority. They aren’t calling for a few tweaks to the court. Their demands would amount to a complete restructuring. To put it simply, if Biden and the progressives succeed in imposing their reforms, they would fundamentally change the court — and the country.

Reports claim Biden wants to impose 18-year term limits on the justices and an enforceable code of ethics. Progressives have also been pushing to pack the court — adding at least four new left-wing justices to put the left in the majority. These reforms would mirror that paragon of democracy: Venezuela.

In 2004, strongman President Hugo Chávez succeeded in packing the country’s Supreme Court, known as the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. As Human Rights Watch wrote at the time: “The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court.” [...]

In addition, Biden reportedly wants to impose 18-term limits on the justices. Maybe he’s just mad because the elites in the Democratic Party just imposed term limits on him. Again, that move resembles Venezuela, which appoints justices for 12-year nonrenewable terms. [...]

Their goal is not to put more justices on the court, but left-wing justices who will support their leftist agenda. Imposing term limits will help progressives get any conservatives out sooner so they can put in more leftie justices. And an ethics code is intended to let the executive branch remove any justice who won’t play the leftists’ game.

30 Jul 24

[deadpresidents]

Did you watch the pbs documentary on the vice presidents yet and what did you think? And what vp that never became president do you think would have been best qualified to be president?

Yes, I was very much looking forward to PBS American Experience's "The American Vice President," and watched it as soon as it was released. I'm basically the target audience for documentaries like that, so I always appreciate and enjoy them. I will say that I thought that there were a lot of missed opportunities in it, however. I was really hoping that there would be some short biographical pieces on the various Vice Presidents, particularly many of the earlier VPs that nobody knows anything about. There are some really fascinating stories that could have been told about them, so I was a little bummed we didn't get that.

For the most part, the episode focused on the idea of the Vice Presidency as opposed to individual Vice Presidents. And it spent a lot of time on succession and the 25th Amendment. Now, that is no surprise -- that's basically the reason the Vice President exists in the first place. But at times it felt more like a documentary on continuity of government than the Vice Presidency, and I just wish there would have been more time spent on the personalities who have served in the position over the past 235 years.

As for the second part of your question, I'm going to do what the documentary largely did and answer based on the Vice Presidents since World War II. Once the nuclear age was upon us, the Vice Presidency became a more important role for those continuity of government reasons, and the quality and experience of most Vice Presidential candidates has improved during that time because it was more necessary to choose a running mate who was capable of actually taking over as President than balancing the ticket regionally or ideologically.

Since World War II, I think the Vice President who was best equipped to become President but never did was obviously Al Gore. I have always been shocked that Gore never made another run for the White House after 2000, but I also imagine that it must be an absolutely soul-crushing experience to run for President, seemingly win (and definitely win the popular vote), only to have the Presidency awarded to your opponent by a party-line decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Another post-World War II VP who never became President in his own right but probably would have been good in the job was Nelson Rockefeller. Because of the circumstances and brevity of his time as Vice President, Rockefeller is often forgotten about, but he was considered a real contender for the Presidency on numerous occasions before he was appointed to fill the Vice Presidential vacancy created when Gerald Ford succeeded Richard Nixon in the White House after Nixon resigned. Rockefeller won four elections as Governor of New York, all by comfortable margins, and he never achieved his Presidential goal because the timing was just never right for him. His best bet as a Presidential candidate should have been 1964 or 1968, but after JFK's assassination, few Republicans wanted to run against LBJ less than a year later (and with good reason, LBJ's popular vote landslide was huge). And by the time the 1968 election rolled around it became clear that Richard Nixon had spent his years in political exile following his humiliating loss in the 1962 California Gubernatorial race building a powerful campaign machine that helped sweep him into office. But when it comes to experience, few VPs were better qualified than Vice President Rockefeller.

If you haven't seen "The American Vice President" from PBS's American Experience, I would definitely recommend checking it out. You can watch it (and many of American Experience's other excellent documentaries) on the PBS website. It's also currently available to watch for free via the PBS feed on YouTube.

[keep-both-eyes-on-trump]

Republicans have won the House

Republicans have won the 218 seats needed to give them a majority in the House meaning they now have control of both the House and Senate alongside Republican Donald Trump in the White House. There are a few races still uncalled and the Republicans may hold the majority by only a few seats and Trump's appointments of Rep. Mark Waltz and Rep. Elise Stefanik have left vacancies to be filled.

The Supreme Court is also dominated by conservative justices including three that Trump appointed in his first administration.

The Watcher

[darkmaga-returns]

President Donald Trump’s epic re-election victory on Tuesday night saw him expand his popularity in the former swing state of Ohio.

In addition, Ohio Republicans flipped a Senate seat and stormed the state’s Supreme Court.

The GOP won all three state Supreme Court races, handing them 6-1 control starting in January.

The bench is currently split 4-3.

Republican Justice Joseph Deters left his own Supreme Court seat to run for a full term against Democrat Melody Stewart – and won.

Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine had appointed Deters, a former Hamilton County prosecutor, to fill a vacancy in 2023.

Another Republican, Judge Dan Hawkins defeated Democratic Judge Lisa Forbes to serve the remaining two years in Deters’ open seat.

Republican Megan Shanahan defeated Democrat Michael Donnelly to round out the GOP’s sweep of the top court.

The expanded control will presumably give Republicans leverage on contentious issues such as abortion and election integrity.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dave Jamieson at HuffPost:

President Donald Trump’s attempt to abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development has stunned its employees and drawn outrage among Democrats on Capitol Hill. But it’s one of many brazen attacks on independent federal agencies as he seeks to expand executive power during his first days in office. On Jan. 27, the new president ousted a sitting Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as two Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He eliminated a quorum at both bipartisan bodies, making them unable to carry out their normal duties. Then, on Thursday, Trump tried to boot the Democratic chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, who said she had received a letter from the president ”purporting to remove me.” “There’s a legal way to replace FEC commissioners,” said the chairwoman, Ellen L. Weintraub. “This isn’t it.” With Senate approval, any president is free to fill out his Cabinet as he sees fit. But Trump is taking an axe to walls that have long stood between the White House and independent executive agencies that are supposed to operate free from presidential meddling. The NLRB and EEOC officials were in the middle of their congressionally mandated terms when Trump fired them without cause. The removals flew in the face of the statute as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent and should dash any notion that Trump might act with a degree of restraint in his second term.

[...] The labor board usually has five members, with three from one party and two from the other. Their staggered five-year terms mean a Democratic majority can run into a Republican presidency, and vice versa, until one of the seats opens up and the president can install a new member. Due to two vacancies, the board held a 2-1 Democratic majority when Trump was inaugurated. It still had a quorum, by one member, to make rulings. Close observers did not expect Trump to try to fire one of the Democrats since he could achieve a GOP majority simply by nominating two Republicans and getting them through a Republican-controlled Senate. [...] With just two members and no quorum, the NLRB cannot adjudicate cases where an employer or union has filed an appeal. The board won’t be operating until either a judge reinstates Wilcox — she has filed a lawsuit arguing her firing was illegal — or Trump and Senate Republicans install new members, which they may be in no rush to do. Trump has left the EEOC in a similar dysfunctional state. The agency, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, has stressed that it’s still fielding complaints and that its judges are hearing cases involving workers who believe their civil rights have been violated. However, it only has two commissioners —one Republican and one Democrat — who would be unable to issue new rules or policies until Trump installs new members. [...] The independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also found itself in the White House’s crosshairs. On Saturday, Trump’s acting CFPB director ordered employees to halt their work and closed down the building, derailing an agency that protects consumers from predatory financial practices. Musk had previously said he wanted to “delete” the bureau. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Trump and Musk aren’t trying to make the government more “efficient”— they’re simply going after regulatory agencies they dislike. “We are in dangerous territory because we see this sort of serial lawbreaking by Donald Trump and Elon Musk,” Van Hollen told HuffPost Monday. “It has nothing to do with efficiency... This is all about installing their cronies in key positions in government and shutting down agencies that help protect the American people.” Trump’s firings at independent agencies may be headed to the Supreme Court in a battle over the so-called unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has sole authority over executive branch agencies. The court’s conservative supermajority has generally taken a broad view of presidential power and could bless Trump’s takeover of bodies like the NLRB.

The Trump-Musk-Vance axis of evil are running roughshod over the independence of federal agencies to cement a far-right power grab.

See Also:

The Status Kuo (Jay Kuo): Blunting Their Attacks

[midnight-mourning]

I won’t lie, saw your post about how things are scary rn in the U.S. and… idrk what’s going on. Been avoiding it like the plague bc i’m afraid of the information i’m currently ignorant to. As someone who dwells on “what ifs” it scares me to know what is going on but at the same time i wanna know what’s happening since i live in the U.S too. Just wanted to share this. I feel bad bc of the fact that i been ignoring it, so i do wanna know what’s going on. I just want someone to tell it to me in a way that doesn’t feel like i’m being attacked for avoiding it bc i’m too afraid to learn the information by myself. But there may be some people like me out there.

Hi there, that's absolutely valid, it's been a bit of a mess and some miscommunications have occurred already (as typical always every 4 years here) and wanting to avoid all of it isn't unreasonable. Acknowledging but avoiding a subject is completely different than denial, and that's totally okay, I don't judge. I'll do my best to explain in a way that makes sense and that's hopefully helpful

Before anything else, let me preface this by saying that I am NOT a political scientist, I am NOT an expert in anyway regarding politics in the slightest, anything that I share below is based on my personal experience and research so please keep that in mind, I highly encourage you to check out the sources below for any further information. Having said that, here's what we know:

According to The Associated Press, and other news outlets, the current president elect is Donald Trump with 292 of the electoral college votes, races have not been called in AZ, NV, ME and AK.

Harris is set to give a concession speech at 4 pm EST today.

Republicans have control of the senate with 52 seats, with democrats having lost 3 seats and currently have 43. 5 remaining races have yet to be called. Currently, they are projected to be filled by Democrats by Associated Press and 270 to Win.

The house is currently still a toss up, 270 to Win projects 209 (D) to 213 (R) for 20 of the remaining 33 uncalled races. Again, 13 races are still a toss-up at this point in time.

Sources for more information:

If you would like more information regarding live coverage, as well as general, unbiased reporting, Associated Press is (in my opinion) the most accurate and unbiased source of information.

If you would like to see current projections for the remaining races, Associated Press and 270 to win appear (emphasis on appear) to have the most accurate reporting.

If you want to see live coverage and discussion, or to see how things unfolded last night, CNN did have a broadcast going last night that was free to watch. It appears they've now taken it down. If I happen to find said broadcast I'll update the post with it as they do a good job of explaining things state by state, precint by precint. However, much like any other media outlet, they can be prone to bias (left-leaning) and potentially to fear mongering. Should you seek out CNN or any other news outlet besides those above please keep in mind that reporting may be influenced in certain ways because of this.

Having said all that, here's what I personally think this means and what can still happen, with facts mixed in for reference. Much of this is my opinion and should not be taken as fact unless it's cited. Again, not an expert, just someone with a very very basic understanding of politics and government.

With the win of the presidency and the senate, republicans are at the advantage. With senate control they will be able to assist with choosing the next presidental cabinet, and should there be a vacancy on the supreme court, assist with that.

However, if democrats can take control of the house, the win will be massive, and leave them able to have some say in the next 4 years, but nothing is for certain at this point in time

Democrats potentially have at least a little breathing room in the senate, they're not majority, but only 4 seats difference is better than nothing

We've gotten through a Trump presidency before, the situation then, as well as the feeling everyone has now is exactly the same. We made it through then, and we can make it through again

The senate is only guaranteed to be controlled by Republicans until the 2026 midterms, two years is a long time, but it's only two years

Having lived through the last Trump term in my teens and remember it well, yes he managed to do some pretty awful things, but he also undelivered in several ways, we can only hope the same thing happens this time around, this would be especially true should democrats take the House

He won't be back, if he makes it through the term he'll be too old and his health won't be great. Republicans didn't want him this time, they won't want him the next.

JD Vance and so many others will still be kicking long after he's gone though, and that needs to be in the back of people's heads when we get closer to 2028

Trump made a lot of empty promises he didn't keep before, and personally I don't think he beleves half the things he says, he just says it because he knows others do believe it. Giving up hope now for a better tomorrow won't make a better tomorrow, hoping despite it all will. Giving up also gives people like him exactly what they want, and I'm not about to do that, neither should you.

For now, be vigilant, stay safe, but try to relax. Doom-scrolling, wondering what might happen, and so on, is pointless because at this point, we don't know. Anything could happen, this election is a clear example of that.

Hope this was able to help, anon. We're all in this together, and as long as that remains true, we're going to be okay. Highly recommend after reading this to do what's best for you, be that choosing to find out more through the sources above or continue to avoid it. Personally, I'm getting together with some friends this evening to study, chat, and chill and decompress from it all, hopefully you can do something similar if you need to 💜

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Trump has so many charges against him that he's almost certainly going to be convicted of something. Not everything, probably not even a majority, but something. He knows he won't get unanimous acquittals across the board, so his only hope will be to slip loyalists onto some of the juries to hang them. A mistrial means months or years of delays as prosecution works each case through the system all over again.

In New York, he'd be retried over and over until a unanimous verdict is reached, guilty or not guilty, however long that takes, and every state level Republican candidate from now on will campaign on promises to drop the charges or pardon him or help him in some way, shape, or form.

In Georgia (he hasn't been indicted yet, but it's coming), he's going to be pardoned almost immediately. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets pardoned before it even goes to trial. Yeah, the governor refused to find 11,000 votes for him, but he's still a Republican and trump is still the leader of his party. If he didn't pardon trump, he would be crucified by his voters and shamed out of office, and his successor would pardon him instead. If he stood his ground and couldn't be bullied into resigning, then just as in New York every Republican candidate would run on the pardon promise platform. Trump will NEVER face justice in Georgia.

In the federal case in Florida, a mistrial means the judge, a trump appointee, could drop the charges and prevent the DOJ from retrying it. Best case scenario, it would get delayed into 2025 or 2026 and a different judge in the southern district of Florida will be randomly assigned to it, but that's assuming Biden wins re-election in 2024. If trump wins, he'd immediately pardon himself, or invoke the 25th to have his loyalist VP pardon him to avoid a Supreme Court decision on a self-pardon's validity. If Biden wins, the 2028 Republican candidates will all run on promises to pardon him, so he'll be out of prison the second the White House goes red. I don't trust Democrats to hold the line long enough for him to die in prison.

The federal case in Washington, DC looks open and shut, the best chance for a conviction. Trump only has four appointees in that district, so the odds of him getting off on a retrial in case of a hung jury are 4 in 13, 30.77% (4/15, 26.67% if Biden can fill the two remaining vacancies). Again, all this does is kick the can down the road until 2025 or 2026. He will walk free whenever the Republicans take back power.

The only way donald trump faces long term consequences for his crimes is if New York stays solid blue for the rest of his life, something like the next 15 or 20 years. The federal charges will disappear the second one of his allies gets elected president; I don't think the party would nominate him for a fourth time in 2028 if he loses 2024 for them, so it's looking like it's gonna be ron desantis vs Kamala Harris (God help us all). Then again, who knows? A lot can happen in the next 5 years, so maybe some nobody will be frontrunner by then and desantis will have slinked away into post-gubernatorial obscurity like Jeb and Charlie Crist. Whoever trump endorses will be the nominee, so whoever strokes his ego the hardest will have hometeam advantage. My money says it'll be some blonde woman or a lightskinned black guy for diversity points (whoever it is, they'll be even farther right than trump himself)

[mariacallous]

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-supreme-court-chief-justice-stepping-down-74419883f0e462d73f07825d31e559a7

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court announced Wednesday that she is stepping down from the court by the end of April, opening the door for the court to have a 6-1 majority of Democratic-backed justices.

Elizabeth Clement did not give a reason for her upcoming resignation.

“Leading our state’s highest court has been an opportunity to continue a proud record of independence, fairness, and commitment to the rule of law,” Clement said in a statement. “I am thankful to my colleagues for their support and friendship, as well as for their willingness to seek common ground in serving the people of Michigan.”

Michigan’s justices are technically nonpartisan, but they are nominated by parties or appointed by the governor in the case of a vacancy. The court currently has a 5-2 majority of justices backed by Democrats after picking up a seat in the November election.

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has the opportunity to appoint a justice to fill Clement’s vacancy and create a 6-1 majority of Democratic-backed justices. Whoever fills the vacancy must run for retention in 2026 for a full eight-year term.

[thebreakfastgenie]

Some man on twitter took the opportunity of someone literally celebrating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 90th birthday to push the "Ginsburg should have retired and this is her/Democrats' fault" line and unfortunately I have some time on my hands so you're getting this rant from me again.

First and foremost, putting the blame on a dead woman when there is a living man who is more directly responsible for losing control of the Supreme Court is profoundly stupid and while I doubt it's consciously misogynistic it does reflect a society that holds women responsible for everything.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but we didn't lose the court in 2020, we lost it in 2018 when Anthony Kennedy retired and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. A 6-3 conservative majority is certainly worse, but the Dobbs decision, for example, would have been the same.

You don't get to blame Democrats or Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the fact that you dismissed the importance of the Supreme Court in 2016. Whatever you think should have been done in 2014, you knew what the reality was in 2016. There was already an open seat on the Supreme Court during that election.

If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, Antonin Scalia would have been replaced by a liberal justice, likely Merrick Garland, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been replaced by another liberal justice. Anthony Kennedy would either have remained in his seat or been replaced by a moderate or liberal justice. The tentative 5-4 liberal majority we had prior to 2016 would have become a tentative 6-3 majority with a solid 5 liberal votes. This Supreme Court would not have overturned Roe and would not be threatening policies like student loan forgiveness and affirmative action. That is the court we would have if 50,000 people in three states had voted for Hillary Clinton.

Instead, Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court Justices and there is a solid 6-3 conservative majority that will continue handing down horrible decisions that are nakedly political and barely even bother with constitutional justification. At the moment we're basically waiting for a couple of them to die and hoping there is a Democratic president and senate when it happens.

I think the position that Ginsburg should have retired in 2014 is heavily influenced by hindsight, but even accepting that it was a good idea, it's not as simple as people who began believing it in 2020 make it sound. First of all, I cite 2014 because Democrats lost control of the senate that year. This argument relies on Democrats seeing that loss coming. Even if they could do that, Democrats did not have filibuster-proof majority in the senate in 2014. At the time, senate rules required such a majority for supreme court confirmations. Harry Reid had only recently changed the rules to allow all other federal judicial nominations to be confirmed with a simple majority.

It's easy to forget now, but the level of Republican obstructionism during the Obama administration was unexpected. The rule change came about because there were so many judicial vacancies. Unfortunately, not all of them were filled even after the rule change, which allowed a number of Republican appointments during the Trump administration. I didn't have a position on senate rules in 2012-14 because I was in high school, but my position now is that I support ending the filibuster.

I think it's very clear that Republicans will simply change the rules to benefit themselves anyway the second they have power, so Democrats are not gaining anything by preserving the filibuster. However, I reached this position with the benefit of having observed Mitch McConnell's actions as Majority Leader between 2015 and 2019. Democrats in 2012-14 did not have that benefit. I don't know how predictable this Republican behavior was, but it's certainly not the same as having observed something that already happened. If Mitch McConnell had not already changed the rule for Supreme Court confirmations in 2017 in order to confirm Neil Gorsuch, I would have urged Democrats to do it in order to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. But I don't know if it's fair to expect Democrats to have done so in 2014.

It's also worth remembering that the open politicization of the Supreme Court is fairly recent. It's been obviously political at least since the 1980s, but for quite a long time both parties kept up a pretense that it wasn't. It's easy to see why Democrats might not have expected Republicans to keep a seat open for an entire year rather than even give a Democratic nominee a hearing.

I think "in hindsight, things would be better if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2014 and Harry Reid had changed the senate rules so Democrats could confirm a replacement" is a reasonable take. But it's academic. There's no point in assigning blame. And Democrats clearly did learn from this, because Stephen Breyer retired and was replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson.

And, once again, whatever you think should have happened in 2014, we all went into 2016 knowing exactly what did and did not happen. Few people were saying Ginsburg should have retired at that time, and even those who were would not have been justified in not voting for Hillary Clinton, or discouraging others from supporting her, or downplaying the importance of the Supreme Court.

[mikerickson]

Lifting my self-imposed embargo because I'm weird and don't like posting on social media when I'm on vacation.

I'm at a point in my life where I can financially justify at least one international vacation a year and figured I'd finally cross off the Great White North from the bucket list. I'd never been and Andrew hadn't been back in a very long time despite having dual citizenship. Anyways, just got back, and a bullet-point breakdown of the highlights is after the cut:

I wish every international flight was under two hours; EWR to YQB was almost comically fast.

Had my first French conversation with the very nice lady at the car rental counter for about ten minutes. She complemented my pronunciation and grammar, and wished me luck on the trip. Every French interaction after this point was a linguistic battle for my life that I lost (Toutes les Québecois parlent trop vite pour moi).

We had some time to kill before the hotel check-in so we went to a mall in the suburbs just so we'd have a food court with some options. Turns out shopping malls are not only alive and well but fucking thriving in Canada. I haven't seen a mall that packed with people outside of December since the nineties.

Quebec City was very dense with old architecture which made it feel very European. It was also apparently built on a fucking cliff with streets at 60 degree inclines, which also felt very European.

Took a tour of the Quebec Parliament building (beautiful structure), and apparently they used to be bicameral, but voted to abolish their Senate in the 60's and they were the last Canadian province to do so. What a concept.

It's one thing to know on paper that Canada has about 1/8th of the population of the US, but I was not prepared for just how empty the countryside felt. For someone like me, living in the northeast my whole life, the idea that cities in close proximity to each other not having continuous stretches of suburbs and other smaller cities connecting them was completely foreign.

On the highways I kept thinking I was speeding because I'd look down at the dashboard and see the number "100", but 100 km/h is only like 62 mph, which is nothing.

Similarly, I kept getting sticker shock every time I spent money, and kept having to remind myself that $1 CAD was like $0.73 USD while we were there.

It was really cool to see that the complex for the 1976 Montreal Olympics is still maintained and actively used (we stumbled upon a skateboarding competition and I did not feel cool enough to be in that crowd). Sometimes you hear horror stories about Olympic villages bankrupting cities and falling into disuse afterwards, but that's definitely not the case here.

Montreal is apparently known for their local bagel culture, but their bagels have enormous holes in the middle of them, so you have less cross-sectional area for spreads and they don't really work for sandwiches. My faith in NJ/NY bagel superiority remains intact.

Every city we went to had dedicated bike lane infrastructure and young families with kids, but Montreal definitely had the most of both. Tons of parks, too. Simultaneously felt like a larger and smaller city than I was expecting.

Poutine is okay, but I wasn't prepared for the cheese to squeak when you bite into it. Very odd sensation.

The main Parliament building for the federal government in Ottawa (Centre Block) is stunning, but closed; apparently it's been under renovation since 2019 and isn't expected to be reopened until 2032! In the meantime, we took a tour of where the lower House of Commons is currently meeting. We learned that their electoral districts are routinely re-drafted by a non-partisan committee and that they occasionally add new seats to the legislature to account for changes in population. I had to seethe jealously in silence for the rest of the tour.

Also toured their Supreme Court building (way more Art Deco than I was expecting). We learned that there's currently a vacancy because a Justice recently retired because they're required to step down when they turn 75. I had to seethe jealously in silence for the rest of the tour.

Every single city had automatic/self-serve parking garages where you didn't have to interact with a human (which I was very thankful for), but in Ottawa they have this little jingle that the machine sings at you when you take your ticket, which I found very amusing.

On the drive to Toronto we took a quick detour into the Thousand Islands (yes, like the salad dressing) and visited Boldt Castle, which is technically in New York state. After seeing it in practice, the idea of living on your own private island is more appealing than ever.

Toronto feels like an exercise in what happens when a nation's largest city is allowed to grow without being hemmed in by ridiculous geography. As someone who grew up in NYC, this is another concept foreign to me. The GPS did get very tripped up navigating a particularly gnarly interchange however.

Toured the Ontario Legislative Assembly (yet another beautiful building). At this point we were really good at asking tour guides stuff like, "so if happens, do you guys have a plan?" To which they would reply, "well, no, but let's just hope that never happens!"

I now understand why the Great Lakes are effectively freshwater inland seas; you really cannot see the other shore, and Lake Ontario isn't even the biggest one!

YYC to EWR was under an hour. That's definitely going to spoil me for future trips going forward.

[democracyunderground]

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is preparing to endorse significant proposals to reform the Supreme Court and notified some members of Congress about his intentions last weekend, three sources familiar with the plans said Tuesday.

The proposals under serious consideration include legislation to establish term limits for justices and establishing an updated code of ethics that would be binding and enforceable, a source said. The policies, which haven't been finalized, may be rolled out in the coming weeks, which would be a new approach for a president who has long been skeptical of restructuring the Supreme Court.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

Biden told lawmakers in the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a virtual meeting Saturday that he had been consulting constitutional scholars on the matter for more than a month, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

“I’m going to need your help to and advice on how we should be doing what I’m going to be doing there. Want to make sure we have a closer working relationship, because we’re in this together,” Biden told the lawmakers, though he didn’t get into specific policy substance, the source said.

The Washington Post first reported Biden’s plans.

Two other sources told NBC News that Biden told the lawmakers he will come out for big reforms, without giving them details, but that members on the call understood him to be referring to term limits and ethics rules. The call took place Saturday before the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally.

“Look, it’s not, it’s not hyperbole to suggest Trump is literally an existential threat, an existential threat to the very constitution of democracy we, we say we care about. And I mean if this guy wins, he’s not, and now, especially with that Supreme Court giving him the kind of breadth of — I don’t need to get into the Supreme Court right now — anyway, but I need your help,” Biden said.

Changing the structure of the Supreme Court would require Congress to make a new law. That's extremely unlikely while Republicans control the House, as the party is pleased with the 6-3 conservative majority it has built on the high court.

But the proposals could become a useful messaging device for Biden on the campaign trail. And if Democrats sweep the election, they may have a fighting chance of passing. Democrats have rallied voters against the Supreme Court, citing unpopular rulings like the elimination of federal abortion rights and a spate of recent reports detailing apparent ethical lapses among some of the justices.

Last month, Senate Democrats sought to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation but ran into Republican opposition. In the House, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Don Beyer, D-Va., have lintroduced legislation that would impose 18-year term limits for future justices, ultimately creating vacancies to fill during every four-year presidential term and preventing retirements for partisan reasons.

Khanna praised Biden for warming up to the idea, noting that he first introduced term limits legislation in 2020.

“Since then, we have been advocating for the president to champion this reform," Khanna told NBC News on Tuesday. "It is a big step for him to now call for commonsense term limits for the court and a judicial code of ethics.”