He’s too old.

What method of appointment would be better? I think there’s a whole host of issues with them, but I think most would be fixed simply with an 18 year term limit and some basic corruption laws

The screw up that your generation made was merely voting for the lesser evil, and not attempting to run and campaign for the furthest left people that would create real change. You don’t stop at voting for the lesser evil, you also push into the next election with the goal to shove them out

Every time we choose better. Every time we vote for someone who’s an improvement. We slowly drive this country further left as we pull nail and tooth to get the moderates to understand how much better everything could be

There are people who have been fighting against all this for decades. Don’t lump them together.

Pritzker. Relatively progressive. Pro union, pro building up housing, pro worker’s rights, pro higher minimum wage, unrestrained in his support of lgbtq, and yet still Measured and budget conscious, which helps him be more palatable to the big stage.

I think he’s the best possible option that still has a good chance to win.

Yup. Precisely why I advocate for a hard cap on age positioned around 65 rather than any form of test.

I’m a firm believer that the only qualification for elected office should be citizenship.

Each of the 13 justices gets a 13 year term, each justice could serve up to two terms, consecutive or not,

Absolutely not. You NEED it to be one term, because judges should never have to rely on approval of others for their jobs. The only reason they should be able to be removed after appointment is a severe ethics violation.

too many people to vote for means no one knows anything about who they’re voting for.

I think some appointments are fine, but they should never be soley appoint able by 1 branch/person. I3, congress should be able to put forth their own cabinet options type of thing

It’s far worse than that. The judiciary is able to be fired by the executive branch and that simply should not be possible.

I feel the checks on the supreme court is close. I think with 18 year ish terms to replace 1 every every 2 years consistently would work

“making policy”. Yes, the mayor. Who makes the laws. That mayor making policies.

For the comment higher towards you I really did mean that as a general clarification. I would’ve worded it more strongly otherwise. I wasn’t entirely sure if you realized it or not given your wording, so I wanted to make sure less familiar people reading on that were more clear.

The cherry picking comment was not to you, it was to their person it’s replied to. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misread the comment chain

$15 isn’t a living wage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_minimum_wage

And you’re every so politely ignoring the states run by dems having higher min wages, to pretend that it’s only Republicans getting shit done. Notably just like there isn’t a $15 min national wage, there’s also not a national abortion ban. Your comparison is poorly cherry picked.

Imagine if she ran on a $15 an hour minimum wage increase

To be extremely clear. THAT WAS ONE OF HER POLICIES

Good politician is generally taken to mean good at corralling the other politicians into passing your agendas, at least how I usually see it use. Like how people call McConnell a “good” politician . Idk tho

instead we should discourage people from filing civil suits entirely by making sure only people who can afford to pay the defendants’ lawyers fees will file them

That’s not how it plays out in reality.

Why? That accomplishes only increased government costs when the same accessibility could be brought about by allowing the loser of the case to take on reasonable lawyer fees of both people.

I mean you stayed.

If the public defenders are good enough for everyone else

as a present which is not the case, since they’re not in civil lawsuits

Yeah. That’s the proper response to your statement being wrong. Lol. . .

Yes, the system has issues–the issue being that the loser in the suit doesn’t take the burden of reasonable attorney costs for both parties. That alone would fix most of it. Government doesn’t need to give anyone a right to a civil lawyer.