Read an excellent article in The Wall Street Journal today by Peggy Noonan titled, "Not So Smooth Operator" and subtitled, "Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest." Why do you think the President seems so unaware of how so many of his words and actions are being perceived this way? In short, why is he so divisive?
I know this is a "hot one" so please remember our rules here at AoM to act and react as gentlemen and keep it civil.
Well, why not 5? 5 can still rule and be ruled quite effectively.
5? What the fuck is wrong with you? 5? Just. No.
If you're going to object like that the least you could do is explain your view...
I feel you have not read what I have written. For example, my first reason is that I used seven paragraphs not five, but I fear that will fail to persuade you. I've a dozen other reasons, of course, but I fear they will fail to persuade you.
Let's see: 2: five is not nearly as many appointments as seven; 3: nor as likely to challenge a Chief's rule over the Court. 4: You must understand that there is only one reason not to have only one there - as years pass, Justices win & lose influence. 5: A faction of one or two is no faction. Conspiracies require more than that... 6: I would like to point out to you that Justices also serve lesser administrative functions which are also well staffed by bigger numbers, if they are available. 7 & final: you are right that five can both rule & be ruled. But it is not so much a matter of who rules, but of how rule is exercised. It if for that reason essential to balance everything on the knowledge that the Court only offers opinions, nothing else. How to ensure the imperatives of rule on the Court depends on knowing when a majority opinion is necessary & when a plurality will do & concurrences might come in handy.
five is not nearly as many appointments as seven
Obviously, but I don't see how that answers the question.
faction of one or two is no faction
I would like to point out to you that Justices also serve lesser administrative functions which are also well staffed by bigger numbers, if they are available.
This may be true, but again I don't see how it pertains to the question.
I did in fact read your original post on the subject because I found the question interesting. However, you responded in with such archaic language it was hard to follow your argument from one sentence to another.
I know you read it. But you either follow it or you do not.
The number of appointments gives a degree of power to Senate & especially the president, which in turns helps the Court's independence, if there is a serious majority there by fulfilling Constitutional formalities often enough that the undemocratic & secretive court does not become an object of political hatred or suspicion. Presidents make political payments & statements by appointing Justices. It matters & if it is too infrequent, it can hurt the prestige of the Court because it does not contribute the prestige of the President & because it is not public enough to impress. The Court needs all the publicity it can get. When the Court forgot this, FDR terrified it, for he was of the people & they were dangerous outsiders...
The point about administrative duties is that more will deal with it better. It is also a rather unimportant argument, it just boosts up the numbers I needed... Also, it suggests there are things people do not consider about the Court that should be considered, again pointing to how it rules the federal judiciary. People who think about the Court never think that it does rule the entire federal judiciary!
Understanding how people's opinions change over time, the difference between Justices who want to rule the Court & Justices who just do not want to be ruled, & the danger of introducing straightforward political partisanship on the Court teaches that there is safety in numbers. This cannot be carried too far, of course...
Much better; thank you. Now the argument makes sense.
But to go back to my numerology, 1 + a dozen is 13. & 7 is the center of 13. It is the silliest joke you've heard to hear the central argument at the end, but it's my sense of humor. Of course, that the central thing is in itself important goes without saying, so it is useful to figure out when things come in odd numbers & even & why.
Now the argument makes sense.
DJ, perhaps you can summarize in a succinct manner why 7 is better than 9?
Simple question. 563 words to give no answer.
Either that or you are too stupid to get it. But the question & answer are not yours to judge because you have no dog in this race. At any rate, I think you teach a fundamental lesson despite your stupidity: counting words & paragraphs is essential to good reading & therefore to good writing.
I asked a simple question. You offered your normal tl;dr response. I'd say that constitutes an entry into your dog race. Then you continued your normal M.O. of insulting anyone who calls you on your bullshit.
The saddest part of you is that you have this innate ability to alienate even people who agree with the principles you espouse.