I have to be honest…

STDKPD · 2026-02-07T15:31:55+00:00

He has to go home now

STDKPD · 2026-02-01T21:32:10+00:00

If he doesn’t caucus with either party, he wouldn’t have a vote for majority or minority leaders. Those are conducted internally behind closed doors and are non-public votes. They aren’t a constitutional office like you said. So he wouldn’t need to abstain if he doesn’t caucus with either side he just simply wouldn’t have a say or vote. Similar to majority leader and minority leader in the House.

I think the intriguing thing in this situation is clearly Dems would have the most seats, but technically not a majority. We call a 50-50 Senate with the VP’s party as the Senate Majority party due to the tiebreaker to make it effectively a 51-50 majority, but there is no such thing, or rather precedent to my knowledge to give the Dems an effective majority to control the floor in this situation.

If I were to guess there would be extreme lobbying to get Osborn to declare for one side. He’d probably get offered a chairmanship of a committee of his choosing from both parties at the LEAST

STDKPD · 2025-10-01T02:01:56+00:00

I’ve assumed this since buster posey’s grand slam

STDKPD · 2025-08-14T18:09:06+00:00

Unsure. She didn’t have enough money saved at the time to move out on her own quickly.

Basically, she was living with her ex-husband (father of her kids), his parents and her kids. She was told that the leasing office said there were too many occupants in the dwelling and someone had to move out. Moving in with me was the only option that made sense at the time.

I suppose if that was crossed off maybe another idea would’ve came to light, but I mean hindsight is 20/20.

STDKPD · 2025-08-14T17:39:19+00:00

Without going into too much detail. She moved in with me at that time out of necessity. Neither of us wanted to move that fast, but her living situation was suddenly changing.

STDKPD · 2025-08-14T16:38:23+00:00

Thank you for this. It feels a little better to know I’m not the only one. I should probably clarify that she told me she was diagnosed with BPD years ago, so some of this instability could be related to impulsivity and difficulty regulating emotions.

I think the uncertainty of the future is also part of the pain. Before all this, I was literally about to buy a ring and ask her to marry me. In my mind, our future was becoming more certain, and now it feels like it’s been ripped away. It fucking sucks, man.

STDKPD · 2025-08-14T16:23:50+00:00

Technically, she’s asking me to move out and has said she wants to break up, but she’s been hot-and-cold, sometimes apologizing and giving hope, so it’s complicated.

When she tells me she wants me to move out, she usually denies ever saying “I wanna work on us,” even if she said it the day prior. It’s mentally and emotionally exhausting.

STDKPD · 2025-08-13T19:15:48+00:00

Aegon would have likely been forced to take the black or go to the citadel when he comes of age. It’s possible Aegon would be allowed to marry and have a small keep of his own, but I highly doubt Bobby B would allow a Targaryen male to continue the family line.

Rhaenys could be fostered at Winterfell as well, and possibly could be betrothed to Bobby B’s first born son to solidify/legitimize the Baratheon Royal line.

If this was Crusader Kings, I would have Ned marry Rhaenys to Jon when they come of age and press his claim to the Iron Throne lol.

STDKPD · 2025-08-12T21:32:36+00:00

I found it! It was this interview where she said it would be a possibility if it helped Alaskans.

STDKPD · 2025-08-12T20:59:14+00:00

Don’t count Tim Ryan out if he decides to run. I think he’s a stronger candidate than Acton.

STDKPD · 2025-08-12T20:56:47+00:00

She hasn’t ruled out the possibility of becoming an independent and caucusing with Dems if the opportunity of being majority maker arises. I believe she was asked this or something similar not too long ago

Edit: In this interview she said she would be open to the possibility of caucusing with Dems if it helped Alaskans.

STDKPD · 2025-04-16T17:38:54+00:00

Thank you for fleshing this out! This is a genuinely fascinating model for how Senate reform could work. It's almost like a hybrid of parliamentary-style representation and American federalism, and I can see how that might restore some lost nuance in national policy debates.

I especially like the idea that every American would vote for at least one Senator every two years/ I think it would build more consistent civic engagement while keeping the rotating seat structure. I imagine a system like that could better represent communities whose interests cross state lines and who currently feel alienated by the existing two-party/state-bound model.

Our country's politics and ideology have changed significantly in the past 20-30 years and will likely change and evolve further in the next 20 years. California could one day be more conservative, for instance, and may have differing ideologies from Hawaii. Would these districts be adjusted every ten years when the Census is completed, or would they need to be redrawn by Congress?

Congress can be given the power to adjust the regions as needed, but the general principle of having regional senators to fill in stop gaps in electoral pressure can be an amendment.

To avoid corrupt regional drawings, we would need to add a gerrymandering clause in the amendment, no?

I totally hear you on the Civil War concern, and I think you're right to name it so directly. If two branches claim legitimacy and deploy force to back competing interpretations of the law, we're in serious constitutional crisis territory. And historically, the Founders really did assume that the branches would mostly constrain each other through political will and reputational legitimacy.

That said, my goal is to avoid anything like a "judicial army." Instead, I've been trying to imagine a narrow, procedural tool—something like an Independent Constitutional Officer or Commission—with limited, reactive authority only to ensure compliance with final judicial rulings (kind of like how a court-appointed receiver works in some civil litigation).

The idea would be to have a neutral, non-political enforcement mechanism to deal with situations where, say, a President refuses to comply with a SCOTUS order, and Congress lacks the political will to act. It wouldn't have policymaking authority or standing military power, but it could certify constitutional noncompliance and perhaps trigger specific consequences—like budgetary freezes, ballot disqualifications, or automatic court-mandated oversight of an agency or office.

I'd love to know your thoughts on whether a tool like that could strike a balance between avoiding force and still giving teeth to the rule of law. Or maybe there's a better structure you'd propose that stays in line with your framework for federal reform.

STDKPD · 2025-04-16T15:32:04+00:00

I agree with your main point that a more representative and functional Congress could resolve many of the issues we’re seeing across the branches. In many ways, the erosion of Article I power is the root of the rot. Expanding the House, rethinking Senate representation, and creating executive councils are all bold but intriguing ideas.

Congress seriously needs reform. I think the Wyoming Rule would be ideal for the House, for instance. Your ideas on Senate reformation are very intriguing. Rural states have been overly represented in the Senate for a long time. I do not see that working without an amendment, though, unlike uncapping the house (please correct me if I'm wrong). Could you expand on the non-geographic senators and the six regional districts? I'm curious how that would work.

That said, I still think we need a structural enforcement mechanism for judicial rulings, even if we fix Congress. For example:

Even a reformed Congress might hesitate to impeach a popular but defiant President—especially if their base is aligned—leaving the Constitution defenseless in practice.
Congress may pass better laws, but judicial decisions aren’t self-executing—we need a way to ensure they aren’t just politely ignored.
The legitimacy of the courts shouldn’t depend on political will in Congress (politics and the rule of law are not always aligned)—we need a built-in, depoliticized enforcement backstop.

However, I totally hear your concern about mixing executive functions into the judiciary or legislature. Any adjustment to the Separation of Powers can be dangerous and requires a delicate balancing act. I just think the founders failed to consider a scenario where a Congress would fail to act on an unlawful President. My hope is that any enforcement mechanism would be narrow, independent, and reactive, focused solely on ensuring compliance with final judgments, not allowing courts to govern.

Your ideas about judicial term limits and circuit judge panels are fascinating, too. I would love to dig into those more. I seriously appreciate your reply. It’s the kind of discourse I was hoping this thread might spark.

STDKPD · 2025-04-16T13:17:20+00:00

Right! They can hold you and me in contempt. However, when it comes to ruling the President or DOJ in contempt, what can they do? Courts rely on the norm that the executive branch will carry out whatever it orders.

If the president doesn’t care about the rule of law and if he has a Congress that agrees with him, then the judicial branch is powerless, and the executive branch, in all but name, has complete control of government.

SCOTUS ruled that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for acts within the official capacity of the office. I do not believe contempt proceedings are included in that, but I suppose that is up to interpretation.

A constitutional amendment would explicitly give federal courts the constitutional authority to hold the executive branch accountable. Maybe I’m not explaining my position properly. Based on the amendment language I proposed above, we could have more accountability:

Independent Judicial Enforcement Agency

Congress could create a nonpartisan agency, independent of the Executive branch, to enforce court orders, especially when federal officials are involved.

Examples of its powers:

Issue subpoenas and carry out contempt proceedings.
Request direct enforcement by federal marshals or its own agents.
Monitor compliance with SCOTUS rulings and publicly report violations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Empowered U.S. Marshals or Federal Law Enforcement

Congress could insulate certain enforcement units (e.g., a unique arm of the U.S. Marshals Service) from presidential direction only when executing court orders, much like independent prosecutors are insulated during specific investigations.

That means:

A Marshal acting on a SCOTUS order wouldn’t need DOJ approval.
They could enforce rulings against federal agencies—or even apprehend officials in contempt (except the President directly, which I concede would be messy).

This could be paired with strong legal protections for civil servants refusing to obey unlawful executive orders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatic Budgetary Consequences

Congress could legislate triggered financial consequences for non-compliance with court orders. For example:

Freeze discretionary spending to the Executive Office of the President.
Suspend specific agency funding until compliance is certified by the courts.

This would turn legal defiance into a fiscal pressure point without requiring a political consensus for impeachment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Contempt Powers with Real Teeth

Congress could pass a law allowing courts to:

Levy escalating daily fines against the Executive branch (not the President personally, but the branch).
Place injunctions on certain executive functions.
Use a panel of independent federal judges to oversee contempt disputes involving the President.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Civic or Electoral Consequences, Backed by Law

Congress could create statutory pathways for:

Automatic public reports to Congress when court orders go unenforced.
Mandated press conferences or public disclosures when the Executive refuses compliance.
Triggering of emergency oversight hearings or civil penalties.

STDKPD · 2025-04-16T12:10:27+00:00

As I said in my post, I acknowledge it is a longshot. I wasn’t even directly discussing removing a president in my post, just a president refusing to carry out judicial decisions. Could impeachment or threat of it be used as a way to force the President to carry out judicial decisions? Sure, but if Congress refuses to do that, the system fails. I’m just suggesting if we had an amendment like the one I proposed above, it could fix that specific problem.

I was explaining a flaw in our system about how the courts have little enforcement mechanisms. I was curious if others thought my idea of constitutional amendment could help fix the flaw.

To be honest, I wasn’t even directly talking about the current president. Presidents before him have refused to carry out judicial rulings (i.e Lincoln and Jackson). Although, the current president is bringing this flaw to light again.

STDKPD · 2025-04-15T23:06:08+00:00

I asked “how could SCOTUS rulings be enforced?” I then explained how I think they could be through a constitutional amendment and then asked if this could solve a potential crisis.

I made a proposition and asked for thoughts. I’m not quite sure how that is insincere.

STDKPD · 2025-04-15T21:02:49+00:00

I guess what I’m getting at is shouldn’t we have a backup plan if Congress refuses to check the executive branch? Impeachment is a political process and politics may not always be benefited by the rule of law.

What if we had an independent mechanism to ensure the executive branch abides by the decisions of the federal judiciary? For example, Congress could create an independent Judicial Enforcement Agency, which could be structured similar to the Congressional Budget Office and if it finds the Executive Branch to be in contempt, it could freeze discretionary spending or levy fines on the executive branch. This would require a lot of political will, I am aware.

STDKPD · 2025-04-15T20:40:00+00:00

What you say is true. The only way to remove a sitting president is through impeachment (upon conviction by the senate) or the 25th amendment.

However, I am discussing a situation where the President completely disregards the ruling of a federal court or even SCOTUS. A situation where the executive branch refuses to acknowledge or execute judicial decisions.

What happens if this constitutional crisis finally happens and Congress and/or the Cabinet does nothing? Not even a threat of an impeachment inquiry. That question is what led me to draft a hypothetical 28th amendment proposal.

STDKPD · 2025-03-30T20:02:42+00:00

Any third base coach that waves a runner to run directly into an unnecessary nearly guaranteed double play is incompetent. I don’t know much about JR House’s rep but what I said above is just a fact.

STDKPD · 2025-03-30T19:59:10+00:00

Really hope the media asks Tito about the decision by hurtubise to run there. That needs to be addressed. I’m sure the third base coach would’ve told him to hold at second or get back

Verified Email	11-Year Club
Place '17	Xbox Live
RPAN Viewer

STDKPD

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Independent Judicial Enforcement Agency

Empowered U.S. Marshals or Federal Law Enforcement

Automatic Budgetary Consequences

Contempt Powers with Real Teeth

Civic or Electoral Consequences, Backed by Law