I think you mean:
velociraptor = dpositionraptor/dtimeraptor
In summary
Vote blue no matter who:
Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won't immediately get worse.
Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.
Result - Things don't get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.
Vote blue only if X:
Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.
Con - Democrats less likely to win.
Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.
Can we please stop litigating this now?
Edit: The "best" approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don't think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.
I think a more accurate TL;DR is that Garland was the wrong guy for the job, but the Biden thing is more broadly true, too.
I'm not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge's order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.
Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?
It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".
As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it's important that we shatter our youth's idealism early and often.
Be Normal About Pizzacake Challenge (Impossible)
Why is Beryllium worse than Lithium?
Edit: apparently beryllium ions will fuck up your magnesium containing enzymes.
I think a few of the commissioners are appointed by a body of judges, but most of them appointed to the commission by the commission after open job application.
Bolton. Bury. Wigan. Perhaps other parts of Lancashire, also.
It seems really weird you let the president pick the supreme court justices in the first place really. It's also odd that you vote for judges in some places, because that makes the process overtly political, but even that would be better than just letting the president pick them.
In England and Wales, judges are essentially appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
A bad person? For what? For not wanting to live in a tiny bedsit just so the world can accommodate more theoretical people that don't exist and need not exist?