A look into these mysterious ways.
This article led to this one - the second might have a view that's nearer to the middle. Not that this information will change much for the people whose votes have been submitted at this point in time, but it prods the question of how many chose a party whose headliner, second seat, and constituents collect instances of hashtag backsliding, non-answers, and vulnerability to another regime. (By the way, if there's anyone still operating under the illusion that anything will be spared, here's a bit more light on that matter.) I think I've mentioned something like this before, but why isn't there the same level of scrutiny applied to all candidates (to be clearer, regardless of party here) if an informed electorate is preferred? The two, in the case of the pair of articles listed first; the one, in the case of more recent coverage.
Once again, it's a pleasure to have resources like this from which to form my own impressions, or to which I can compare those impressions to other people's take on the matter. (Side note - it's petty to prefer guys who are clean shaven, funny, and in not-pink because of another person's political choices, but advocating the opposite of information is a good enough reason for me to seek the polar opposite of that advocate.) Did authors of articles pick one bit of the proceedings to write about and chuck the rest? Were the students watching aware of the pattern to which one set of senators held? To be fair, I think looking at word counts for terms like "rushing" and "sham" might produce comparable imbalances on one side to terms like "judicial activism" and "superlegislature" on the other.
There was another piece of information that stuck with me. According to the footage, the majority of SCOTUS decisions are 7-2, 8-1, and 9-0. The mention of this was probably meant to be reassuring in the face of concerns about court-packing, which it is for me. (I'm guessing this majority is based on all the cases decided from the time the number of justices first settled at nine, considering it hasn't always been that number.) Unless I missed the statement in the proceedings themselves, I'm thinking these numbers were meant to imply that, regardless of an individual justice's leanings, they decide together more often than not, therefore it sucks less often than not. A system with stats that withstand emotional appeals against its effectiveness sounds good to me.
Would viewing the stats be helpful, I wonder, in checking at the effectiveness of financial systems to whom one man's chosen to hand over his keys? Just a look into how humans make these fool things, see if it clears any 幻觉 in operation there. Hey, that reminds me of the other book I got, the one that triggered the 小丑. Thanks for reminding me of someone who wasn't fooled.
(Also - seriously, humans-not-human's-not-humans', apostrophes.)