2020 Democratic Primaries

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
On a bit of different tangent, what are your opinions on "term limits" for Supreme Court justices? Something like 20 or 30 years. I tend to favor it for a couple of reasons. One is the belief that no one should hold that much "power" for a lifetime. The other is that with modern medicine, we are seeing more justices serving into their 80s and potentially 90s or even higher and the potential of a justice serving with diminished capacity or severe health problems.
Very much agree with this.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
Takes it up a notch like from a M-80 to a Hydrogen Bomb, but sure there is some equivalency. /Sarcasm
How so?

Both would be using available Constitutional means to create a majority on the Court for their ideology.
 

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,977
7,026
0
Biden's gaffes coming at record pace. I don't see him making it with his poor verbal skills, but then again his opponents aren't any good either and someone has to win:

 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,943
4,258
0
Dem nominees are worried the SCOTUS is too politicized. You can't make this s*** up.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.



"Adjudicate how we like or we'll find someone who will."

I swear they're Aggies who never learn this is going to blow up in their face.
They’re convinced it’s the winning move after they indoctrinate enough college kids to hate America.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,509
281,143
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Biden's gaffes coming at record pace. I don't see him making it with his poor verbal skills, but then again his opponents aren't any good either and someone has to win:

He made the most racist statement of any presidential candidate this century and became Vice President.

All he has to do is remain less woke than the crazies and keep polling well with black voters.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,943
4,258
0
He made the most racist statement of any presidential candidate this century and became Vice President.

All he has to do is remain less woke than the crazies and keep polling well with black voters.
Hahaha! Less woke. I like it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
401
834
0
He made the most racist statement of any presidential candidate this century and became Vice President.

All he has to do is remain less woke than the crazies and keep polling well with black voters.
Satire from the Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Joe Biden has apologized for his recent seemingly racist comment, where he said that poor kids are sometimes as smart as white kids.

"Everyone who knows me knows I'm not a racist," said Biden. "I even have a black friend, Barry. Smart, articulate guy."
Aides were then seen signaling him to stop talking, but Biden pushed on.
"Rest assured," Biden said. "I like all races, even the bad ones."
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
Satire from the Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Joe Biden has apologized for his recent seemingly racist comment, where he said that poor kids are sometimes as smart as white kids.

"Everyone who knows me knows I'm not a racist," said Biden. "I even have a black friend, Barry. Smart, articulate guy."
Aides were then seen signaling him to stop talking, but Biden pushed on.
"Rest assured," Biden said. "I like all races, even the bad ones."
It was tongue in cheek, referring to Obama.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,533
2,624
0
How so?

Both would be using available Constitutional means to create a majority on the Court for their ideology.
1) The Trump justices, as well as most of the other conservatives, have voted with the "Liberal Block" on multiple split decisions. Not so with the liberals. 2) The decision to not vote on Garland had some historical precedent. This court packing plan has none. 3) The plan is actually being tabled as a threat to attempt to sway the court to vote a particular way. This is neither Constitutional or ethical.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,944
12,527
0
1) The Trump justices, as well as most of the other conservatives, have voted with the "Liberal Block" on multiple split decisions. Not so with the liberals. 2) The decision to not vote on Garland had some historical precedent. This court packing plan has none. 3) The plan is actually being tabled as a threat to attempt to sway the court to vote a particular way. This is neither Constitutional or ethical.
The fact he is even defending it knowing, I think, why they are doing it, is typical him.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
1) The Trump justices, as well as most of the other conservatives, have voted with the "Liberal Block" on multiple split decisions. Not so with the liberals. 2) The decision to not vote on Garland had some historical precedent. This court packing plan has none. 3) The plan is actually being tabled as a threat to attempt to sway the court to vote a particular way. This is neither Constitutional or ethical.
Since the Constitution is silent on the number of justices on the Court, it would be perfectly constitutional to add some. It would be ethical as well, as there is nothing "unethical" about Congress deciding to shuffle the Court.

There are reasons not to do it. It would simply increase the partisan divide, and the Pubs would certainly try to pack some of theirs on if they got control. The tit-for-tat would never stop. But it IS constitutional, as well as ethical.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,533
2,624
0
Since the Constitution is silent on the number of justices on the Court, it would be perfectly constitutional to add some. It would be ethical as well, as there is nothing "unethical" about Congress deciding to shuffle the Court.

There are reasons not to do it. It would simply increase the partisan divide, and the Pubs would certainly try to pack some of theirs on if they got control. The tit-for-tat would never stop. But it IS constitutional, as well as ethical.
Sorry, reading comprehension fail. What is unethical and unconstitutional is using the threat of packing the court to try to sway the opinions of the current court. This is called extortion and it is illegal, as well as unethical. I never said packing the court, in an of itself, is unethical or unconstitutional. I only said it is without precedent.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
Sorry, reading comprehension fail. What is unethical and unconstitutional is using the threat of packing the court to try to sway the opinions of the current court. This is called extortion and it is illegal, as well as unethical. I never said packing the court, in an of itself, is unethical or unconstitutional. I only said it is without precedent.
I don’t know that anyone now is using the threat to pack the Court to sway the opinions of those on it. They are talking about packing it to flip the majority.

But it is NOT without precedent either. FDR did exactly that in the 30s, threatening to pack it, and suddenly the Court began to take a less confrontational view of his New Deal legislation.
 

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
401
834
0
A brief filed by Dick Durbin and five other Dem Senators states:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief read. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.' Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal."

Not sure how this can be viewed as anything but a threat to pack the court if the SCOTUS doesn't start ruling in ways that are pleasing to these senators.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,533
2,624
0
I don’t know that anyone now is using the threat to pack the Court to sway the opinions of those on it. They are talking about packing it to flip the majority.

But it is NOT without precedent either. FDR did exactly that in the 30s, threatening to pack it, and suddenly the Court began to take a less confrontational view of his New Deal legislation.
Really try to actually process the post before responding. The actual packing of the court is without precedent. The threat of packing the court was one of the most despicable things that FDR did. Talk about tactics of would be dictators.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. all signed on to a brief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York where they wrote, "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
Really try to actually process the post before responding. The actual packing of the court is without precedent. The threat of packing the court was one of the most despicable things that FDR did. Talk about tactics of would be dictators.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. all signed on to a brief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York where they wrote, "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
How was that a “would be dictator”?

Ease off the hyperbole. Nothing he did there was unconstitutional. Talking about adding justices was not...and he didn’t do it anyway.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,533
2,624
0
How was that a “would be dictator”?

Ease off the hyperbole. Nothing he did there was unconstitutional. Talking about adding justices was not...and he didn’t do it anyway.
Using it as a stick to get SCOTUS to vote his way is extortion. The executive coercing the court is blatantly unconstitutional. It is one thing to try to stack the court, not great but constitutional. Because once they are sitting they are independent, as the votes often show. There isn't one sitting justice that has voted the way the president that appointed them would have wanted every single time. Trumps appointees have broken ranks multiple times. It is an entirely other thing to force the sitting justices to vote your way. FDR and the democratic senators did/are doing the later not the former.

The would be dictator line is a response to a charge often leveled at Trump. Coercing the court is a lot closer to that line than anything Trump has ever done.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,944
12,527
0
Using it as a stick to get SCOTUS to vote his way is extortion. The executive coercing the court is blatantly unconstitutional. It is one thing to try to stack the court, not great but constitutional. Because once they are sitting they are independent, as the votes often show. There isn't one sitting justice that has voted the way the president that appointed them would have wanted every single time. Trumps appointees have broken ranks multiple times. It is an entirely other thing to force the sitting justices to vote your way. FDR and the democratic senators did/are doing the later not the former.

The would be dictator line is a response to a charge often leveled at Trump. Coercing the court is a lot closer to that line than anything Trump has ever done.
You're talking to a wall. He really doesn't understand the coercion and attempt to extort the SCOTUS to vote how they demand. Roberts is a pussy so he may do it. The comparison to FDR is ****ing stupid because even the dems condemned it back then as did many in his administration and no they didn't suddenly fall in line with FDR and vote how he wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,533
2,624
0
You're talking to a wall. He really doesn't understand the coercion and attempt to extort the SCOTUS to vote how they demand. Roberts is a pussy so he may do it. The comparison to FDR is ****ing stupid because even the dems condemned it back then as did many in his administration and no they didn't suddenly fall in line with FDR and vote how he wanted.
It isn't fing stupid. The court did, in fact, vote in favor of the policies that they were previously opposing.

I am well aware of who I am conversing with. He and I have had a number of these discourses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,787
12,012
0
How was that a “would be dictator”?

Ease off the hyperbole. Nothing he did there was unconstitutional. Talking about adding justices was not...and he didn’t do it anyway.
In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In short...
In a fit of pique because the SCOTUS had the effrontery to push back against his agenda, FDR planned on packing the court in order to influence outcomes...and used the threat of such to influence the Court in order to get his political agenda passed.
The ONLY reason he didn't do it is because his political blackmail got the desired outcome...along with the fact that he would have had serious headwinds from Congress to do something so blatantly political.

You really do need to quit trying to distort history through nuance in order to fit your narrative.While the action in and of itself might have been "Constitutional"....It was both unethical and immoral...along with being a direct threat to the Constitutional order and balance that has maintained the Republic.

And now Durbin the Turban and his fellow Marxists are trying to do the same damned thing because they want a Court packed with people who will do their bidding due to the fact that they can't get the votes to get their agenda passed legally in Congress.
You can couch it in any terms you want with any kind of nuance you can imagine....
But in the end it is a blatant grab for control of the American People by controlling the SCOTUS.


Semper Fi
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,944
12,527
0
It isn't fing stupid. The court did, in fact, vote in favor of the policies that they were previously opposing.

I am well aware of who I am conversing with. He and I have had a number of these discourses.
Historians are split on whether it had an impact or not, specifically when Roberts views on the laws changed, pre-extortion or post extortion. Basically, to quote a great philosopher, "Opinions vary". Thoughts are he began to change prior to the election and before 1937 which was before FDRs extortion attempt.

My point is, dems are pushing the idea, which they opposed in 1937. It's a ****ing stupid comparison.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In short...
In a fit of pique because the SCOTUS had the effrontery to push back against his agenda, FDR planned on packing the court in order to influence outcomes...and used the threat of such to influence the Court in order to get his political agenda passed.
The ONLY reason he didn't do it is because his political blackmail got the desired outcome...along with the fact that he would have had serious headwinds from Congress to do something so blatantly political.

You really do need to quit trying to distort history through nuance in order to fit your narrative.While the action in and of itself might have been "Constitutional"....It was both unethical and immoral...along with being a direct threat to the Constitutional order and balance that has maintained the Republic.

And now Durbin the Turban and his fellow Marxists are trying to do the same damned thing because they want a Court packed with people who will do their bidding due to the fact that they can't get the votes to get their agenda passed legally in Congress.
You can couch it in any terms you want with any kind of nuance you can imagine....
But in the end it is a blatant grab for control of the American People by controlling the SCOTUS.


Semper Fi
It is not "Marxist" to add judges to the Court. It is not unconstitutional either.

The only way this would happen is if it passed the Senate, the House, and was signed by the president. And the Senate would have to shelve the filibuster, or get 60 votes. And that doesn't include people like Manchin and Tester, both of which would likely oppose.

If the Dems could do that, it WOULD be the will of the American people. That would have only been done by the elected representatives of the people, and signed by the president that the EC voted for.

It is supremely unlikely to happen. In the first place, it it is really unlikely that the Dems control all three branches with enough support to overcome the objections of people like Manchin and Tester, and it is also highly unlikely they get rid of the filibuster to do it. Now...if McConnell is dumb enough to do that first, then maybe, but he has resisted Trump for that and I see no reason for him to break that.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Duke Silver

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,787
12,012
0
It is not "Marxist" to add judges to the Court. It is not unconstitutional either.

The only way this would happen is if it passed the Senate, the House, and was signed by the president. And the Senate would have to shelve the filibuster, or get 60 votes. And that doesn't include people like Manchin and Tester, both of which would likely oppose.

If the Dems could do that, it WOULD be the will of the American people. That would have only been done by the elected representatives of the people, and signed by the president that the EC voted for.

It is supremely unlikely to happen. In the first place, it it is really unlikely that the Dems control all three branches with enough support to overcome the objections of people like Manchin and Tester, and it is also highly unlikely they get rid of the filibuster to do it. Now...if McConnell is dumb enough to do that first, then maybe, but he has resisted Trump for that and I see no reason for him to break that.
Let me ask you a very simple question John.
Would you be in favor of this in anyway if these assholes try to do this?


Semper Fi
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
Let me ask you a very simple question John.
Would you be in favor of this in anyway if these assholes try to do this?


Semper Fi
Most likely not.

Here is a scenario in which I would be in favor. If RBG dies or has to retire in the next, say four to six months, that would be almost the same time frame that Scalia passed, and Obama put up a nominee. McConnell wouldn't even hold hearings, saying that we needed to wait for the election.

If this time, he says oh never mind, we don't need to wait for an election this time, and rams through a conservative, then hell yes I would be in favor of enlarging the Court.

Biden bypassed the filibuster, and the Dems have to live with the fallout. Losing the filibuster for nominees is on the Dems, not the Pubs. But by the same token, if McConnell wants to play hypocritcal games with blocking nominees when the other party is in the White House but not when it is from his own, then all bets are off.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Duke Silver

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,787
12,012
0
Most likely not.

Here is a scenario in which I would be in favor. If RBG dies or has to retire in the next, say four to six months, that would be almost the same time frame that Scalia passed, and Obama put up a nominee. McConnell wouldn't even hold hearings, saying that we needed to wait for the election.

If this time, he says oh never mind, we don't need to wait for an election this time, and rams through a conservative, then hell yes I would be in favor of enlarging the Court.

Biden bypassed the filibuster, and the Dems have to live with the fallout. Losing the filibuster for nominees is on the Dems, not the Pubs. But by the same token, if McConnell wants to play hypocritcal games with blocking nominees when the other party is in the White House but not when it is from his own, then all bets are off.
So....
In other words tit-for-tat and escalation is ok as long as the other side does it.
This is why we are so completely screwed as a country right now.
You're hopeless.

What McConnell did was wrong then...what Biden/Reid proposed and said they would do was wrong then.
And if McConnel reneges on his previous stance he will be doubly wrong for purely political maneuvering.
And if ANYONE in Congress allows the pure weaponization of the Courts through packing for political control that they cannot get through legislation?
It will signal the beginning of the end of the Republic.
There is NO...NONE...NADA...ZILCH...justification for interference in the makeup, processes or operations of a coequal branch of the Government short of a Constitutional Amendment that would put a check on such blatantly political actions.

The End


Semper Fi
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shane3 and eodhorn

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,249
11,967
0
So....
In other words tit-for-tat and escalation is ok as long as the other side does it.
This is why we are so completely screwed as a country right now.
You're hopeless.

What McConnell did was wrong then...what Biden/Reid proposed and said they would do was wrong then.
And if McConnel reneges on his previous stance he will be doubly wrong for purely political maneuvering.
And if ANYONE in Congress allows the pure weaponization of the Courts through packing for political control that they cannot get through legislation?
It will signal the beginning of the end of the Republic.
There is NO...NONE...NADA...ZILCH...justification for interference in the makeup, processes or operations of a coequal branch of the Government short of a Constitutional Amendment that would put a check on such blatantly political actions.

The End


Semper Fi
I agree it isn't good, but should the Dems just stand by and let the Pubs stack the Court with nominees that have a very different ideology? Both have the right to put the people they support on the Court.

I actually do support an amendment to clean up this mess.

1) Set the size of the Court at 9.
2) Give the president a maximum amount of time to annouce a nominee.
3) The Senate must vote up or down within a maximum specified time.
4) Have a 20-year term limit for new justices, or a maximum retirement date at age 80.
5) If a justice reaches the 20 year limit, they can go back through the nomination and confirmation process if they so choose.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,943
4,258
0
So....
In other words tit-for-tat and escalation is ok as long as the other side does it.
This is why we are so completely screwed as a country right now.
You're hopeless.

What McConnell did was wrong then...what Biden/Reid proposed and said they would do was wrong then.
And if McConnel reneges on his previous stance he will be doubly wrong for purely political maneuvering.
And if ANYONE in Congress allows the pure weaponization of the Courts through packing for political control that they cannot get through legislation?
It will signal the beginning of the end of the Republic.
There is NO...NONE...NADA...ZILCH...justification for interference in the makeup, processes or operations of a coequal branch of the Government short of a Constitutional Amendment that would put a check on such blatantly political actions.

The End


Semper Fi
They won’t give up. It’s one way the Socialists could win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,213
18,804
0
Dallas
Phew, the fact checkers finally got to Liz’s and Kamala’s dangerous and divisive lies.

But did you catch this little nugget?

"Focusing on the language opens up the opportunity for some to discredit the conversation about police brutality and the criminal justice system in general," Leopold said.
The people who misuse and abuse language—in an obvious effort to mislead and inflame—aren’t the ones to blame.

It’s our fault—those of us who are asking for nothing more than honesty in how we talk about these complex issues—for “focusing on the language.” By asking people to be straightforward and accurate with their words, we are “discrediting the conversation.”

Welcome to the asinine, post-truth fantasy world of the modern Left.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,509
281,143
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
But did you catch this little nugget?



The people who misuse and abuse language—in an obvious effort to mislead and inflame—aren’t the ones to blame.

It’s our fault—those of us who are asking for nothing more than honesty in how we talk about these complex issues—for “focusing on the language.” By asking people to be straightforward and accurate with their words, we are “discrediting the conversation.”

Welcome to the asinine, post-truth fantasy world of the modern Left.
Yep, I saw that. The gymnastics it takes to right that nonsense is almost impressive.
 

bilbo t baggins

Member Who Talks
Aug 13, 2018
523
1,015
0
I agree it isn't good, but should the Dems just stand by and let the Pubs stack the Court with nominees that have a very different ideology? Both have the right to put the people they support on the Court.

I actually do support an amendment to clean up this mess.

1) Set the size of the Court at 9.
2) Give the president a maximum amount of time to annouce a nominee.
3) The Senate must vote up or down within a maximum specified time.
4) Have a 20-year term limit for new justices, or a maximum retirement date at age 80.
5) If a justice reaches the 20 year limit, they can go back through the nomination and confirmation process if they so choose.
Agree with you on everything but the court size. It should be 37.
 

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
401
834
0
Five months out from the caucuses, Liz Warren has jumped to a big lead over Joe Biden. She has the far left credentials for the primaries, but is she electable in the general? My center left friends think she is just as unappealing as Hillary.

In many ways, she is identical to Trump as an economic populist, just with a different set of demons. His are China\Unfair Trade, The Press, Beltway Swamp, hers are Private Equity, Big Oil\Pharma\Banks (anything big is bad except government), and any conservative with a yacht.

Some choice. The ultimate narcissist vs. Krupskaya.

https://iowastartingline.com/2019/08/15/poll-elizabeth-warren-jumps-out-to-big-lead-in-the-iowa-caucus/