Trump says "herd mentality" will save us from the virus. Which could be true when you figure that us=him and his family. Though I suspect the folks in his base won't like wearing the herd label, accurate though it might be.

After Trumps comments regarding forrest management in Austria meme makers had a field day.

Here are some examples:
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10223389932245940&set=pcb.10223389944406244
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000120044045/sie-leben-im-wald-das-netz-lacht-ueber-donald-trumps

And here is a reaction by the vice mayor of vienna:
https://www.vienna.at/wiens-vizebuergermeisterin-hebein-twittert-video-botschaft-aus-der-wald-stadt-an-trump/6742346

For some explainations "Förster" means forrest warden and is pronounced like you would pronounce "firster", hence "America first, Austria Förster".

The markings on the trees are to show, which hiking route you are on. (I don't know how widespread it is, to denote hiking routes on trees). It does not show how explosive a tree is.

At work we had no idea how Trump got to exploding trees. Trees typically only explode, when hit with lightening. Different types of trees explode more or less in such a case, maybe he heared that. One collage suggested, that typical trees from Austria burn better then typical Californian trees, when dried, though given the much wetter climate we have here, you generally don't have that dry wood lying around in the wild, if you want firewood, you generally collect if first and then let it dry under some rain protection.

But now i have to hop on my boar and ride back to my Ewok-Treehouse.

We call those marks 'trail blazes' around here, they're the standard method of marking a path. And no, fire is not involved (unless one of them is the burning bush, then paint is not needed).

Justice Ginsburg has died. Things are about to get really, really ugly.

To quote Passiflora,

We're doomed.

Maybe not, but it won't be much fun avoiding it. It may come down to the Army being asked to suppress the treason of the other side by both sides, and notwithstanding that the traitors are all Republicans it's uncertain how they'll respond. The GOP has been trying to subvert the officer corps since Ronnie, after all.

Insert string of sulfurous cursing, here.

I'd bet folding money the Republicans try to put one of their own in the spot ASAP. Bonus if they say something about it being "an election year" so they gotta get it out of the way real fast to ensure things go smoothly or some such nonsense. Not saying that'll be their exact excuse but it wouldn't surprise me if they went with it.

With the proviso that 'as soon as possible' means December, yes. Four Republican Senators have already said they won't vote for a replacement before the election (because it would cost all four their seats and their bribe stream); so expect the vote in the lame duck session.

The only upside I see to that is that it would pretty much make it impossible for the Democrats, should they get the Senate, not to expand and pack the Supreme Court. Even the ones who like a lot of the evil of the right would be too alienated if they tried to protect the GOP at that point.

I don't think the Democrats have the spine to go through with that. Not to mention that Fox News would absolutely crucify them if they tried it. I can easily see it backfire on them in a way McConnell stealing the seat from Garland never did.

Heck, even I have reservations about packing the court.

They're full of crap, and Linsey Graham's already reversed himself. They're probably not as worried about their seats as you hope; turnout will be boosted on both sides, cancelling each other out. And should they lose their seats, there's wingnut welfare.

Just packing the court and being done with it is not a good option IMO. It just will lead to an ever expanding court, whenever one side gets the neccessary power.

What the Democrats should do IMHO, if the Republicans fill Ginsbergs seat, is adding 5 seats, filling 3 with judges so left, that the rightwing gets an apoplexy and then offer a constitutional amendment, that prevents further packing and requires some sort of supermajority for supreme court seats (maybe the old filibuster rule or something similiar) before filling the remaining seats.

I noticed a fascinating idea to take the Supremes from the Republicans forever: pass a law saying that all 180 Federal Appeals Court justices are now Supreme Court justices, with each case to be heard by nine of them chosen at random. Go ahead, Skippy: pack that.

Any system in which the death of a single judge throws the entire political system into chaos leaves a lot to he desired. They shouldn't have life terms. I've heard 18 year terms suggested.

I expect that Biden will do exactly nothing to reform the court, though. He is too much a creature of tradition. And if the Democrats fail to take the Senate he will be a lame duck anyhow.

Biden isn't as passive/stupid as Obama was; he already admits the GOP is the problem, and has backed away from his stand against eliminating the filibuster. But even if he was that p/s, he still doesn't have a choice but to eliminate a 6-3 Republican Supreme Court as a factor in American politics and law. If he doesn't do it he'd be literally incapable of changing the name of a Post Office, even with both houses of Congress on his side.

As the party of corruption has liked to point out these last few years while packing the judiciary with career criminals, elections have consequences.

That isn't true - there's a provision in the constitution that allows Congress to define the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. So if Democrats held both houses they could pass laws that have a clause in them that says "the Supreme Court can't touch this". If voters want it overturned they'll have to do it by election.

Incidentally, even Obama has come around to the idea of eliminating the filibuster. I've always supported getting rid of it in the US - it's absurd that a democratically elected legislature should require a supermajority to do anything - or at least if people are gonna filibuster, they ought to have to stand there and ramble on in person.

But court packing? Nah, I don't think that many Democrats are willing to open up that can of worms. The Republicans would just pack it back in the opposite direction at the first opportunity, and then banana republic, here we come. I hope that Biden will entertain some kind of court reforms. They need term limits. Or if he's gonna pack it, keep the nine permanent justices and add two or four rotating random ones.