Now that the election is over has anyone changed their position on the following issues??

Getting rid of the filibuster
Expanding the Supreme Court
Puerto Rico Statehood
Washington DC Statehood
Supreme Court Code of Conduct, Recusal Rules, Term limits
...

 

Was any knowledgeable, patriotic, American citizen for any of them in the first place?

It will all happen if we don't get paper ballots and photo ID. If done correctly, I have now changed my mind about only one election day. Better to vote early and not wait in long lines.

 

GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER: No. It's been a useful tool and shouldn't be removed

EXPANDING THE SUPREME COURT: Absolutely not. Nine justices is a good number. If Democrats want to expand the court when they are in power, it will force Republicans to do the same when they are in power. It would be a never-ending cycle

PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD: Only if Puerto Rico wants it. Yes, I know that it would add a certain number of votes in the Electoral College in favor of Democrats, but Puerto Rico is so tied to the U.S. that they should be allowed to enter the Union if they like.

WASHINGTON DC STATEHOOD: It's not necessary. It's a federal district and should remain so.

SUPREME COURT CODE OF CONDUCT, RECUSAL RULES, TERM LIMITS: Supreme Court justices should follow the same code of conduct rules as any human being should. They should recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest - same as any judge. No term limits should be imposed since doing so would become too political.

 

The last-minute gamesmanship employed by liberals has promoted blind votes in desperation over well-considered support for / opposition to newly-proposed legislation. The filibuster is essential to providing ample time for review and deliberative decision-making in the face of rushed legislation, a la the ACA.

The Supreme Court should be kept to an odd number of justices to avoid deadlocks. It should also be kept to a minimum of justices to not dilute the importance of the institution or unduly burden the nominating / confirming institutions.

While appointed for life, the average Supreme Court justice serves 16 years. With 4 presidential terms passing over the same 16 years, turnover averages every 2 years or about twice per presidential term, on average.

Nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices are necessary processes, but are also processes which detract from other responsibilities, both for the president and for Congress. We should not for political reasons accept expansion of the bench at the expense of the President and Congress spending less time performing their other duties.

Unless and until the citizens of Puerto Rico are both required to fully comply with all federal laws, and are full-taxpaying citizens alongside those of other states, I answer with an emphatic, no. It should remain a protectorate, much the same as Guam, Samoa, The US Virgin Islands, etc.

Not as long as Senators and House Representatives are federal employees, living in DC and beholden to the lobbyists / beltway bandits. DC has become a power center of the privileged few. If Senators and House Representatives were made employees of their respective states instead, were based in their home states full-time, and attended to matters in DC only when explicitly called into session, I'd take less issue with DC becoming its own State. Until then, I'm of the opinion that DC should absolutely not receive statehood status.

Congress vets judges for impartiality before confirmation. Recusals could leave the SCOTUS deadlocked on issues. For that reason, I'm not big on recusals at the SCOTUS level. If another fair solution could be implemented without tainting the objectivity of the Court, I'd be interested in knowing more. I can think of only one that makes sense to me, but it's not without its own flaws.

 

Probably should add the Fed to the list.