|
I can't not think "Looper" when I see "Rainmaker," and now I'm imagining Scalia in that scene.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
This is the first time I've been elated to hear of someone's death, and I'm not sure what that says about me as a person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I know her name was brought up already, but I think the right move for Obama would be to nominate Jane Kelly. She was appointed unanimously in 2013, the fastest appointment in Obama's term, with support from both Iowa senators, and Grassley is still the chairperson of the Judiciary committee, so he'd have to basically go back on his approval of her. Plus, she spent the 20 years before being an appeals judge as a public defender, which is something the higher courts don't really have. Completely agree. And the GOP would have a bit of success with "otherism" against Sri. Politically Jane Kelly is the best chance in my opinion, they'd have such a hard time attacking her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Chuu posted:This is the first time I've been elated to hear of someone's death, and I'm not sure what that says about me as a person. Everyone dies. Not everyone truly gets to have millions cheer your death and therefore he should be honored
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Chuu posted:This is the first time I've been elated to hear of someone's death, and I'm not sure what that says about me as a person. I felt a little good when Reagan died; but that was tempered by the fact that he was both senile AND more or less powerless at that point so id didn't matter, and that I knew it'd be a solid week of nothing but Reagan on TV. Now I no longer give a poo poo about TV, and an actual ongoing menace is gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Completely agree. And the GOP would have a bit of success with "otherism" against Sri. Politically Jane Kelly is the best chance in my opinion, they'd have such a hard time attacking her. Plus Kelly would put us one step closer to Ginsburg's dream: The Notorious RBG posted:People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
When Strom Thurmon died he managed to piss me off. Remember when his black love child came out? I didn't even live during the specter of segregation, I'm not even black and that poo poo pissed me the hell off
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:When Strom Thurmon died he managed to piss me off. Remember when his black love child came out? I didn't even live during the specter of segregation, I'm not even black and that poo poo pissed me the hell off Strom Thurmond posted:all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement.[5] ...unless they're the help
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:if the gop wins the election then unions won't be saved If the GOP wins, none of us will be safe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
This is Obama's chance to re-enact the best latter-stage West Wing episode, "The Supremes". All we need is for RBG to retire so we can replace Scalia with William Fichtner (who is a conservative darling that no one listened talk before because he actually hates conservative ideas) and we wind up with Glenn Close. I'm not using this as a metaphor, I want two actors on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/jus...eview:1:Defaultquote:Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress Onion not pulling any punches. I'm glad he's dead because he was a monster. Dude lead a great life and was a complete cockbag so there's honestly nothing sad about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
There's a pretty good chance Kennedy will be replaced during the next President's term as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:http://www.theonion.com/graphic/jus...eview:1:Default man I aint gonna lie, another Onion headline that's too on the nose. I mean cmon, even "battle with America" would've made it that much better
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's a pretty good chance Kennedy will be replaced during the next President's term as well. Whoever is elected gets one for free, one a near lock (RBG) and, as you say, probably Anthony Kennedy. Whoever is elected thus will pretty much decide the direction of the court for a generation by either removing two conservatives and cementing a 6-3 liberal court or by removing a liberal and an annoying, occasionally liberal swing vote to cement a 6-3 conservative court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Whoever is elected gets one for free, one a near lock (RBG) and, as you say, probably Anthony Kennedy. Whoever is elected thus will pretty much decide the direction of the court for a generation by either removing two conservatives and cementing a 6-3 liberal court or by removing a liberal and an annoying, occasionally liberal swing vote to cement a 6-3 conservative court. Is it melodramatic to think of this year's election as literally good vs evil? Or at least basic decency vs evil?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Disappointment VS Disgust
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it melodramatic to think of this year's election as literally good vs evil? Or at least basic decency vs evil? I think that's been pretty obvious just looking at the candidates. And that was before you start thinking about the SCOTUS ramifications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it melodramatic to think of this year's election as literally good vs evil? Or at least basic decency vs evil? Maybe, though whoever wins the Presidency likely also wins the Senate so they probably get their Supreme Court nominations either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe, though whoever wins the Presidency likely also wins the Senate so they probably get their Supreme Court nominations either way. I'm including both the PoTUS and Senate seats. So what can the Democrats do to royally gently caress their seemingly great chances up? I haven't followed whatever the gently caress the whole email scandal is about, is there a real chance Hilary can get indicted? Because if there is it better happen right loving now and not in 6 months. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So what can the Democrats do to royally gently caress their seemingly great chances up? I haven't followed whatever the gently caress the whole email scandal is about, is there a real chance Hilary can get indicted? Because if there is it better happen right loving now and not in 6 months. It's not about what Democrats do. It's about what the economy does. And I'm afraid the news there isn't looking all that hot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm including both the PoTUS and Senate seats. There won't be any indictments if only because the DoJ is controlled by Dems right now. She also didn't do anything wrong, but that's another point. Maybe not the most ethical thing, but eh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It's not about what Democrats do. It's about what the economy does. And I'm afraid the news there isn't looking all that hot. Yeah, not going to lie, whoever wins this presidency will most likely have a recession hit at some point and it's going to be rough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Whoever is elected gets one for free, one a near lock (RBG) and, as you say, probably Anthony Kennedy. Whoever is elected thus will pretty much decide the direction of the court for a generation by either removing two conservatives and cementing a 6-3 liberal court or by removing a liberal and an annoying, occasionally liberal swing vote to cement a 6-3 conservative court. The court will never be a consistent 6-3 split. It will always be 4-4-1 on political hot-button issues. Before Alito's appointment, Kennedy was a conservative and O'Connor was the swing vote. Now Kennedy's the centrist. Which justice is the swing vote and how left or right he/she is may depend on the composition, but there's always someone in the middle of the other eight. That said, the extent to which 5-4 political alignment determine Supreme Court outcomes is vastly overstated. Only 26% of cases last term were 5-4 and of those Breyer was in the majority as often as Kennedy was. Eight cases were Kennedy and the liberal wing, five were Kennedy and the conservative wing, and six were some other combination, including two with Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm including both the PoTUS and Senate seats. Not really the thread for it, but the e-mail thing isn't going anywhere. It's an inter-agency slapfight and the average American voter has heard about it for years on end so expect a lot of eyes to glaze over if you're trying to use it in attack ads or on the campaign trail. It's entered the Clinton Conspiracy Corner, shoved between the file cabinet with the truth about Benghazi and Vince Foster's corpse. Best bet for the GOP would be a major recession (would need to start soon so people are really feeling it come election time) or maybe a major terrorist attack on US soil over the summer. If Sanders is the nominee expect a million ads comparing him to Stalin and Hitler (Democratic Socialist and National Socialist, what's the difference, really?). Yes I fully expect a Jew to be compared to Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There won't be any indictments if only because the DoJ is controlled by Dems right now. She also didn't do anything wrong, but that's another point. This is more of a USPol question, but have there been more developments? Last I'd heard she had some stuff that wasn't classified when she received it but was later classified, and some stuff that they thought should have been classified but wasn't. No real smoking gun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:The court will never be a consistent 6-3 split. It will always be 4-4-1 on political hot-button issues. Before Alito's appointment, Kennedy was a conservative and O'Connor was the swing vote. Now Kennedy's the centrist. Which justice is the swing vote and how left or right he/she is may depend on the composition, but there's always someone in the middle of the other eight. And of course, the composition of the court helps determine what cases get to it. If the court is perceived as having a liberal bias, you don't necessarily want to take a conservative cause to the SCOTUS level, or vice versa, for fear of getting a precedent-setting ruling against you. Paul MaudDib posted:This is more of a USPol question, but have there been more developments? Last I'd heard she had some stuff that wasn't classified when she received it but was later classified, and some stuff that they thought should have been classified but wasn't. No real smoking gun stuff. She forwarded a news article once. Apparently that news article had some stuff in it that should have been classified, according to at least one agency. It's all dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:The court will never be a consistent 6-3 split. It will always be 4-4-1 on political hot-button issues. Before Alito's appointment, Kennedy was a conservative and O'Connor was the swing vote. Now Kennedy's the centrist. Which justice is the swing vote and how left or right he/she is may depend on the composition, but there's always someone in the middle of the other eight. It'll be 4-4-1 on some issues, yes. But it's not like nominating three liberals would cause Souter or Sotomayor to suddenly wake up and say "Hey, you know what? I used to be a reliable vote for abortion, and now I'm not!" In other words, it'll be 6-3 on today's issues, and settle into more 5-4 as the new center is found and more cases bubble up that are tailored to win in the newer SCOTUS environment. KernelSlanders posted:That said, the extent to which 5-4 political alignment determine Supreme Court outcomes is vastly overstated. Only 26% of cases last term were 5-4 and of those Breyer was in the majority as often as Kennedy was. Eight cases were Kennedy and the liberal wing, five were Kennedy and the conservative wing, and six were some other combination, including two with Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor. Yes, but last term also had an unusual number of liberal decisions at the tail end. If you start aggregating over several terms, you end up finding out that a unified liberal wing won 5-4 decisions only 30% of the time between 2005 and 2012 almost exclusively on the back of Kennedy. The rest were either mixed or conservative victories. It's hard to see where adding an extra liberal or conservative wouldn't end up changing the number of 5-4 decisions decided along largely ideological lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008? The tech bubble is rumbling but it's a very isolated bubble so most people probably don't have anything to worry about. Then there's the oil collapse but a lot of those people are heavy GOP voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US at the moment. There's a lot of instability in China and oil industry (which is leading to job losses). However, historically economic recovery and growth periods only last so long and it's bound to cycle soon. Whether that's going to happen this year or 3 years from now no one knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Yes, but last term also had an unusual number of liberal decisions at the tail end. If you start aggregating over several terms, you end up finding out that a unified liberal wing won 5-4 decisions only 30% of the time between 2005 and 2012 almost exclusively on the back of Kennedy. The rest were either mixed or conservative victories. It's hard to see where adding an extra liberal or conservative wouldn't end up changing the number of 5-4 decisions decided along largely ideological lines. The point I was trying to make there was more about the percent of "other" alignments in 5-4 opinions rather than the ratio of liberal to conservative ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008? China's slowing down and Europe is lagging, eventually that will drag us down too. For the moment we're holding out because we're not a petrostate and we're the only game in town.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US at the moment. There's a lot of instability in China and oil industry (which is leading to job losses). Europe, especially the UK could be a problem, particularly with consumer debt levels, but yeah who knows when that will pop?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Dug in a little bit more. 5-4 decisions in the 2014 term were biased in a liberal direction: 11 decisions to 8. But over the entire life of the Roberts court, conservative decisions have been handed down in 5-4 decisions 96 times to liberal decisions 69 times. Of those 96 decisions, 8 had Stevens support, 8 had Souter support, 5 had Sotomayor support, 5 had Kagan support, 14 had Ginsberg support, and 20 had Breyer support. Even assuming that only one conservative jumped ship on each 5-4 decision, that's still 36 5-4 decisions decided solely from the votes of the 5 conservative justices, when every one of the 69 5-4 decisions in favor of a liberal leaning required at least one conservative peel off and vote with the liberals, of which Kennedy alone did so 42 times (assuming that no liberals shifted votes to the minority) In other words, replacing Scalia with a liberal justice (as an example) means that at least 36 5-4 decisions very possibly could have gone the other way, if not more. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:It will probably just go into "Congress sure sucks" bucket that
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Just woke up. My first reaction was "YES!" Second was "Wait, should I feel bad about that?" Third was "gently caress NO GOOD RIDDANCE YOU PIECE OF poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Dug in a little bit more. 5-4 decisions in the 2014 term were biased in a liberal direction: 11 decisions to 8. But over the entire life of the Roberts court, conservative decisions have been handed down in 5-4 decisions 96 times to liberal decisions 69 times. Of those 96 decisions, 8 had Stevens support, 8 had Souter support, 5 had Sotomayor support, 5 had Kagan support, 14 had Ginsberg support, and 20 had Breyer support. Even assuming that only one conservative jumped ship on each 5-4 decision, that's still 36 5-4 decisions decided solely from the votes of the 5 conservative justices, when every one of the 69 5-4 decisions in favor of a liberal leaning required at least one conservative peel off and vote with the liberals, of which Kennedy alone did so 42 times (assuming that no liberals shifted votes to the minority) Also keep in mind that which cases are taken up by the Supreme Court and which cases are strategically chosen to be made into a Supreme Court issue will be determined by its makeup. With 6-3 liberals, you'll see a lot fewer test cases against affirmative action or Roe v Wade, for example. Having more liberal justices is a benefit beyond the exact numbers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe, though whoever wins the Presidency likely also wins the Senate so they probably get their Supreme Court nominations either way. I'm thinking the Republicans are going to pretend to throw up resistance but accept Obama's appointee. Basically, they can get a liberal moderate judge now or bet everything on the election and get a fully liberal judge if they lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Has Obama got any candidates that use a wheelchair? That might do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
The ultimate legal question for Scalia: is torture permissible if it includes sodomy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:09
|
|
