|
mcmagic posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/how-obama-could-win-supreme-court-battle-even-if-republicans-n519121 Hilarious, but immensely unlikely that the Democrats can win the Senate but lose the White House.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/how-obama-could-win-supreme-court-battle-even-if-republicans-n519121 There is no realistic scenario where Dems gain the senate but lose the White House. If the Dems manage to win the Senate then they've also had a GOTV that results in them sweeping most if not all swing states as well. It's a neat what-if, but the odds of it happening are even less than the odds of Obama going nuclear to get his appointee added to the bench. If the Dems somehow win back the Senate it's going to be such a huge landslide victory that the GOP will be killing itself over No True Conservative existing and The Establishment ruining everything. Paul Ryan might consider staying on as Speaker but doing so would mean he either works with Dems and kills his political future, or acts as a roadblock and gets the entirely of the nation's ire as Senate bills pile up at the House.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
So does the president get to name supreme court justices in his last year? How about the president can only veto in his first two years, or can only pardon in his last 90 days. The president is the president until his term is over, whether that be one year or 1 second. I don't think the idea of the presidents powers slowly diminishing as his term progresses is a sane idea? I really don't see this as anything more complicated than the GOP having to manage something that wasn't previously in the calculus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the Dems somehow win back the Senate it's going to be such a huge landslide victory that the GOP will be killing itself over No True Conservative existing and The Establishment ruining everything. Paul Ryan might consider staying on as Speaker but doing so would mean he either works with Dems and kills his political future, or acts as a roadblock and gets the entirely of the nation's ire as Senate bills pile up at the House. He'll act as a roadblock and face no consequences, because the media never reports on bills that don't even get voted on because the House doesn't feel like doing anything ever. It worked from 2011 to 2015 and Republicans faced no effective backlash. All of the negatives of the House being complete worthless fucksticks will instead be attributed to Democrats not negotiating and giving them whatever they want. Bernanke's comments about why the Republican party left him is a great read - basically Republicans cared more about hurting Obama than actually helping the country/economy at a time when it really needed it. Losing isn't going to change that, in fact the only people left in the Republican party are those who accept that tactics, either due to delusion and idiocy as a result of being stuck in a media bubble, or a result of being scumbags. If Democrats retake the Senate and actually replace Scalia with a liberal of some sort, I expect the insanity will only increase and you'll see no poo poo calls for secession now that Republicans don't control SCOTUS, since they've been successful at pushing gradual but continual change by way of SCOTUS decisions. The social stuff doesn't really matter to the establishment, but losing SCOTUS means that the fuckery regarding voting (and other pro-ultra wealthy/business decisions) at least will come to some sort of decline. For most Republicans they've had a friendly SCOTUS for most of their political life and the screeching about the federal government would increase dramatically, well beyond it's current levels. Pervis fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Pervis posted:For most Republicans they've had a friendly SCOTUS for most of their political life and the screeching about the federal government would increase dramatically, well beyond it's current levels. In other words, as posted earlier in this same thread: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
I'm worried that if no Justice gets appointed then the usual fuckers will play up the stakes and bring out the really dangerous crazies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
There are only dangerous crazies left. Ted Cruz is a top contender for the republican nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There are only dangerous crazies left. Ted Cruz is a top contender for the republican nomination. No, I mean like criminally dangerous crazies. That's been their tactic with abortion providers for years, publishing personal details and just waiting for someone to come along with enough of the crazy to do something. The fact that Ted Cruz has a national soapbox is what makes the prospect terrifying, not that he has any shot at winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Lol if you think republicans wouldn't be screeching if it was Ginsburg. Everything he has done as president has been declared totally illegitimate, since day one. The most hilarious thing from the birthers back when it was an issue was the contention that the entire ticket was illegitimate, so Biden would not be allowed to succeed Obama if he was removed from office on the grounds of ineligibility. Which would've meant President Pelosi.  Incidentally, I imagine that even were Obama ineligible, there'd be some common law procedural quirk that meant that being sworn in meant that he couldn't be removed on grounds of ineligibility. Like how Hansard in the UK is the authoritative record on parliamentary proceedings even in the case of factual error.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
So did Justice Scalia attempt to die on the defendant's behalf?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Killed by Obama to troll the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
If the new justice turns out to be moderate/liberal, which issues are likely to be revisited in short order? Is midazolam likely to get another decision?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:If the new justice turns out to be moderate/liberal, which issues are likely to be revisited in short order? Is midazolam likely to get another decision? Depends on the matters brought before the court. If someone appeals the planned killing of a state prisoner through an overdose of that particular drug and is granted certiorari then sure, it'll get revisited. Ideally, the nominee won't need to recuse themselves from a ton of decisions under consideration. Kagan was a solid pick but her career meant there's a lot of things she's not ethically able to participate in due to her prior involvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:If the new justice turns out to be moderate/liberal, which issues are likely to be revisited in short order? Is midazolam likely to get another decision? Citizens United is getting revisited as soon as practical. Probably also Heller.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Citizens United is getting revisited as soon as practical. Probably also Heller. Would be nice for conservatives to feel the pain of the phrase "In a 5-4 decision..." for once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Cu helps unions and the Democratic Party a lot so probably not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Would be nice for conservatives to feel the pain of the phrase "In a 5-4 decision..." for once. Obamacare 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obamacare Also gay marriage. (Four. Seperate. Dissents.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Hobby Lobby will probably get significantly narrowed. The other big ones would be overturning the ability of states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion and still keep previous Medicaid funding and likely getting around the VRA ruling by making bailing-in to pre-clearance a relatively easy task.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Hobby Lobby will probably get significantly narrowed. Nah, the Medicaid decision will stand. Some liberals went along with it in order to weaken the arguments to strike it down altogether. I would expect to see it distinguished out of existence as precedent though. I sort of wonder if they can reverse themselves on striking down the VRA and have it pop back into existence without need for congress. I doubt they'd do it but has something like that ever occurred? I know Scalia had one law he loved get struck down and he insisted on applying it in his dissents as if it still was on the books because he thought the original decision was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Cu helps unions and the Democratic Party a lot so probably not. It's also one of the two major reasons our legislature managed to get as dysfunctional as it is. And is a loving terrible decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Cu helps unions and the Democratic Party a lot so probably not. Yeah, all that talk about CU being terrible from both major candidates is just hot air. They actually like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
I know that Clinton loves the precedent sent by anti-her group Citizens United Never Timid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Citizens United is getting revisited as soon as practical. Probably also Heller. What about McDonald being revisited?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:What about McDonald being revisited? I don't know, I felt pretty gross afterwards the first time. No I don't care if they serve breakfast all day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:What about McDonald being revisited? Unincorporating the bill of rights would be pretty astounding. I don't think Heller or McDonald will be overturned, especially since the court, even when it had a conservative majority, said it was fine with regulations that are place heavy burdens or amount to what might be considered an effective handgun ban. The San Francisco gun control case is how I think it'll go forward in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I sort of wonder if they can reverse themselves on striking down the VRA and have it pop back into existence without need for congress. I doubt they'd do it but has something like that ever occurred? I know Scalia had one law he loved get struck down and he insisted on applying it in his dissents as if it still was on the books because he thought the original decision was wrong. ... what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I sort of wonder if they can reverse themselves on striking down the VRA and have it pop back into existence without need for congress. I doubt they'd do it but has something like that ever occurred? I know Scalia had one law he loved get struck down and he insisted on applying it in his dissents as if it still was on the books because he thought the original decision was wrong. I don't think so. Roberts has spent his entire career trying to rip up the VRA, and I very much doubt that that rat gently caress would be at all interested in seeing it resurrected by SCOTUS decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I don't think so. Roberts has spent his entire career trying to rip up the VRA, and I very much doubt that that rat gently caress would be at all interested in seeing it resurrected by SCOTUS decision. I hope Roberts ends up serving 30 more years on the court in first a 5-4 and then 6-3 minority after the next democratic president has their say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I hope Roberts ends up serving 30 more years on the court in first a 5-4 and then 6-3 minority after the next democratic president has their say. It'd be amusing to watch the irony of "the Roberts Court" constantly making decisions that Roberts himself dissents upon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:It'd be amusing to watch the irony of "the Roberts Court" constantly making decisions that Roberts himself dissents upon. This would be the best thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Per the WaPo, Scalia was staying for free at a ranch owned by a scumbag with business before the court. It's delicious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...omepage%2Fstory quote:The ranch is 30,000-acre getaway that is home to John B. Poindexter, according to the website of J.B. Poindexter & Co.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Per the WaPo, Scalia was staying for free at a ranch owned by a scumbag with business before the court. It's delicious. Someone ask Roberts whether this counts as quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Per the WaPo, Scalia was staying for free at a ranch owned by a scumbag with business before the court. It's delicious. It's not a conflict of interest. Scalia always sided with rich scumbags no matter if they give him free vacations or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Per the WaPo, Scalia was staying for free at a ranch owned by a scumbag with business before the court. It's delicious. Scalia is making it real hard not to ghoulishly be happy at his death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
I imagine he gets a pretty cozy suite in hotel hell after all the work he's done for Satan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not a conflict of interest. Scalia always sided with rich scumbags no matter if they give him free vacations or not. This, but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:This, but unironically. Yeah, it's just like when Alito and Thomas get all expense paid trips to Koch sucking conferences!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:Scalia is making it real hard not to ghoulishly be happy at his death. I ate a dinner with friends at the best restaurant in town and ran up a huge liquor bill. The entire time I was effervescent with delight over the fact that that evil gently caress finally dropped dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
I don't think we will see Heller or McDonald revisited directly. Some limited personal right to own a firearm is not an absurd reading of the second amendment, and it seems unlikely the court will want to be so nakedly political as to directly undo precedent. Instead we will see litigation of firearms regulations and they will be upheld. So Heller will stand, but so will "may issue" concealed carry licenses, licensing in general, training requirements, and feature / capacity limits, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:13
|
|
