|
evilweasel posted:http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/18/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-scalia-successor.html I can't believe Republicans opened themselves up like this. Now they're going to be caught between looking like loving idiots for stonewalling a judge they approved 97-0 or looking like loving idiots for walking back their promise to stonewall before even seeing the nominee. Is this just a hail mary on the hope that a terrorist attack or economic crash puts a Republican in the white house? Or have they convinced themselves of alternate reality polls like they did in 2012?
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Steak VAT is a much better political story because it's a revenue-generator that the overarching electorate would be sympathetic to, even more than pot. Congress voting it down, especially as part of the Obama mayoral fiscal reform platform, would do tremendous damage to incumbents. Ya gotta learn to play the angles. (see also rezoning K street as high-density residential and Georgetown as mixed industrial). what is steak vat
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't believe Republicans opened themselves up like this. I mean, between losing the Court for a generation, and taking even a 33% chance of taking the White House, it's easy to see why they think it's worth the risk. The economy could crater, there could be a real Clinton scandal, Sanders could get the nomination and be as unelectable as people have said he is, whatever. It's far too early for them to be out of it, though anyone sane will tell you the Democrats are favored it's not a lock. I mean, the Republicans have been working my entire life (and probably yours) to control the Court. They've won a lot, but not everything they wanted and they're staring down the barrel of seeing Obama wipe it all away. It is a Big loving Deal if Obama gets this nomination and it's probably worth hurting their chances a little bit to get the chance of denying the Democrats this seat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
It's not even a generation. If a republican wins the White House it is likely control will flip back soon. If a democrat wins, they are losing anyway. I wonder if they really want to spend a lot of capital on this. IMHO of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:MIGF alt account spotted? That post had enough insider  , but MIGF would be furious for potential harms such zoning would do to J street. Also, not enough Emmanuel references.Feral Integral posted:what is steak vat Just what it says on the tin: A VAT on steak. Effectively a tax on lobbying dinners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't believe Republicans opened themselves up like this. Well there is a lot on the line for them, and looking dumb to people outside their stupid little bubble is probably more tolerable than being crucified by the bubble-dwellers for co-operating with Obama in any way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean, between losing the Court for a generation, and taking even a 33% chance of taking the White House, it's easy to see why they think it's worth the risk. The economy could crater, there could be a real Clinton scandal, Sanders could get the nomination and be as unelectable as people have said he is, whatever. It's far too early for them to be out of it, though anyone sane will tell you the Democrats are favored it's not a lock. But the next President will probably get to appoint one or two justices anyway, it doesn't seem worth it to push that to two or three justices while lowering the chances that it will be them, especially given their tough Senate map. I don't know, if I were McConnell I'd go to Obama right now and promise him a quick confirmation if he picks a moderate but a huge fight if he tries to stack the court with a liberal. On the other hand, working with Obama might get you primaried by someone even crazier than you so maybe McConnell is just doing this until after the Senate primaries are done to keep a slate of unelectable assholes from Akin-ing the party in the congressional elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But the next President will probably get to appoint one or two justices anyway, it doesn't seem worth it to push that to two or three justices while lowering the chances that it will be them, especially given their tough Senate map. I don't know, if I were McConnell I'd go to Obama right now and promise him a quick confirmation if he picks a moderate but a huge fight if he tries to stack the court with a liberal. The problem with that idea is that the conservatives are so far to the right that "moderate" in this context is liberal. Moderate or liberal - either way, countless Republican victories are going to be overturned. It'll be a long time before you can even get to liberal, most of the effort for years is going to be clearing out the garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Should it really take 23 pages of posts to confirm a judge?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
I have a question: Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, correct? What's stopping them from changing it from 9 to 8? A month or two of bewildered negative press before it becomes the new normal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
I wonder how the GOP's narrative will change if the Democrats win the election. Does that mean the people have decided and the new President should be free to choose a qualified liberal candidate to replace Scalia? What about when Ginsburg (82 years old) or Kennedy (79) or Breyer (77) retire or die and need to be replaced and the SCOTUS is now stacked with younger left-leaning justices? I'm guessing that the 'fixed term lengths for justices' idea will become a much more popular idea and possibly a serious election issue in 2020. How does that work anyway, what are the legal requirements for such a huge change to the Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:I have a question: Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, correct? What's stopping them from changing it from 9 to 8? A month or two of bewildered negative press before it becomes the new normal? Congress sets the size of the court through legislation, and they don't do much legislation these days. Seriously, even if it passed, no doubt it'd get vetoed hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:Congress sets the size of the court through legislation, and they don't do much legislation these days. Is it an actual bill-vote-veto-or-don't process, though? I thought there were some acts of congress that didn't need executive approval, and that was among them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
bowser posted:I'm guessing that the 'fixed term lengths for justices' idea will become a much more popular idea and possibly a serious election issue in 2020. I don't think this could become an issue. Article III of the US Constitution says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and so far this has been interpreted as meaning they serve for the rest of their lives since the Constitution says nothing at all about time limits. And I doubt the Supreme Court would restrict its own power by ruling that restrictions on their tenure were constitutional, since any legislation that somehow made it through Congress and past the president on that count would end up right back in the Supreme Court anyway. So the only way it becomes an issue is if someone actually wants to amend the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
bowser posted:I'm guessing that the 'fixed term lengths for justices' idea will become a much more popular idea and possibly a serious election issue in 2020. It would require a Constitutional amendment. It won't happen. Fixed term lengths are a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Should it really take 23 pages of posts to confirm a judge? Look, the goon population has to have time to speak on this issue. Maybe if we wait 10, 11 pages and then start a thread with a new OP, we can revisit the issue then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It would require a Constitutional amendment. It won't happen. Fixed term lengths are a bad idea. That's why every other country (and state) has them, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:I have a question: Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, correct? What's stopping them from changing it from 9 to 8? A month or two of bewildered negative press before it becomes the new normal? An even number of jurists is a really terrible idea at any level. A bunch of 4-4 splits ends up with hugely dysfunctional governm... gently caress, they're going to do it, aren't they?  Everyone would dogpile on Congress if it decided it wanted to change the bench from 9 to 8 people. It's a terrible idea. Not as bad as popular elections for the SCOTUS, but still pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
I always wanted a 3-member court. Maximum individual accountability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:An even number of jurists is a really terrible idea at any level. A bunch of 4-4 splits ends up with hugely dysfunctional governm... It'll be a great Nina Totenberg piece about the unsolicited 8-0 SC ruling that Congress is loving dumb though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
I think the members of the Supreme Court would rather have more judges than less. Somebody said earlier in the thread that their individual workload is massive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:An even number of jurists is a really terrible idea at any level. A bunch of 4-4 splits ends up with hugely dysfunctional governm... Please define 'everyone.' Does this insantiation of 'everyone' include the people that vote in Republican primaries? It would Stop Obama, and Obama Bad. The House and Senate Republicans really don't have to kowtow to anyone else. I don't believe that they have the energy or desire to fight that war, but I still see it as something they could do if more of them were truly as moontouched as Ted Cruz et al.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
CuwiKhons posted:I think the members of the Supreme Court would rather have more judges than less. Somebody said earlier in the thread that their individual workload is massive. Except more justices probably doesn't decrease the workload. They would each still need the same amount of preparation for each case. And you could never have a pool of justicesfrom which a sample are selected (like on appellate level) because every single case would get appealed to en banc anyway)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Eh, I'm not feeling it. Tongue in cheek I'm sure but there will never be an American SG of the UN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
remember when the liberal wing ruled for city of new london
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Should it really take 23 pages of posts to confirm a judge? we're pretty sure we've confirmed he's dead, yep
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Zero. Obama is not going to be nominated to the SCOTUS and there is zero reason to believe he has any desire to be part of the judiciary. He's going to leave office having had a fairly successful 8 years and with no major scandals like his predecessors. He's going to be busy making millions of dollars in speaking fees as one of the most sought after people on the planet. Now, now! There's still time left! When Obama greets newly elected President Sanders next February, he will announce that he is transferring to Sanders emergency powers for life, casually mention "By the way, I was a Kenyan Muslim all along, salaam alaikum, fuckers!", and then moonwalk out backwards while flipping everyone the double deuces to the theme of MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:we're pretty sure we've confirmed he's dead, yep We actually confirmed his death by way of a 5-4 decision in honor of his memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:we're pretty sure we've confirmed he's dead, yep Of course Obama's surgeon general would declare Scalia dead!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Low Energy posted:That's why every other country (and state) has them, I guess. Many states elect their Justices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/700695097780756481
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Fiend posted:We actually confirmed his death by way of a 5-4 decision in honor of his memory. After review of the play, 4-4, ruling on the field stands
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Many states elect their Justices. To limited terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:I have a question: Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, correct? What's stopping them from changing it from 9 to 8? A month or two of bewildered negative press before it becomes the new normal? At least one house rep here in Texas is calling for it to be reduced to 7 for a few years, which he apparently thinks can be easily done by congress alone, including automatic removal of an existing justice. We talked about it a bit in USPOL yesterday and the consensus was he's moronic and full of poo poo and it was a bad idea for him to even float.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Fun fact: Although appointed by two different Bushes, Thomas and Alito are almost the same age and will probably retire/die around the same time. There's a real plus in going young if you can manage it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:After review of the play, 4-4, ruling on the field stands That call can't be challenged! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Who do you all think would be a good SC justice? By that I mean: 1. Someone who could reasonably be confirmed by Senate in an alternate universe where they take the responsibility seriously and don't throw a toddler poo poo fit just because. 2. Someone who is qualified. 3. Someone whom the president might reasonably nominate given the same theoretical conditions as in 1. I've heard Loretta Lynch's name thrown around which at first sounded great to me (someone not in the legal profession who doesn't closely follow the minutiae of this), although it was later pointed out to me that she has some pretty disagreeable opinions on civil forfeiture and drug prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Who do you all think would be a good SC justice? By that I mean: She's qualified regardless of those opinions. Like, I guess what you're asking is "who is the left-most Justice that Democrats would appoint assuming they got their way regardless".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Alito is the worst tbqh
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
computer parts posted:She's qualified regardless of those opinions. Didn't say she wasn't qualified, just saying civil forfeiture is some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:24
|
|