|
Maybe they can crib the plot of that one episode of West Wing where they offer the republicans an unopposed pick in exchange for their unopposed pick to take RBG's seat.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
I wouldn't trust them to uphold their end of the deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:Maybe they can crib the plot of that one episode of West Wing where they offer the republicans an unopposed pick in exchange for their unopposed pick to take RBG's seat. Then we get a new Scalia and a new RBG and Scalia’s assassination meant nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Thread title's gotten kinda weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:A young Mitch McConnell wrote in a 1970-71 law journal article that politics should play no role in Senate confirmations of Supreme Court appointments and that the Senate should defer to the president. A lot of people change opinions over the course of 45 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:A lot of people change opinions over the course of 8 years of a black president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
gohmak posted:8 years of a black president. During which time said black president changed his mind on SSM. I don't want politicians who are forever locked into their opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:A lot of people change opinions over the course of 45 years. Yes, I’m sure he changed this particular opinion for all the right reasons and none of the wrong ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yes, I’m sure he changed this particular opinion for all the right reasons and none of the wrong ones. Then talk about the reasons, instead of "lol you said the opposite before Carter was elected gotcha hypocrite". Critique his reasoning -- does it no longer hold? Generally I think you'll find that "the right reasons" are whatever justify an opinion changing to match those of whoever is speaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Then talk about the reasons, instead of "lol you said the opposite before Carter was elected gotcha hypocrite". Critique his reasoning -- does it no longer hold? He held the same beliefs at the end of W's term too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Then talk about the reasons, instead of "lol you said the opposite before Carter was elected gotcha hypocrite". Critique his reasoning -- does it no longer hold? I cannot find fault with the argument he made in the Kentucky Law Journal. To mortal eyes, it an unassailable fortress . I am regrettably unable to critique McConnell’s reasons for changing his opinion in the years since, for they are known to none but God. Whatever they are, they must be powerful, to lay low such a righteous edifice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I cannot find fault with the argument he made in the Kentucky Law Journal. To mortal eyes, it an unassailable fortress . He held those same beliefs through 2008 and didn't change them until the moment Scalia died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The supreme court just declined to stay the lower court ruling in the NC redistricting case. Before Scalia died, there was a good chance they would have granted the stay. And the odds of it being a 4-4, if not a 5-3 against NC, in an actual SCOTUS decision are extremely good too so they're going to have to unfuck their awful map.  e: I can only imagine the amount of shady bullshit the GOP's going to pull to try and confuse voters in November though. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I think the more interesting question is whether it'd be possible to change it so the Supreme Court is term limited; I have a hard time imagining it being important enough to ever see a constitutional amendment pass on it nowadays, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument that having a single 18 year term limit per Justice and having a new Justice be appointed every two years would be an improvement over the court justices retiring when they expect an ideologically similar replacement unless one of them dies, driving the impetus to appoint someone who can live to be 120. It also breaks the lottery of how many Justices a President gets to nominate; Nixon got to appoint four justices to the court, and Carter got to appoint none.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And the odds of it being a 4-4, if not a 5-3 against NC, in an actual SCOTUS decision are extremely good too so they're going to have to unfuck their awful map. The NC GOP has already implemented Voter ID and shortened early voting and removed Sunday voting because
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Maybe they can crib the plot of that one episode of West Wing where they offer the republicans an unopposed pick in exchange for their unopposed pick to take RBG's seat. I doubt we'd get something like that in this climate. Just look at how Roberts was excoriated for his Obamacare ruling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:The reason that episode worked is because Associate Justice Armageddon had a keen legal mind, and was able to judge cases on their actual merit w/r/t his own legal philosophy. He wasn't just some GOP caricature that would rubber stamp poo poo. That excoriation BTW is why we don't elect SC judges
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:That excoriation BTW is why we don't elect SC judges Also if we elected judges we'd have at least 3 Kennedys because I doubt Kagan or Sotomayor would've gotten elected over some center(-right) judge. They'd all be Tough on Crime/Drugs and soft on Big Business as well just like the majority of elected judges are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:That excoriation BTW is why we don't elect SC judges
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I think the more interesting question is whether it'd be possible to change it so the Supreme Court is term limited; I have a hard time imagining it being important enough to ever see a constitutional amendment pass on it nowadays, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument that having a single 18 year term limit per Justice and having a new Justice be appointed every two years would be an improvement over the court justices retiring when they expect an ideologically similar replacement unless one of them dies, driving the impetus to appoint someone who can live to be 120. It also breaks the lottery of how many Justices a President gets to nominate; Nixon got to appoint four justices to the court, and Carter got to appoint none. If you can change the term limits of Justices you can do a whole lot more that's more productive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
If the current Congress could pass any amendment they'd ban gay marriage before they did something constructive
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:If the current Congress could pass any amendment they'd ban gay marriage before they did something constructive Obamacare and THEN banning gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Obamacare and THEN banning gay marriage. Balanced budget second
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Balanced budget We would all die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:We would all die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Reminds me of that SimCity plan where everyone lives in smog-choked, toxic wasteland, the death and birthrates cancel each other out, there are no firefighters because it's easier just to rebuild after a blaze, and Detroit! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Reminds me of that SimCity plan where everyone lives in smog-choked, toxic wasteland, the death and birthrates cancel each other out, there are no firefighters because it's easier just to rebuild after a blaze, and the revenues are through the roof. Link? I want to see that terrible thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Sundayturks posted:Link? I want to see that terrible thing. This might be it. If not it's still amazing. And horrifying. http://www.vice.com/read/the-totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-sim-city Linking the vice article since it has the vaguely ominous video the guy put up for his city on top of an interview on how he came to make the perfect dystopian hellhole. Plus, the interview is hilarious. quote:Anything else you'd like to add? I can't imagine why anyone might think that... Edit: Yeah, that's definitely it. The city's name is Magnasanti. The creator sums it up best. Several responses to questions in the interview posted:It very much was--I first watched it in 2006. The film presented the world in a way I never really looked at before and that captivated me. Moments like these compel me to physically express progressions in my thought, I have just happened to do that through the form of creating these cities in SimCity 3000. I could probably have done something similar--depicting the awesome regimentation and brutality of our society--with a series of paintings on a canvas, or through hideous architectural models. But it wouldn't be the same as doing it in the game, because I wanted to magnify the unbelievably sick ambitions of egotistical political dictators, ruling elites and downright insane architects, urban planners, and social engineers. Archonex fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Archonex posted:This might be it. If not it's still amazing. And horrifying. http://www.vice.com/read/the-totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-sim-city The crazy amount of planning that went into that thing is just awe-inspiring. I love games and all, but I don't think I can muster up the ridiculous mental acuity to just completely exploit the underlying systems to that extent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Maybe Scalia is working his way up the legal ladder of Magnasanti in the afterlife. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
MagnaSATAN?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Maybe Scalia is working his way up the legal ladder of Magnasanti in the afterlife. Magnasanti pretty much doesn't need judges to rule on social or even criminal decisions. I don't think it even has jails. Between the brutal hyper efficient police force, the crappy living and working conditions that always kill every citizen before they can hit sixty, and the fact that all the administrative work is literally already finished (and has been for 50,000 years) he'd basically just be another rightless worthless schmuck to slave away day in and day out at a below minimum wage job before eventually being given a free ticket to So it'd basically be an ironic hell given his own fight against social progress, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Magnasanti is brilliant and terrible, cheers for the link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
So I was just reading about some legal stiff on twitter, and thought to myself "In a 5-4 decision, wait not anymore mother fuckers!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Posted this in US Pol: Joe Biden, 1992: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094898/joe-biden-supreme-courtquote:C-SPAN has resurfaced video of a floor speech delivered by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden on June 25, 1992. In it, Biden explicitly calls on then-President George H.W. Bush to not nominate anyone to fill whatever Supreme Court vacancies should arise between then and the presidential election in November, and suggests that if Bush did put forth a nominee, the Judiciary Committee might not hold hearings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Posted this in US Pol: Joe Biden, 1992: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094898/joe-biden-supreme-court June 25th is 4 months away and Biden was wrong then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Posted this in US Pol: Joe Biden, 1992: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094898/joe-biden-supreme-court Posted this in the Scalia thread: Squizzle posted:Biden's saying that considering a nominee between late July and early November in a major election year would force Senate members to act on one of their most important duties while distracted by the activities of campaigning, for themselves or their colleagues. His suggestion is that the President wait until after the election, not until after the inauguration. All Biden says there is that the Senate needs to give a nominee their full attention. He also implies that it's a bad move to nominate someone when it could become a political subject in the election. And, he's speaking hypothetically. e: Note also that Biden waited until the Court's summer recess to say this, as if to avoid the possibility or even appearance of making a political issue of the Court during its term. we: Jesus, not sure how I managed that June/July gently caress-up. My mother's birthday is in June; you'd think that I would recognize the number. So I'll need to check to make sure that the Court was actually recessed at the time. 
Squizzle fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:June 25th is 4 months away and Biden was wrong then. Also, Biden was apparently talking about the judiciary comity giving any SCOTUS nominee their full attention which he said would be difficult while they were trying to be re-elected. So when is the senate scheduled to break to focus on their campaigns this year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
