|
Mors Rattus posted:Which side wins this way? If the court denies cert, then the lower court's decision stands in that circuit. In this case, I believe that's a win for the Seattle transit system.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Which side wins this way? In aggregate the liberals, as there are more liberal circuits than conservative ones, including some that were notably conservative not long ago, like the 4th (thanks Obama!). However, noted losers include minorities and women living in conservative states in conservative circuits, which is quite a few because it includes Texas. e: Oh, in this specific case it's Seattle I think, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Would they deny cert tactically? This sort of situation: This could be an important First Amendment case, and enough Justices want it to hit the full nine-member court that they denied it for now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Quorum posted:In aggregate the liberals, as there are more liberal circuits than conservative ones, including some that were notably conservative not long ago, like the 4th (thanks Obama!). However, noted losers include minorities and women living in conservative states in conservative circuits, which is quite a few because it includes Texas. Hard to say what the denial of cert means in terms of liberal/conservative, or how the court would find if the case were granted cert. In this particular case the 9th ruled in favor of less expansive speech rights. The 2nd, 6th, and 7th and DC have ruled in favor of more expansive speech rights. Although it might color the case, the fact that the speaker is conservative is less important than the underlying legal issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Would they deny cert tactically? This sort of situation: This could be an important First Amendment case, and enough Justices want it to hit the full nine-member court that they denied it for now. They can re-hear cases en banc later, but it's possible that's why they did it, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Questions about the proper scope of speech protections often defy traditional ideological categories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Interestingly, this is a per curiam decision (an unsigned decision by the majority) which is unusual for a decision like this. I think Scalia wrote this opinion before he died and it was just made a per curiam decision rather than someone else taking credit. It also repeatedly slams the dissent which is a pretty Scalia thing to do. I'm thumbing through it now, and even if he wasn't the complete author of the opinion it definitely is filled with Scalia's prose and sarcastic mannerisms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Here are judges the White House is considering for the Supreme Courtquote:Based on interviews with legal experts and others, including some who have spoken in recent days with Obama administration officials involved in the vetting process, the president is leaning toward a sitting federal judge to fill the vacancy — and probably one the Senate confirmed with bipartisan support during his tenure. These insiders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, noted that the administration is winnowing its list of candidates — but that it could add more. Not a white penis among them. The only unifying feature is a lack of an extensive record for Republicans to attack. My guess is this leak is intended to give the Republicans another bad obstruction narrative cycle. Merrick Garland, head of the DC circuit, is also supposedly under consideration- the sourcing on that is a bit irregular, which makes me suspect it's coming from a different source or is wapo trying to suggest him. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here are judges the White House is considering for the Supreme Court Garland would have been a lock if Gore won, but there's no chance that he gets it given his age. I expect he's getting considered more as a way to show some respect to him than the White House seriously plans to nominate a someone in his 60s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
That makes a lot of sense- thanks for the insight! None of the other names being floated make a lot of sense to me as actual shortlisters- I'd want people with more experience. I'm guessing the white house's goal is to force Republicans to discuss this lack of experience, thus going on record with media actually responding to candidates so that the same obstruction frame can continue to be applied. My only requirement for the Scalia replacement is that we get a new Justice with a name that's especially confusing to spell and pronounce. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
It is a strange quirk of current US politics that as senior judges age through their 50s, picking up more judicial experience and making themselves more qualified, they also get progressively less likely to actually get promoted to the most important judicial jobs, because it's everyone's dream to clone either RBG or Scalia and then appoint them to be Chief Justice at age 25.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Garland would have been a lock if Gore won, but there's no chance that he gets it given his age. I expect he's getting considered more as a way to show some respect to him than the White House seriously plans to nominate a someone in his 60s. I wonder if it could be a "compromise" of sorts - i.e. "Ok, we'll accept the judge that will only live another 10 years or so."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That makes a lot of sense- thanks for the insight! None of the other names being floated make a lot of sense to me as actual shortlisters- I'd want people with more experience. I'm guessing the white house's goal is to force Republicans to discuss this lack of experience, thus going on record with media actually responding to candidates so that the same obstruction frame can continue to be applied. Is Sri Srinivasan tricky enough for your tastes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I wonder if it could be a "compromise" of sorts - i.e. "Ok, we'll accept the judge that will only live another 10 years or so." That's worked well for popes in the past 100 years, putting both John XXIII and Papa Frankie on the throne. I'm willing to give it a shot here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That makes a lot of sense- thanks for the insight! None of the other names being floated make a lot of sense to me as actual shortlisters- I'd want people with more experience. I'm guessing the white house's goal is to force Republicans to discuss this lack of experience, thus going on record with media actually responding to candidates so that the same obstruction frame can continue to be applied. Everyone getting floated has gone through a recent confirmation (so the White House already did a lot of digging and vetting), they had broad Republican support, and they have about the right level of experience - enough that they are credible, but not so much that they have a long list of decisions to dig through. People with more experience are harder to get confirmed. Presumably the White House will insist on getting actual answers on the candidates' ideologies and such, which they will then forget and become a bland robot of The Law in confirmation hearings. But the less public record there is on their ideology, the better. Republicans are much more paranoid about people with a thin record because there's a very long history of judges becoming more liberal after they're appointed, and Souter is only the most well-known. Liberals have much less reason to be worried about someone with a thin record because (in my humble opinion) liberal views are the common-sense views and you have to work hard at it to keep them out. I'm not really aware of any Great Traitors on the liberal side of the SCOTUS appointees along the lines of Souter and O'Connor and Kennedy (who might be conservative, but not conservative enough on the one thing he was appointed to do, overturn Roe).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It is a strange quirk of current US politics that as senior judges age through their 50s, picking up more judicial experience and making themselves more qualified, they also get progressively less likely to actually get promoted to the most important judicial jobs, because it's everyone's dream to clone either RBG or Scalia and then appoint them to be Chief Justice at age 25. Early to mid 50s is not very different than the average age of new presidents, new CEOs, or new senators. It's basically career prime time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Is Sri Srinivasan tricky enough for your tastes? Absolutely not. Justice Xiaozhi Lol ᏛᏭᏜᏅ III, for the majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
I don't see Judge Joe Brown on these lists and that disappoints me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Republicans are much more paranoid about people with a thin record because there's a very long history of judges becoming more liberal after they're appointed, and Souter is only the most well-known. Liberals have much less reason to be worried about someone with a thin record because (in my humble opinion) liberal views are the common-sense views and you have to work hard at it to keep them out. I'm not really aware of any Great Traitors on the liberal side of the SCOTUS appointees along the lines of Souter and O'Connor and Kennedy (who might be conservative, but not conservative enough on the one thing he was appointed to do, overturn Roe). There was an interesting episode of the Weeds on this, they also talked about the lifetime appointment system and different ways to replace it. One thing they also brought up is that the conservative base has constantly gotten burned on SCOTUS appointments with "secret liberals", e.g. common-sense moderate judges appointed by Reagan or HW, while "secret conservatives" just aren't a thing. This is why the conservative base is so angry about the SCOTUS situation and why the Senate Republicans have decided to have themselves tied to the mast and wax stuffed in their ears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Everyone getting floated has gone through a recent confirmation (so the White House already did a lot of digging and vetting), they had broad Republican support, and they have about the right level of experience - enough that they are credible, but not so much that they have a long list of decisions to dig through. People with more experience are harder to get confirmed. I take it then that you expect a hearing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I take it then that you expect a hearing? Not really. But I expect the White House to make it as hard as possible to justify not holding a hearing, with the idea that if they still don't hold one that it can be used as an attack on vulnerable senators, and if they come to their senses it's still a good nominee who is hard as hell to oppose. I really only see the nominee getting a hearing if Trump secures the nomination and the Republicans essentially abandon him to try to preserve downticket races, or it hurts Grassley so much that his challenger starts polling respectably well. The calculus for the best nominee to appoint if they were willing to hold a hearing and the best nominee to appoint to demonstrate the absurdity of them not holding a hearing are so similar you might as well go with the best nominee for the hearing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
They need to hammer going into the election that the GOP won't do their jobs, specifically pointing to people like Grassley and the other Republicans up for re-election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They need to hammer going into the election that the GOP won't do their jobs, specifically pointing to people like Grassley and the other Republicans up for re-election. That's a feature, not a bug. Part of the starve the beast approach. You prevent government from doing its job so you can turn around to point at it while going "look how wasteful/ineffecient government is! We need less of it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:That's a feature, not a bug. Part of the starve the beast approach. You prevent government from doing its job so you can turn around to point at it while going "look how wasteful/ineffecient government is! We need less of it." That works better when you're talking about the EPA instead of the Senate. No one's campaigning to abolish the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That works better when you're talking about the EPA instead of the Senate. No one's campaigning to abolish the latter. Well, some people are. They're not campaigning for election though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That works better when you're talking about the EPA instead of the Senate. No one's campaigning to abolish the latter. Looking at the approval rating of congress though you would probably get a lot of votes campaigning for it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Looking at the approval rating of congress though you would probably get a lot of votes campaigning for it though. Looking at the approval ratings of individual Congressmen in their district, you probably wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:That's a feature, not a bug. Part of the starve the beast approach. You prevent government from doing its job so you can turn around to point at it while going "look how wasteful/ineffecient government is! We need less of it." If the GOP can successfully use this message as a defense against doing a duty that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution then the nation's hosed even if Hilary wins in November unless she leads a retaking of the Senate as well because "well the American People have spoken and as the GOP still holds the Senate they clearly want us to ensure a Real American Patriot is put on the bench and not some commie pinko libtard activist" will be their defense for the next 4 years (and will get even louder when they likely make gains in both chambers in 2018).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the GOP can successfully use this message as a defense against doing a duty that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution then the nation's hosed even if Hilary wins in November unless she leads a retaking of the Senate as well because "well the American People have spoken and as the GOP still holds the Senate they clearly want us to ensure a Real American Patriot is put on the bench and not some commie pinko libtard activist" will be their defense for the next 4 years (and will get even louder when they likely make gains in both chambers in 2018). I doubt they'll actually make noticeable gains in 2018, at least in the House. If they're able to gerrymander, they've done it by now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I doubt they'll actually make noticeable gains in 2018, at least in the House. If they're able to gerrymander, they've done it by now. Republicans would be expected to make gains in 2018 because Democratic turnout is always relatively higher in presidential election years, so there will probably be seats that Democrats win in a squeaker in 2016 that they then lose thanks to worse turnout in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
quote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/graham-new-rule-scotus-nom I realize it's not what he meant to say, but "8 year lame duck term" is some real unintentional honesty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Well at least Graham is willing to come right out and admit what they're doing has no basis in tradition. It's just time to start a new precedent because
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
"When a black president is in the White Hou- uh, I mean, when you're in the last year in the second term of a Democratic President... er, I mean, if you're in the last year of a second term of a President and a Justice nominated by a President of the other party dies... it's perfectly constitutional, after all, the framers didn't even conceive of a black man being a Preside... I mean, there being all this partisan rancor from the White House."
Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well at least Graham is willing to come right out and admit what they're doing has no basis in tradition. Someone missed the memo, this whole shitshow has been justified as being based on historical precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm not really aware of any Great Traitors on the liberal side of the SCOTUS appointees along the lines of Souter and O'Connor and Kennedy (who might be conservative, but not conservative enough on the one thing he was appointed to do, overturn Roe). Frankfurter? White?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Frankfurter? White? Frankfurter was the Scalia of his day except that he wasn't charismatic and his fellow Justices actually hated him. So yeah I'm with you on FF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
And now you know why a public defender will never be appointed to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Hillary's another pretty good example, regarding upper levels of government anyway ("She defended a rapist!").
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Seems to be the standard attack pulled on any lawyer who ever defended anyone. It's a guilt-by-association tactic both right and left have used. So I'm not at all surprised by it. It will only matter to people looking for an excuse to oppose her, and any excuse will do for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Same attack is used against judges in states that elect judge. Any judge that every ruled in favor of a defendant is a terrible terrible person
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:57
|
|
