|
Goatman Sacks posted:I mean at least theoretically, except the media totally forgot about this unprecedented obstruction in about 1 week. Oh, I'm sure Clinton will start hammering on it at some point, in a "hey guys do you REALLY want THIS ORANGE THING OVER HERE nominating the next Supreme Court Justice?" kinda way.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I assume it to be the case because Obama has spent the last two years antagonizing and generally having a dont-give-a-gently caress attitude towards the GOP's obstruction so nominating a younger more leftist person would make more sense - however, nominating a moderate and still having the GOP stonewall makes for a much better election-year story. Obama is not a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Absolutely not, because Obama doesn't recognize the rationale that the president loses the power to fill vacant appointments if they occur in some nebulous 13ish month time period that's "too close" to the end of the term. Which he shouldn't because setting that kind of precedent is stupid and will lead to neverending incrementalist bullshit. A moderate justice that was previously confirmed unanimously is the right choice for a president whose party has lost the senate because losing midterm elections means you don't get to do whatever you want anymore. The GOP is being unreasonable, and this is hurting vulnerable senators as it should, but if Obama turns around and agrees with them in the lame duck period then the narrative changes to Democrats being hypocrites and it normalizes the idea of running out the clock on appointments until you can roll the dice in the next election. I want the GOP to renege when Clinton wins and confirm in the lame duck so the next time Republicans try this "we have to let the people decide but only if they pick us" bullshit the Democrats can blanket the airwaves with clips of them trying to weasel out of answering journalists' questions about "what happened to letting the people decide"
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
How is Obama agreeing with the obstructionists if he withdraws the nomination? The Senate has had several months to consider Garland’s merits. If Obama withdraws the nomination, he isn’t pulling a fast one on them. If he leaves the Garland option on the table, and the Senate rushes to take it as HRC makes her victory speech, that would be victory for the obstructionists. It would prove that there is no reason not to keep a nominee in purgatory for nine months: the worst‐case scenario is that you confirm them at the last minute, but you potentially take back the White House and get a nominee you really want. Obstructionism is a strictly dominant strategy at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
I don't see how it's a victory if it costs them the Senate and get nothing. At that point they will either have to live up to their promise and wait for Hillary's nominee, or admit they were full of poo poo this whole time and create perfect clips for attack ads as they try to weasel out of questions hammering them on their previous promise to let the people decide. If Obama yanks the nomination then their obstructionism is retroactively justified, they can say "see he never wanted Garland on the court, it was a political ploy to make us look bad just as we said all along, we had to defend the integrity of the court" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Ideally Garland is the one who withdraws. He can’t do this at the last minute or it looks like the ploy it is, but withdrawing some time before gets the media talking about the whole situation and that’s good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see how it's a victory if it costs them the Senate and get nothing. Because it wont. It will have cost them nothing. If they lose the Senate it won't be over this, because almost no one actually cares. If the nomination goes through as is in the lame duck, how can they consider it as anything but a success? They stumbled into the worst case scenario and still came out ahead, or at least think they did by "forcing" a moderate choice while almost gaining a conservative Justice. Which isn't to say withdrawing Garland is the right choice, not at all, but its definitely a victory for the Republican strategy and they WILL be emboldened by its success
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So this has probably been covered, but assuming Clinton wins and the senate Republicans all of a sudden want Garland because he's far more moderate than someone Clinton would pick with a supposed mandate, does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Is there a graceful way to do that, or is he beyond giving a gently caress about looking graceful? Then during the recess before he hands the Presidency over the Hillary he should recess-appoint whoever the hell he wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:How is Obama agreeing with the obstructionists if he withdraws the nomination?  Obama nominated Garland because he believes the guy should have the job. If he pulls the nomination, regardless of why, the GOP can and will play it as "see Obama has come to accept our reasoning as valid and..." which actively helps the GOP because vulnerable senators are put at greater risk by being obstructionist shits since in some states (like PA) a majority of voters want the Senate to do its job. Honestly I hope if Hilary wins but the GOP somehow keep the Senate that the Obama and Clinton meet, discuss the SCOTUS, and then Obama recess appoints a 9th justice (Garland or whomever) as a final gently caress You to the GOP. Since it'd be during a recess that simply has to happen there's no way the GOP could argue they weren't actually in recess because they don't have a choice in the matter. Honestly if the GOP somehow win the WH Obama should absolutely recess appoint anyways because it'll be the last and likely greater act he could do to keep the country from turning in to a GOP-run theocracy. Thankfully Obama knows what he's doing with this SCOTUS fight and the only way Garland's being withdrawn is if he requests it (very unlikely), falls ill or dies or is otherwise incapacitated (unlikely), or some other unlikely thing happens. Obama knows this nomination being dragged out only hurts the GOP for November and if it can win the Democrats an extra seat or two in the Senate then he's happy to let the GOP poo poo themselves. The only real downside is that if the GOP loses the Senate and WH and confirms Garland in the lame duck it will have no chance at coming back to haunt them because  at the idea voters will remember or care when 2018 rolls around.In the end, Obama won't try to withdraw Garland because there is absolutely nothing gained by doing so. Period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Aren't SC recess appointments temporary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Aren't SC recess appointments temporary? All recess appointments are good for a year unless the Senate goes and confirms them. Otherwise every single time congress is in recess the President would just appoint everyone he possibly could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Aren't SC recess appointments temporary? you'll run into a bit of fuckery since the SCOTUS generally only hears and reviews cases October through June, and Obama will only be allowed to make that appointment in January.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
I guess this deserves a mention in the SCOTUS thread: Praying Mantis Named for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  quote:"The research is the first formal study to use female genital structures to delimit a new species of praying mantis," according to a news release from the museum. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:will lead to neverending incrementalist bullshit. I have bad news for you...
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess this deserves a mention in the SCOTUS thread:  Hmmm…
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because it wont. It will have cost them nothing. If they lose the Senate it won't be over this, because almost no one actually cares. If the nomination goes through as is in the lame duck, how can they consider it as anything but a success? They stumbled into the worst case scenario and still came out ahead, or at least think they did by "forcing" a moderate choice while almost gaining a conservative Justice. Confirmations take time to perform. Thanks to the November and December holidays the senate will only have 16 workdays (four weeks, Monday through Thursday) between the election and the new senate being sworn in. They would have to really fast track things to get Garland through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing is that the actual best outcome is for the GOP to lose the Presidency, the Senate, and then bungle nominating Garland but manage to get a lot of attention for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Confirmations take time to perform. Thanks to the November and December holidays the senate will only have 16 workdays (four weeks, Monday through Thursday) between the election and the new senate being sworn in. They would have to really fast track things to get Garland through. 16 days is more than enough time for them to blitz through the nomination process if it means not letting Hilary make a pick with a Democratic Senate. The odds of the GOP going "well we said let the people decide and they threw our asses out of power in the senate so you guys win" is zero. If they keep the senate then "the people wanted us as a check on Hilary's rampant evil liberalism" or some other bullshit that will result in them continuing to stonewall on the SCOTUS and other nominations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:16 days is more than enough time for them to blitz through the nomination process if it means not letting Hilary make a pick with a Democratic Senate. The odds of the GOP going "well we said let the people decide and they threw our asses out of power in the senate so you guys win" is zero. If they keep the senate then "the people wanted us as a check on Hilary's rampant evil liberalism" or some other bullshit that will result in them continuing to stonewall on the SCOTUS and other nominations. Doesn't the president still have to sign something (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2902) after the confirmation? In that case Obama could tell Garland sorry, tell the Senate to get hosed, and let Hillary do what she wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
botany posted:Obama is not a leftist. On the other hand I refer you to him nominating Sonia Sotomayor. (And Kagan's fine if only slightly more interesting than Breyer.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
I checked and didn't see this posted over the last few weeks: WNYC Radiolab has a new radio show / podcast covering the supreme court. The first few episodes are out already and have been quite interesting!quote:Supreme Court decisions shape everything from marriage and money to public safety and sex. We know these are very important decisions we should all pay attention to – but they often feel untouchable and even unknowable. Radiolab's first ever spin-off series, More Perfect, connects you to the decisions made inside the court's hallowed halls, and explains what those rulings mean for "we the people" who exist far from the bench. More Perfect bypasses the wonkiness and tells stories behind some of the court’s biggest rulings. The episodes so far: quote:- we explore three little words embedded in the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “cruel and unusual.” http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect/
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
The Senate can do anything it wants in five minutes or less, with unanimous consent. If Cruz feels like being a dick, things take longer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:The Senate can do anything it wants in five minutes or less, with unanimous consent. If Cruz feels like being a dick, things take longer. When doesn't he?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:The Senate can do anything it wants in five minutes or less, with unanimous consent. If Cruz feels like being a dick, things take longer. GOP members of the judiciary committee: Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair- primary in 2022 Orrin Hatch, Utah - primary in 2018 Jeff Sessions, Alabama - primary in 2020 Lindsey Graham, South Carolina - primary in 2020 John Cornyn, Texas- primary in 2020 Mike Lee, Utah- primary in 2022 Ted Cruz, Texas- primary in 2018 (and 2020) Jeff Flake, Arizona- primary in 2018 David Vitter, Louisiana- retiring David Perdue, Georgia- primary in 2020 Thom Tillis, North Carolina- primary in 2020 If they don't win the election the GOP base is likely going to be pissed. The senators on the committee are at the very least going to want to have good video clips of them ripping into Garland. There is also the danger that Cruz and Lee might conclude that they will get more attention and Cruz will have a better shot at winning his primaries if he runs out the clock on the GOP establishment trying to ram through an Obama nominee. And that gets him the chance to be seen attacking/opposing a more liberal Hillary nominee too so win/win! Sure it fucks the GOP long term but when has Cruz not put his personal ambitions first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:On the other hand I refer you to him nominating Sonia Sotomayor. (And Kagan's fine if only slightly more interesting than Breyer.) RBG was appointed by Bill Clinton, I assume you don't think this makes him a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317 I can't even imagine the meltdown that would occur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: Are you trying to make everyone in the forum have a simultaneous orgasm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: Well, Newsmax has picked it up now, it must be true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: I could see him seriously considering it if Trump won. That's basically what Souter did - "oh, look, a Democrat, gently caress this town I'm out of here". But I have a hard time seeing him give up his seat to Hillary, though perhaps if he knows he'll be in the minority he sees no difference between 5-4 and 6-3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
It's the examiner, with no sources, so it's basically "we needed a topic to write about today". There's not going to be any basis for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: The Washington Post is more or less credible, the Washington Times is written by loons/moonies, and the Washington Examiner is basically a blog anyone can sign up to write for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm not sure how credible this is but the Washington Examiner is reporting that Clarence Thomas may be mulling retirement after the election: If he retired with a Democrat in office how quickly will the white wing noise machine start screaming that he's abandoning America to the liberals or whatever? Would groups like ALEC just give up entirely on their death-by-a-thousand-cuts legal strategy since they'd constantly lose? A 6-3 Liberal SCOTUS would be amazing to watch either way... Or Kennedy retires before 2018 and Clinton gets to appoint 2-3 justices giving us a 7-2 majority with Roberts and Alito all alone together.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
botany posted:RBG was appointed by Bill Clinton, I assume you don't think this makes him a leftist. Your "Obama is not a leftist" was presumably meant as a rebuttal to "Obama may consider appointing a younger and farther left judge than Merrick Garland in certain circumstances". I would say that this sounds plausible, given that Sotomayor exists and is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Your "Obama is not a leftist" was presumably meant as a rebuttal to "Obama may consider appointing a younger and farther left judge than Merrick Garland in certain circumstances". I would say that this sounds plausible, given that Sotomayor exists and is awesome. What I meant to say is that there is no reason to think that Obama didn't simply pick Garland because he genuinely believes that Garland is the best person for the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
botany posted:What I meant to say is that there is no reason to think that Obama didn't simply pick Garland because he genuinely believes that Garland is the best person for the job. Well a good reason is no one thought for a second, or currently thinks, that Garland has a good chance of being confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Thomas never gets to write important majority decisions, he mostly writes short dissents that no-one reads or discusses, he's forced to attend oral arguments he doesn't give a poo poo about, and he could retire at any time and continue to make $213k a year for the rest of his life. Maybe seeing Scalia drop dead made him realize he'd rather spend his last years reading comic books like he always wanted. The prospect of being a permanent minority and not even getting to write concurrences to the majority might be the last straw. Unless the Republicans lose the senate, there's a very real possibility they will refuse to admit defeat after Hillary wins in November and refuse to confirm any supreme court nominees. If Thomas retired, it would just mean the decisions were 4-3 instead of 4-4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Thomas never gets to write important majority decisions, he mostly writes short dissents that no-one reads or discusses, he's forced to attend oral arguments he doesn't give a poo poo about, and he could retire at any time and continue to make $213k a year for the rest of his life. Maybe seeing Scalia drop dead made him realize he'd rather spend his last years reading comic books like he always wanted. The prospect of being a permanent minority and not even getting to write concurrences to the majority might be the last straw. I'd miss Thomas considerably more than Roberts, Alito, or quite possibly Kennedy. My dream court is eight RBGs/Sotomayors fundamentally transforming this country, and one Clarence Thomas dissenting that actually the Department of the Interior should be disbanded. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Thomas never gets to write important majority decisions, he mostly writes short dissents that no-one reads or discusses, he's forced to attend oral arguments he doesn't give a poo poo about, and he could retire at any time and continue to make $213k a year for the rest of his life. Maybe seeing Scalia drop dead made him realize he'd rather spend his last years reading comic books like he always wanted. The prospect of being a permanent minority and not even getting to write concurrences to the majority might be the last straw. Even a milquetoaster like Schumer would make them pay dearly for such a stunt as refusing to confirm any more Democrat nominees to anything ever. That's not a political strategy, that's organized mass seppuku. The current Republican stance of "let's wait to see if Donald Trump will pick instead," mind you, is also looking a lot like that. Even party leaders are now looking for excuses to "rescind" their endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Well a good reason is no one thought for a second, or currently thinks, that Garland has a good chance of being confirmed. You don't think Garland will be confirmed during the lame duck session? It seems plausible to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
If Hillary wins and the Dems take back the Senate, I think there's a strong chance Garland is confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:24
|
|