|
Slate Action posted:If Hillary wins and the Dems take back the Senate, I think there's a strong chance Garland is confirmed. Several republicans have said as much.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
I hate that if that happens, they will absolutely get away with it and, as always, suffer no repercussions for being incredibly, openly two-faced. THE PEOPLE MUST CHOOSE THE NEXT SUPR- oh gently caress we lost loljk
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Magres posted:I hate that if that happens, they will absolutely get away with it and, as always, suffer no repercussions for being incredibly, openly two-faced. THE PEOPLE MUST CHOOSE THE NEXT SUPR- oh gently caress we lost loljk If the Democrats retake the Senate and hold the White House, things didn't go all that well for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:If Hillary wins and the Dems take back the Senate, I think there's a strong chance Garland is confirmed. Even if the Republicans manage to maintain control of the Senate I expect them to try and get Garland confirmed as soon as possible. Better to take Garland than chance Hillary unveiling her vat of Ginsburg/Sotomayor clones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Democrats retake the Senate and hold the White House, things didn't go all that well for them. True, just for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with them being complete and utter scum when it comes to SCOTUS nominations  I'll take it though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Even if the Republicans manage to maintain control of the Senate I expect them to try and get Garland confirmed as soon as possible. Better to take Garland than chance Hillary unveiling her vat of Ginsburg/Sotomayor clones. Odds on Cruz filibustering and ruining the Republicans strategy again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Odds on Cruz filibustering and ruining the Republicans strategy again? The filibuster is effectively dead for SCOTUS nominees, it's just in the dead man walking stage. The next time it's tried the nuclear option will be used just as it was for other nominees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
They just exempted the SCOTUS from the last deal because it was assumed there was still a modicum of respect and decorum for the Senate's purpose and process and the Republicans pretty much ended that when they shrugged their shoulders and said "nah wait 9 months because our politics are more important than functional governance"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The filibuster is effectively dead for SCOTUS nominees, it's just in the dead man walking stage. The next time it's tried the nuclear option will be used just as it was for other nominees. Nuclear option doesnt work if you're not the majority party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Keep in mind that various senior Republicans, including Grassley, have said that they won't do anything with the nomination during the lame duck. Not that their word is worth a drat, but if they do it, the criticism is going to be a lot more specific than "you said the next president should do it"; it's going to be "you said that you would not do this exact thing that you are presently doing".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nuclear option doesnt work if you're not the majority party. So what? If you’re not the majority party, you can’t pass anything with or without a fillibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nuclear option doesnt work if you're not the majority party. The Senate has just the kind of dumb rules in place that would let a united minority party grind everything to a halt if they really wanted though. Absolutely refusing to do anything with Supreme Court nominees isn't going to get the majority much help from senators facing an upcoming election either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:If Hillary wins and the Dems take back the Senate, I think there's a strong chance Garland is confirmed. It's absolutely going to happen if the Dems win the WH and Senate. There is no chance in hell the GOP's going to pass up on Garland and let Clinton have pretty much a blank check and mandate, as per the GOP's own obstructionist excuse, to nominate the most leftist liberal justice ever as any Clinton pick is Death of America in their minds. Even if they hold the Senate they'd have to deal with Clinton attacking them heavily, often, and perhaps immediately in her first SOTU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:So what? If you’re not the majority party, you can’t pass anything with or without a fillibuster. McConnell may not want to blow up the filibuster to get Garland through in the lame duck if Cruz objects (he will).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:McConnell may not want to blow up the filibuster to get Garland through in the lame duck if Cruz objects (he will). Would he even need to blow it up? I'd expect they could swing at least 4 Republicans to vote to end a filibuster in order to get Garland through before Hillary goes with someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
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. That's not a joke, by the way, he was a fan of Milestone Comics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Would he even need to blow it up? I'd expect they could swing at least 4 Republicans to vote to end a filibuster in order to get Garland through before Hillary goes with someone else. He would need to swing 14 to end a filibuster. He can get the votes to confirm but to break the filibuster is harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The Senate has just the kind of dumb rules in place that would let a united minority party grind everything to a halt if they really wanted though. Absolutely refusing to do anything with Supreme Court nominees isn't going to get the majority much help from senators facing an upcoming election either. Which is why I'm not so certain that a lame duck Garland confirmation will happen if Hillary wins and the Democrats do well in the senate elections. The Democrats should be able to gum up the works with procedural bullshit enough to keep it from getting done in time. Especially if they aren't the ones doing it but instead are just not voting to end Ted Cruz's silliness. Even if they don't try I have to wonder whether Baracknophobia has so primed the GOP to view his every little action as part of some grand conspiracy to screw us all that they will prevent the vote thinking Garland is some sort of sleeper uber-liberal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He would need to swing 14 to end a filibuster. He can get the votes to confirm but to break the filibuster is harder. Okay, forget withdrawing Garland. I really want to see Democrats united in support of a Cruz filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Okay, forget withdrawing Garland. Lol, just all of the senate Democrats "proceed governor"-ing Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Keep in mind that various senior Republicans, including Grassley, have said that they won't do anything with the nomination during the lame duck. Not that their word is worth a drat, but if they do it, the criticism is going to be a lot more specific than "you said the next president should do it"; it's going to be "you said that you would not do this exact thing that you are presently doing". Yeah Republicans already hosed up the messaging, Orrin Hatch went on TV and revealed the inner narrative, forcing Graham and Grassley to go on record saying "No no, we won't confirm in the lame duck if we lose, this is about the principle of letting the American people decide." Even if it's just Lindsey Graham that's enough to deadlock the committee, assuming Hillary wants to appoint someone else and asks the Democrats to stall until she's inaugurated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
The democrats won't stall their own nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Also, either way, Hillary would make Garland her first nominee anyway because she wants to demonstrate continuity with the popular Obama presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also, either way, Hillary would make Garland her first nominee anyway This is the most likely outcome yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Which is unfortunate, because even if Garland is the best of judges, there's nothing he can do about his age. Nominating a 63 year old judge these days is like making half a nomination - Roberts is younger than Garland and has been Chief Justice for over a decade already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Which is unfortunate, because even if Garland is the best of judges, there's nothing he can do about his age. Nominating a 63 year old judge these days is like making half a nomination - Roberts is younger than Garland and has been Chief Justice for over a decade already. It's also looking likely that by the end of her term she'll have the court at 6 or 7 liberals to 3 or 2 conservatives. We can afford to have a half nomination replacing Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The democrats won't stall their own nominee. “I think the Zodiac is on to something here. Let
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also, either way, Hillary would make Garland her first nominee anyway because she wants to demonstrate continuity with the popular Obama presidency. If she wins, and especially if the Dems take the Senate, she'll be meeting with him well before the end of the year if the GOP don't just immediately prioritize his confirmation. Though if they manage to successfully block him out and Clinton ends up getting to nominate and confirm a further left judge who is also 10-20 years younger that's fine by me. Doubly so if Thomas really is thinking of retiring and could potentially end up letting Clinton make two appointments to create a 6-3 liberal dominated SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
not now posted: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! If like me you dropped Radiolab because you got fed up with their production style (or should I say overproduction style), the first episode of this wasn't nearly as bad (but you can still tell it's Radiolab). The theme song is so dumb it's kind of awesome. It samples "oyez oyez oyez" for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
SCOTUSblog says that the most likely justices to write the opinions on the abortion and gun rights cases are...Breyer and Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Utah vs Strieff came down today. xpost from USpol:quote:When a police officer stops a pedestrian in violation of the law, asks him for identification, discovers that there is a traffic warrant for his arrest, arrests him, and in the process of searching him discovers drug paraphernalia and methamphetamines, can the evidence found in the search of the pedestrian be used against him? Edward Strieff argues that it cannot: because the police officer’s stop was illegal, then anything obtained as a result of the stop is also tainted. The state, on the other hand, contends that the evidence should be admitted because it resulted from the lawful warrant for his arrest, rather than the illegal stop. And the decision summary: quote:We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest. Thomas/Kennedy/Breyer/Alito/Roberts concurrence, Sotomayor/Kagan/Ginsburg dissent Sotomayor's dissent cites James Baldwin, WEB Du Bois, and Ta-Nehisi Coates
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:SCOTUSblog says that the most likely justices to write the opinions on the abortion and gun rights cases are...Breyer and Kagan. What's the gun case? I didn't know any major ones were pending. I did see that the court refused to grant cert to a challenge to CT's assault weapons ban though, leaving that in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
emdash posted:Utah vs Strieff came down today. xpost from USpol: One thing that SCOTUSBlog points out is that we may start seeing this sort of thing more and more, as Breyer is much more government-friendly on 4th amendment cases than you would expect from looking at it from a pure liberal/conservative divide. He may wind up pushing these cases to the right even if Scalia is replaced by Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
The Washington Examiner updated their story with a comment from Thomas's wifequote:For all those who are contacting me about the possibility of my husband retiring, I say -- unsubscribe from those false news sources and carry on with your busy lives. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
emdash posted:Utah vs Strieff came down today. xpost from USpol: Uggggghh. Granted in a perfect world you wouldn't get stopped without cause so the logic is fairly sound within that context, the lovely reality is that the "attenuation" just invites more fishing expeditions under color of law rather than the law itself - "I might have stopped a guy solely because he's black but when I ran his ID I saw a warrant I didn't know was out of date and previously satisfied, so when I searched the car I found $4,000 in strapped $20s and a prepaid debit card so we bought new lights at the PD with it your honor"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Uggggghh. Granted in a perfect world you wouldn't get stopped without cause so the logic is fairly sound within that context, the lovely reality is that the "attenuation" just invites more fishing expeditions under color of law rather than the law itself - "I might have stopped a guy solely because he's black but when I ran his ID I saw a warrant I didn't know was out of date and previously satisfied, so when I searched the car I found $4,000 in strapped $20s and a prepaid debit card so we bought new lights at the PD with it your honor" Yeah, there's a lot of exceptions to the 4th that make perfect sense in the context of assuming good faith on everyone's part and "well, this one particular circumstance it makes sense' but get blown wide open because corners get cut. The whole reason the exclusionary rule works well is because it gives the police a really strong incentive to learn what the rules are and follow them, and all these exceptions keep giving the police reasons to claim ignorance and ignore the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:SCOTUSblog says that the most likely justices to write the opinions on the abortion and gun rights cases are...Breyer and Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Don't you mean immigration? What he said is definitely what SCOTUSblog says in their live blog, but perhaps scotusblog goofed because the only 'gun rights' case I see is this one which I wouldn't really describe as all that focused on guns and more on details of statutory interpretation that just happen to involve guns (i.e. I doubt anyone's busting out the 2nd Amendment in their opinions): quote:Voisine v. United States (argued February 29, 2016). Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, the other petitioner in this case, both pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assaults on their respective domestic partners. Several years later, each man was charged with violating a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by individuals who have previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Voisine and Armstrong contend their state convictions do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence because the state-law provisions can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless, rather than intentional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What he said is definitely what SCOTUSblog says in their live blog, but perhaps scotusblog goofed. Yeah I'm just going by what they said there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Also today in what is surely a rare event, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Federal Circuit in ruling that the Federal Circuit had no jurisdiction to review the grant of inter-pares review of patents (which makes it easier to have lovely patents canceled) and upholding their standards on that review. edit: though Alito and Sotomoyer dissented from the first part and concurred in the second, whoops evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:22
|
|