|
Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second and assuming Hillary wins in November...how are the Republicans going to react if she gets 2 - 3 other SCOTUS appointments? This theoretically is an opportunity to dramatically shift the court left but I can't imagine they'll allow that to happen.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
The phrase just keeps repeating in my head. The wind kills all your birds. All your birds. Killed. The wind kills all your birds. Arsonist Daria fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
bowser posted:Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second and assuming Hillary wins in November...how are the Republicans going to react if she gets 2 - 3 other SCOTUS appointments? This theoretically is an opportunity to dramatically shift the court left but I can't imagine they'll allow that to happen. Won't matter if the Dems get the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
bowser posted:Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second and assuming Hillary wins in November...how are the Republicans going to react if she gets 2 - 3 other SCOTUS appointments? This theoretically is an opportunity to dramatically shift the court left but I can't imagine they'll allow that to happen. If Democrats can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a beautiful dream, but hypothetically possible), it doesn't matter what the Republicans let happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/760291156336926720/ I'd heard KFC farts were bad...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:The phrase just keeps repeating in my head. Invite Trump into your bunker. Call (800)555-0199.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
bowser posted:Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second and assuming Hillary wins in November...how are the Republicans going to react if she gets 2 - 3 other SCOTUS appointments? This theoretically is an opportunity to dramatically shift the court left but I can't imagine they'll allow that to happen. Refuse to consider any of her nominees if they still control the senate and filibuster if they don't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:The phrase just keeps repeating in my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Harrow posted:If Democrats can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a beautiful dream, but hypothetically possible), it doesn't matter what the Republicans let happen. Not even that, they got rid of filibuster requirements for everyone but SCOTUS appointments back in like 2012. And that was without a filibuster proof majority, so if they get a majority they can change the rules however they like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Refuse to consider any of her nominees if they still control the senate and filibuster if they don't? It'll be fiiiiiiine, not a Constitutional Crisis until the last scotus justice dies
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/760317196748857344?lang=en kinda figured this was going to happen. should have stuck with the Taco Bowl
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Georgia will be the next of the Southern bloc to fall after North Carolina. Atlanta is dominating the population and its only going to continue. I'm interested to see what happens this year. Abbot turned out to be a full blown psychopath, the tea party have spent the past two years going batshit crazy and the oil price collapse revealed all the problems caused by decades of cutting budgets and the social safety net , then covering every deficit by jacking up the sales tax.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Harrow posted:If Democrats can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a beautiful dream, but hypothetically possible), it doesn't matter what the Republicans let happen. Doesn't even matter as long as they can get 50, and Tim Kaine gets to show up and hold the gavel for a while and do bad Trump impressions while he merrily tie-breaks the filibuster into submission and elevates three twenty-year-old clones of Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the bench.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It'll be fiiiiiiine, not a Constitutional Crisis until the last scotus justice dies Just to be pedantic, they need six members to form a quorum. So once we lose three more we hit constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/760317196748857344?lang=en Be careful, dorky Patton, or I will spill the beans on your wife!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Please god let "the wind kills all your birds" become a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Just to be pedantic, they need six members to form a quorum. So once we lose three more we hit constitutional crisis. In that case, wouldn't all cases just be pretty much automatically remanded back to the court of appeals, just like when the SCOTUS refuses to take a case at any other time? To be equally pedantic, I'm not sure that rises to the level of crisis because there are procedures for when SCOTUS can't or won't take a case. But there are no procedures for when the SCOTUS literally doesn't exist Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:In that case, wouldn't all cases just be pretty much automatically remanded back to the court of appeals, just like when the SCOTUS refuses to take a case at any other time? To be equally pedantic, I'm not sure that rises to the level of crisis because there are procedures for when SCOTUS can't or won't take a case. But there are no procedures for when SCOTUS literally doesn't exist - who swears in the President? Well, any judge can swear in the President, it happens whenever a President dies and their VP has to take the oath of office right away. The real difficulty would come if there was a high-profile original jurisdiction case. e: Or if there's an impeachment, since the Constitution says the Chief Justice shall preside. Can't do that if there's no Chief Justice! Quorum fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Harrow posted:If Democrats can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a beautiful dream, but hypothetically possible), it doesn't matter what the Republicans let happen. if dems control the senate, schumer can just nuke the fillibuster
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Well, any judge can swear in the President, it happens whenever a President dies and their VP has to take the oath of office right away. The real difficulty would come if there was a high-profile original jurisdiction case. Yeah, I edited that out because I remembered that LBJ didn't have a supreme court justice around. Is there any constitutional reason that a high-profile original jurisdiction case would have to be taken care of by the SCOTUS, or could it theoretically get handled by the next-highest ranking court with the SCOTUS automatically affirming that court's decision by automatically refusing to take the case? Do we really need the supreme court?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yeah, I edited that out because I remembered that LBJ didn't have a supreme court justice around. Is there any constitutional reason that a high-profile original jurisdiction case would have to be taken care of by the SCOTUS, or could it theoretically get handled by the next-highest ranking court with the SCOTUS automatically affirming that court's decision by automatically refusing to take the case? Yeah I edited my post with the other thing that only the SCOTUS can do: the Chief Justice must preside over impeachment trials. Presumably if that can't happen, you can't convict an impeached officer. And no, if there's no SCOTUS, original jurisdiction cases just... can't get heard. At least, those which aren't under concurrent jurisdiction (like those involving ambassadors, which can be heard either in SCOTUS or in a lower court). That's pretty much limited to cases between states. So cases involving things like land disputes between states go unresolved, at least by the justice system. Quorum fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Do we really need the supreme court? Eh, we'd start breaking down with the different appeals courts reached different affirmed rulings. Interstate trade and contracts start becoming difficult to reliably set up and we probably see some kind of implosion, but it'd probably take a good while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Do we really need the supreme court? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Mods, please change the topic to USPOL August: Wind kills all your birds
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yeah I edited my post with the other thing that only the SCOTUS can do: the Chief Justice must preside over impeachment trials. Presumably if that can't happen, you can't convict an impeached officer. I took a look at the Constitution and it looks like that applies only to the impeachment of the president. Creating the obvious question of who else might be qualified to preside over the impeachment of, say, the VP, and how that person might be chosen. Does the senate or the house get to choose a friendly justice? "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Mods, please change the topic to USPOL August: Wind kills all your birds I feel like it's only a matter of time until it's every thread's title. It's so oddly hypnotic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:I feel like it's only a matter of time until it's every thread's title. All your birds. Killed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:The phrase just keeps repeating in my head. it's like something you'd read in a lovely zombie story
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Off the Menu is a weekly blog posting emails from servers/cooks/bartenders about their terrible, terrible customers. Not a usual place to find political stories, but this week's post had a story of Mitch McConnell going into an Olive Garden with some local politicians:"Off the Menu posted:A majority of the guys ordered the unlimited lunch soup, salad, and breadsticks (excuse me while I have some PTSD flashbacks about the goddamn unlimited soup, salad, and breadsticks), which, goddammit, you're here on the dime of someone backed by the Koch brothers, order real food! Or better yet, go somewhere nicer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
So how many other elected Republicans is Trump going to indirectly or directly threaten to oppose? Does anyone have the full list? Nicki Haley John Kasich John McCain Paul D Ryan Little Rubio I feel like this list should be much longer but that's all I've got this late .
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I took a look at the Constitution and it looks like that applies only to the impeachment of the president. Creating the obvious question of who else might be qualified to preside over the impeachment of, say, the VP, and how that person might be chosen. Does the senate or the house get to choose a friendly justice? Looking into it, it would seem that when the Senate's ordinary functioning isn't being overridden by the Constitution ("the Chief Justice shall preside"), it continues to function as usual, so the presiding officer is whoever is presiding that day, or the President Pro Tem if they want to get off their rear end and do it, or the Vice President if they want to get off their rear end and do it. If the Vice President is the one being impeached, I guess he isn't allowed. e: oh hey one exception, apparently the Senate itself passed a rule that if the VP gets impeached, the Chief Justice also is appointed presiding officer in that situation. Neatly avoiding the theoretical situation where the VP presides over his own impeachment trial, which would admittedly be hilarious. Quorum fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:So how many other elected Republicans is Trump going to indirectly or directly threaten to oppose? Mark Kirk
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Mods, please change the topic to USPOL August: Wind kills all your birds Doctor Butts posted:Who the gently caress would want to primary the loving speaker? Too bad he doesn't seem to have much of a chance because that would add some extra chaos to the fall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:In the Midwest Gary Johnson is polling at 15%, and Trump has been within the margin of error in those states even before the convention. I don't think we can declare Trump suffering from his latest controversy until we see a genuine sustained movement against him in the polls in those states. Your posts are coming across as delusional as when people were saying that Hillary could win by 20 pts months and months ago. The fact that trump has been unable to break out of the low-40s in support means that his shenanigans are hurting him, and unless the third parties are going to get 20% in November (they're not), Hillary is on track for a 6-7pt victory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Wait does Ryan seriously have a shot at being primaried?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DanMentos/status/760325742580277252?s=09Dexo posted:Wait does Ryan seriously have a shot at being primaried? No but it won't stop Trump from making the threat. He's probably pissed that other Republicans arent falling on a sword to protect him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
I'll eat a couple of McDoubles or dollar menu Taco Bell when I'm drunk/hungover but KFC is the loving worst thing ever. So much salt and all the sides and condiments are mockeries of what they're actually supposed to be. It's also really loving expensive. Just go down to your local soul food/hole in the wall Mexican restaurant if you want good chicken. Go to the drat grocery store deli and it's still better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Looking into it, it would seem that when the Senate's ordinary functioning isn't being overridden by the Constitution ("the Chief Justice shall preside"), it continues to function as usual, so the presiding officer is whoever is presiding that day, or the President Pro Tem if they want to get off their rear end and do it, or the Vice President if they want to get off their rear end and do it. If the Vice President is the one being impeached, I guess he isn't allowed. Okay, so we only need 1 SCOTUS member to act as chief justice to avoid a constitutional crisis (as in a situation where the constitution does not adequately provide necessary instruction about how the operation of government is to proceed), and we can get by with 0 so long as neither the president nor the vice president goes into an impeachment hearing. See guys, we'll be fine Dexo posted:Wait does Ryan seriously have a shot at being primaried? No of course not, but neither did Eric Cantor
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Wait does Ryan seriously have a shot at being primaried? Not really. All reputable polls have Ryan up 30+ points on Nehlen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
FIRST TIME posted:I'll eat a couple of McDoubles or dollar menu Taco Bell when I'm drunk/hungover but KFC is the loving worst thing ever. So much salt and all the sides and condiments are mockeries of what they're actually supposed to be. It's also really loving expensive. Just go down to your local soul food/hole in the wall Mexican restaurant if you want good chicken. Go to the drat grocery store deli and it's still better. I've gotten ill every time I've eaten at local KFCs and after a friend worked there for a while he informed me that it's because there are no health standards which are actually followed. I mean yeah I know, fast food lol, but no I've never heard horror stories like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:40
|
|