|
Green Crayons posted:4 to grant, 5 to stay is straight outta kafka and why they should change the rules to 4 votes required for each I thought a single justice could grant a stay from their assigned circuits.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:4 to grant, 5 to stay is straight outta kafka and why they should change the rules to 4 votes required for each "Straight Outta Kafka" is a documentary I would watch the poo poo out of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Google isn't helping with all the Merrick Garland-related results, isn't there a notable old-school Republican Senator who thinks that any nominee should be rubber-stamped through the Judiciary Committee for the whole Senate to vote on? Or did whoever it was change his tune when MG came along?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Google isn't helping with all the Merrick Garland-related results, isn't there a notable old-school Republican Senator who thinks that any nominee should be rubber-stamped through the Judiciary Committee for the whole Senate to vote on? Orrin Hatch might be who you're thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
So if Hillary wins the nomination will they push Garland through or try to block for eight years? Who could HRC pick that's to the left of Garland if she wins?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:So if Hillary wins the nomination will they push Garland through or try to block for eight years? Who could HRC pick that's to the left of Garland if she wins? Most of the people on this list who aren’t named “Merrick Garland”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects when Hillary nominates Loretta Lynch to replace a retiring Justice Thomas is going to be a sight to behold. I can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
BTW what's going to happen after the election is conservatives will insist that the ideological makeup of the court should not ever change. So, if a conservative Justice retires, then they should be replaced by a conservative Justice, even if we have a Democratic President at that time. Mostly everyone will go along with the fiction that there is any chance that Republicans in the Senate would stick to the rule when appointing new Justices during a Republican administration and with a Republican Senate. That is the rationale they will use to justify permanently blocking Hillary's appointments to replace Scalia, and Thomas or Kennedy if they should retire or pass away. For the liberal Justices (Ginsburg and Breyer, should he retire) I guess they will say "you have to nominate a conservative Justice to replace Scalia first, then we can think about the rest." Kilroy fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:BTW what's going to happen after the election is conservatives will insist that the ideological makeup of the court should not ever change. So, if a conservative Justice retires, then they should be replaced by a conservative Justice, even if we have a Democratic President at that time. Mostly everyone will go along with the fiction that there is any chance that Republicans in the Senate would stick to the rule when appointing new Justices during a Republican administration and with a Republican Senate. This narrative started right after Scalia died. A bunch of hacks said the court was "fair" since it was four conservatives, four liberals, and one neutral (who just happened to side with conservatives all the time resulting in 5-4 wins in their favor) so Democratic presidents should nominate Scalia clones in order to be responsible. I'm certainly sure those same pundits will be saying the same when RGB leaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:This narrative started right after Scalia died. A bunch of hacks said the court was "fair" since it was four conservatives, four liberals, and one neutral (who just happened to side with conservatives all the time resulting in 5-4 wins in their favor) so Democratic presidents should nominate Scalia clones in order to be responsible. I'm certainly sure those same pundits will be saying the same when RGB leaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I know, but actual Senators haven't put that one forward yet, have they? I don't believe so but I agree that will probably be a bigger talking point if Hillary wins and they have to give better reasons for their stone walling other than "the people need to decide in four years if they want a Democrat appointed justice." I think the larger argument from the GOP will be that the American people, in not flipping the Senate, are ok with the eight member court so they shouldn't have to approve any of Hillary's justices and just let it sit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm certainly sure those same pundits will be saying the same when RGB leaves. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:BTW what's going to happen after the election is conservatives will insist that the ideological makeup of the court should not ever change. So, if a conservative Justice retires, then they should be replaced by a conservative Justice, even if we have a Democratic President at that time. Mostly everyone will go along with the fiction that there is any chance that Republicans in the Senate would stick to the rule when appointing new Justices during a Republican administration and with a Republican Senate. the republicans will lose the senate and their impotent whining will be run over roughshod
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:So if Hillary wins the nomination will they push Garland through or try to block for eight years? Who could HRC pick that's to the left of Garland if she wins? They'll rush it through right after Hillary wins because they don't want to take the chance she nominates someone younger and more liberal with her new Democratically controlled Senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:BTW what's going to happen after the election is conservatives will insist that the ideological makeup of the court should not ever change. The only fair and equitable way forward is to nominate 7 pro-slavery judges, anything else is just presidents imposing their values on the nation through black-robed priests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
I like how the Democratic agenda is “amend the Constitution to get money out of politics [i.e. fix what they see as a flaw exposed by Citizens United]”, while the Republican agenda is “appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), but somehow the narrative is that the Democrats are the ones who want to legislate from the bench. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like how the Democratic agenda is “amend the Constitution to get money out of politics [i.e. fix what they see as a flaw exposed by Citizens United]”, while the Republican agenda is “appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), but somehow the narrative is that the Democrats are the ones who want to legislate from the bench. The Democratic agenda is "get a liberal SCOTUS to fix Citizen United somehow with a new decision" because if the real agenda is amending the Constitution they're morons. In this day and age, amendments are just not going to happen. Even if a blatant flaw was exposed in the system of government, the Republicans would just say no. Arguably CU is already a working example of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Antti posted:The Democratic agenda is "get a liberal SCOTUS to fix Citizen United somehow with a new decision" because if the real agenda is amending the Constitution they're morons. In this day and age, amendments are just not going to happen. Even if a blatant flaw was exposed in the system of government, the Republicans would just say no. Arguably CU is already a working example of this. 2016 Democratic Party Platform posted:Democrats support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo . We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency — by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses. To be fair they also do talk about appointing judges who “understand that Citizens United has fundamentally damaged our democracy”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
That's why I threw the "real agenda" weasel word in there. I mean yeah, of course an amendment would be the best way to go about it, the same way I would love a puppy, but I know I won't get a puppy and there won't be an amendment so I'll have to do with a fish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like how the Democratic agenda is “amend the Constitution to get money out of politics [i.e. fix what they see as a flaw exposed by Citizens United]”, while the Republican agenda is “appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), but somehow the narrative is that the Democrats are the ones who want to legislate from the bench. "Legislating from the bench" is dog-whistle for forced busing and desegregation generally and comes straight from George Wallace's 1968 platform. Naturally, the Republicans just want respect for the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Antti posted:That's why I threw the "real agenda" weasel word in there. I mean yeah, of course an amendment would be the best way to go about it, the same way I would love a puppy, but I know I won't get a puppy and there won't be an amendment so I'll have to do with a fish. You should get a puppy, what are you waiting for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They'll rush it through right after Hillary wins because they don't want to take the chance she nominates someone younger and more liberal with her new Democratically controlled Senate. But the Senate is projected to remain Republican controlled?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But the Senate is projected to remain Republican controlled? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But the Senate is projected to remain Republican controlled? It's not though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
At this point, Trump might have put the House in play. He's so unprecedentedly bad as a candidate, no one knows what to expect of his downticket effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
The House is too gerrymandered to be in play. GOP state legislatures have ensured this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Nonzero chance - given how they've thinned and scattered the Dem vote so that it's a constant 'lose by slight percentage', if the turnout is depressed Republican side, it _might_ be a bit nastier than anyone expects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The House is too gerrymandered to be in play. GOP state legislatures have ensured this. Sam Wang thinks the house could be in play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The House is too gerrymandered to be in play. GOP state legislatures have ensured this. Except in the case of an electoral disaster, such as your presidential candidate losing by 10 points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Nonzero chance - given how they've thinned and scattered the Dem vote so that it's a constant 'lose by slight percentage', if the turnout is depressed Republican side, it _might_ be a bit nastier than anyone expects. Yeah that's the danger of gerrymandering - the other guy's districts are all 3-to-1 in their advantage while yours are all like 52-48 in yours in order to create as many districts in your advantage as possible. Then a wave election comes along and the rear end in a top hat candidate your party nominates pushes 5% of your lily-rear end suburb vote to the other guy and you lose 150 seats in the House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:At this point, Trump might have put the House in play. He's so unprecedentedly bad as a candidate, no one knows what to expect of his downticket effects. Election is much too far away to dwell on that. If Trump's still down 7+ points after the last debate? Sure, the House is going to be at risk. It's unlikely though because megadonors who aren't spending on Trump are spending on Congressional races to try and save those, especially the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like how the Democratic agenda is “amend the Constitution to get money out of politics [i.e. fix what they see as a flaw exposed by Citizens United]”, while the Republican agenda is “appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), but somehow the narrative is that the Democrats are the ones who want to legislate from the bench.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, given the number of people on the left, including people ITT, who are openly salivating about revisiting Heller and Citizens United among other cases as soon as Hillary can pack the court with liberal justices, acting like this is an issue of conservative double-speak is pretty dishonest. Planning to restrict individual rights via judicial fiat because you've decided that exercising those rights in certain ways is "bad for democracy" is pretty hosed up imo. The general left and particularly those in this thread aren't bitching about judicial activism though. It's the bitching about judicial activism while calling for it is what people are mocking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:17
|
|
Deteriorata posted:"Legislating from the bench" is dog-whistle for forced busing and desegregation generally and comes straight from George Wallace's 1968 platform. Naturally, the Republicans just want respect for the Constitution. I appreciate that that phrase is used as a dog whistle in some settings, but there is actually a difference of theory and opinion between formalism and realism that predates the civil rights movement.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that that phrase is used as a dog whistle in some settings, but there is actually a difference of theory and opinion between formalism and realism that predates the civil rights movement. That was the context in which is was being used and the context in which I responded. Accusing the Democrats of appointing justices who legislate from the bench became a standard Republican attack in the 70s for some strange reason. They didn't seem to care much about it before then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The general left and particularly those in this thread aren't bitching about judicial activism though. I guess I can dig up a bunch of people whinging about various Scalia/Alito opinions being creating new law or not following precedent or being predecided for the conservative party or whatever if you really want, or does it not count as complaining about it unless you actually say "judicial activism?" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I guess I can dig up a bunch of people whinging about various Scalia/Alito opinions being creating new law or not following precedent or being predecided for the conservative party or whatever if you really want, or does it not count as complaining about it unless you actually say "judicial activism?" "This is a terrible thing because X, Y, Z, why the hell did they have to go and change election law that much?" is different from "That's judicial activism!*" *and therefore bad without requiring any reasoning That's my impression of the difference, anyway. I'm sure there's someone who will be just as lovely as the second example somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The House is too gerrymandered to be in play. GOP state legislatures have ensured this. GOP isn't the sole villain here. In California for instance, the Democratic Party won 60% of the presidential vote but have something closer to 80% of the house seats. There have been movements to place "non-partisans" like judges in charge of drawing fairer district lines but if it's state by state then it's like unilateral disarmament.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I guess I can dig up a bunch of people whinging about various Scalia/Alito opinions being creating new law or not following precedent or being predecided for the conservative party or whatever if you really want, or does it not count as complaining about it unless you actually say "judicial activism?" It matters when their professed judicial philosophy is supposed to be opposed to that sort of thing. A judge who espouses judicial activism doing that is at least consistent. Justices who change their arguments to fit what is best for their political aims are not good justices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Shelby County is the only example of straight-up legislating from the bench that I can think of
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:44
|
|
