|
Still better than Alito.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Scalia was better than Alito Alito is literally the worst justice since Taney
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Just like how conservative Rehnquist and liberal O’Connor were replaced by conservative Roberts and liberal Alito. I'm not sure I see your point here. You expect the Senate Republicans to be fair? They change the "rules" however they want to suit them. I think they're playing for time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Scalia was better than Alito something I've been saying since forever thank you for validation
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Scalia was better than Alito Is he really worse than Clarence "Every Decision Since 1930 is null and void" Thomas?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
At least Clarence "Every Decision Since 1930 is null and void" Thomas is consistent in his judicial philosophy and will stick with the outcome it gives him rather than determining the outcome first, and working backwards from it using whatever method that gets the job done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Dameius posted:At least Clarence "Every Decision Since 1930 is null and void" Thomas is consistent in his judicial philosophy and will stick with the outcome it gives him rather than determining the outcome first, and working backwards from it using whatever method that gets the job done. Except he totally does that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Not the way Scalia did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Not the way Scalia did. Damning with faint praise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
So we're back to imagining ridiculous dream scenarios like where the Supreme Court rules that "you didn't vote therefore you don't get to complain" is actually hidden in the constitution somewhere and applies to the senate? If we're doing that, here's a better totally implausible scenario: All four liberal justices resign. Hillary rules by a series of unconstitutional executive actions. The Republicans whine and cry but the one body who could have stopped her 1000 Years of Liberal Darkness is helpless because they can't reach quorum. Then for the cherry on top, Hillary could use an executive action to constitute a new "temporary" "interim" supreme court consisting of the four liberal justices who resigned, plus Obama, Beyonce, Slavoj Zizek, Anita Hill, the ghosts of Howard Zinn and Gore Vidal, and the Chapo Trap House guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
So, anyone else listening to the Opening Arguments podcast? Great multi-part series on the Trinity Lutheran case just wrapped up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the GOP is banking on the next vacancy being RBG. Then they can "compromise" and approve one conservative and one liberal justice. seems like a reasonable political ploy. the whole situation is embarrassing
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the GOP is banking on the next vacancy being RBG. Then they can "compromise" and approve one conservative and one liberal justice. That kind of thinking worked well in the US until 1860 for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So we're back to imagining ridiculous dream scenarios like where the Supreme Court rules that "you didn't vote therefore you don't get to complain" is actually hidden in the constitution somewhere and applies to the senate? If we're doing that, here's a better totally implausible scenario: So I guess all the lower federal courts just disappear in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So, anyone else listening to the Opening Arguments podcast? Great multi-part series on the Trinity Lutheran case just wrapped up. I have a 20 hour roadtrip ahead of me. Is this a good podcast to add to the list? Any other good judicial podcasts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:39
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So we're back to imagining ridiculous dream scenarios like where the Supreme Court rules that "you didn't vote therefore you don't get to complain" is actually hidden in the constitution somewhere and applies to the senate? If we're doing that, here's a better totally implausible scenario: I think it's more that people are grasping for any sort of solution and since there isn't any solution they arrive at ridiculous scenarios. So what happens when there isn't any supreme court because all of the justices have died of old age and appointments have been consistently blocked for 40-ish years?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think it's more that people are grasping for any sort of solution and since there isn't any solution they arrive at ridiculous scenarios. Hunger Games?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Chuu posted:I have a 20 hour roadtrip ahead of me. Is this a good podcast to add to the list? Any other good judicial podcasts? Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick is good. She gets great interview guests (often some of the folks arguing the cases) and is a really sharp insightful commentator. More Perfect is also fun, but more in a radiolab historical oddities sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Chuu posted:I have a 20 hour roadtrip ahead of me. Is this a good podcast to add to the list? Any other good judicial podcasts? I think the Clinton Emails one should be required listening. But if you're looking for specifically Supreme-court-related ones, they open with a 4-part story about Bush v. Gore followed quickly by another series on Roe v. Wade. And yeah, More Perfect is awesome but unless my podcast app is doing a poo poo job, there hasn't been a new episode in months. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:And yeah, More Perfect is awesome but unless my podcast app is doing a poo poo job, there hasn't been a new episode in months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:I think it was supposed to be a mini-series and it's just done now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think it's more that people are grasping for any sort of solution and since there isn't any solution they arrive at ridiculous scenarios. Then people just won't be able to appeal cases to the SC anymore and the lower level courts will rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think it's more that people are grasping for any sort of solution and since there isn't any solution they arrive at ridiculous scenarios. You can always recess appoint justices, it's just never made sense to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
So what happens after Trump gets curbstomped on Tuesday, does Garland get fast-tracked or are they going to conjure up some other bullshit reason to stall?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
At this point, I would believe 'entire Republican part of Congress holds a sit-in.' This fuckin' year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Noctone posted:So what happens after Trump gets curbstomped on Tuesday, does Garland get fast-tracked or are they going to conjure up some other bullshit reason to stall? If the Senate goes blue as well, yes, they will rush him through
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
John McCain and Ted Cruz have floated the idea of not confirming any Justices at all until there's a Republican in the White House again. Mull that over. Johnny Isakson of Georgia has said that if Clinton wins, the Senate will probably confirm Garland before Hillary takes over. A lot is going to depend on who wins the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I can't see how this is going to work out well for Republicsns at all. If I were Garland, I'd be pissed at them for jerking me around for months, and being just plain disrespectful to me and the bench. Certainly would make me less inclined to strongly consider conservative philosophies when making rulings
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I can't see how this is going to work out well for Republicsns at all. If I were Garland, I'd be pissed at them for jerking me around for months, and being just plain disrespectful to me and the bench. Certainly would make me less inclined to strongly consider conservative philosophies when making rulings Yeah, good reasoning to reject him if he's going to let his personal feelings so strongly influence his decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I can't see how this is going to work out well for Republicsns at all. If I were Garland, I'd be pissed at them for jerking me around for months, and being just plain disrespectful to me and the bench. Certainly would make me less inclined to strongly consider conservative philosophies when making rulings
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah this is pretty weird, even ignoring that the Court is ostensibly non-partisan, the notion that someone would go "People who are conservatives were rude to me, now after 40+ years as a legal professional, I will adjust my legal philosophy to spite those specific rude people even though they aren't actually a party to any case I'll hear." seems bizarre. The GOP senators blocking confirmation aren't trying to get on Garland's good side. Anybody who gives a drat about a good relationship with the judiciary will already support confirming or at least voting on the exceptionally well-qualified moderate nominee. The rest don't care about nuance and relationships with an Obama nominee, who is automatically and forever the devil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I can't see how this is going to work out well for Republicsns at all. If I were Garland, I'd be pissed at them for jerking me around for months, and being just plain disrespectful to me and the bench. Certainly would make me less inclined to strongly consider conservative philosophies when making rulings
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The GOP senators blocking confirmation aren't trying to get on Garland's good side. Anybody who gives a drat about a good relationship with the judiciary will already support confirming or at least voting on the exceptionally well-qualified moderate nominee. The rest don't care about nuance and relationships with an Obama nominee, who is automatically and forever the devil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm still thinking even if the Dems take the Senate, McConnell is not going to give in because it would cause a civil war within the GOP Senate Caucus. The pragmatic thing to do would be to push him through quickly in lame-duck to avoid a more liberal Justice, but I think it's way more likely they just drag their feet. only Cruz would fail to see the point and everyone else in the senate is going to be backing his primary opponent except for his one friend in the whole world, mike lee
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah this is pretty weird, even ignoring that the Court is ostensibly non-partisan, the notion that someone would go "People who are conservatives were rude to me, now after 40+ years as a legal professional, I will adjust my legal philosophy to spite those specific rude people even though they aren't actually a party to any case I'll hear." seems bizarre. And yet, there's a Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm still thinking even if the Dems take the Senate, McConnell is not going to give in because it would cause a civil war within the GOP Senate Caucus. The pragmatic thing to do would be to push him through quickly in lame-duck to avoid a more liberal Justice, but I think it's way more likely they just drag their feet. If the Dems take the Senate it doesn't matter what McConnell or any Republican want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:And yet, there's a Clarence Thomas. Does he actually do that? His legal philosophy seems like arguably the most consistent out of any justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Huh? I get that they're not trying to get on Garland's god side. The question at hand is will or should the failure of GOP senators to get on Garland's good side affect Garland's jurisprudence, and I think the answer to both is plainly "No". I mean, theoretically, it could affect his likelihood to join in on of those decisions where the Court says Congress should fix this thing knowing full well Congress ain't doing poo poo. But those are cases that either obviously Congress should be doing it and not Executive fiat, or it's a bullshit fig leaf used by the Conservative Justices to excuse doing things like gutting the VRA, so it's not going to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
The GOP gambit paid off bigly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:The GOP gambit paid off bigly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:17
|
|
