|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:Anyone else thinking Trump is going to appoint Donald Trump Jr to the Supreme Court? No, because the GOP might be insane assholes but they sure as poo poo aren't going to be on board with Trump appointing his own kid to the SCOTUS instead of some monster like a young version of Roy Moore.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Hi,  here, I have a friend who insists that the nuclear option itself can be filibustered based on the wording from the wikipedia article.quote:According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate. What makes this not as it appears?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Hi, The nuclear option is not amending the senate rules through the normal method. The presiding officer simply declares the filibuster is gone, then through some labyrinthine procedures it gets approved by a simple majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules If the minority party could filibuster the nuclear option, the Republicans probably would have done it in 2013 (when the Democrats exercised it for many types of nominees). esquilax fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The nuclear option is not amending the senate rules through the normal method. The presiding officer simply declares the filibuster is gone, then through some labyrinthine procedures it gets approved by a simple majority. From the article: quote:The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent. It reads like something straight out of a SovCit handbook. How to beat the system (tm) by using this secret legalese they don't want you to know about!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Chuu posted:It reads like something straight out of a SovCit handbook. How to beat the system (tm) by using this secret legalese they don't want you to know about! This is why, to some people, the sovcits make sense. See? All these arcane rules actually exist! Ignoring the fact, of course, that these complex rules are a) explicitly created for a reason, b) public, if not necessarily well known, just like any other law and c) serve a specific purpose rather than 'be immune to laws, forever'. They just have the right flavor of arcane bizarreness to look magical to some people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
There's some discussion on page 4 and especially footnote 24 in this that addresses the re-adoption of rules and suggests you can't change the rules to require 50 votes for cloture just because it's the first day of the session.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Comedy option: republicans gently caress up so bad they lose the senate in two years, democrats actually grow half a spine instead of tepidly refusing to play by the rules of the game and claim that a President should not be able to appoint a justice if the public sentiment has shifted I fear for the state of the country if Republicans manage to lose the Senate in two years. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not happening. There simply aren't the pickups to allow it, not with all the desperately overextended seats they have in otherwise red states. Four years of conservative hell is the minimum here. The only hope is 2020, and a counter wave of rage that washes over the gerrymanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:There's some discussion on page 4 and especially footnote 24 in this that addresses the re-adoption of rules and suggests you can't change the rules to require 50 votes for cloture just because it's the first day of the session. I think Senate Republicans might have a situation, if Trump is as erratic and populist as he can be, where they want to keep the filibuster on the books to play the "we would've done that thing you asked without those Dems, how about we do our compromise solution (that we really want)" card and instead of crazy insane poo poo we just get crazy poo poo for 2-4 years. Basically using the filibuster as an excuse to not pass Trump's full agenda to put the foot down on an institutional level. You still have some old guard GOPers who respect the Senate as an institution. However, once Trump grabs a microphone and tells the Deplorables the filibuster is only there because of reluctant GOPers, they're gonna get primaried or assassinated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yeah, it's not happening. There simply aren't the pickups to allow it, not with all the desperately overextended seats they have in otherwise red states. Four years of conservative hell is the minimum here. The only hope is 2020, and a counter wave of rage that washes over the gerrymanders. Serious question: can we be confident that there will be a free and fair 2020 election or that Trump would peacefully cede power if he lost it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Serious question: can we be confident that there will be a free and fair 2020 election or that Trump would peacefully cede power if he lost it? Free and fair in terms of suppression and gerrymandering, no. But Trump isn't gonna go full dictator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
What makes you think that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
TimWinter posted:What makes you think that? Mostly that he's old as hell. He'll be 74 in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Can someone walk me through what's the most likely situation for the court in the next four years? Filling scalia's seat is obvious and seems like more or less a return to status quo, not good but not 100% terrible. I've heard things about ginsburg/thomas being interested in retirement; ginsburg going would be bad but would a replacement for Thomas result in any surprising changes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Thomas doesn't keep to the Republican script all the time, just most of the time because it fits his bugfuck crazy interpretation of law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Wellwinds posted:Can someone walk me through what's the most likely situation for the court in the next four years? .
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
I'm so disappointed that the GOP is getting away with pulling this bullshit on Garland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Wellwinds posted:Can someone walk me through what's the most likely situation for the court in the next four years? There's no chance Ginsburg will retire and let Trump nominate her successor, she's exactly the type of person who would stick around even if she doesn't want to do the job anymore because she's willing to sacrifice her own happiness for the good of the country. On the other hand there is an unfortunately high chance of her dying because she is an 83 year old woman who has already had cancer twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's no chance Ginsburg will retire and let Trump nominate her successor, she's exactly the type of person who would stick around even if she doesn't want to do the job anymore because she's willing to sacrifice her own happiness for the good of the country. On the other hand there is an unfortunately high chance of her dying because she is an 83 year old woman who has already had cancer twice. She's probably already found a doctor who's agreed, if the worst happens, to keep her corpse on a ventilator for four years rather than pronouncing her dead. Anyway, I had a random thought today about Florida vs. HHS blocking Trumps plan to defund sanctuary cities and was amused by the irony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:She's probably already found a doctor who's agreed, if the worst happens, to keep her corpse on a ventilator for four years rather than pronouncing her dead. Would that work? My layman’s opinion is that it doesn’t violate the “good behavior” clause, but it would probably cause a constitutional crisis nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's no chance Ginsburg will retire and let Trump nominate her successor, she's exactly the type of person who would stick around even if she doesn't want to do the job anymore because she's willing to sacrifice her own happiness for the good of the country. On the other hand there is an unfortunately high chance of her dying because she is an 83 year old woman who has already had cancer twice. I did not realize she ever had cancer. Wow. How in the hell did she not retire after 2012?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:I did not realize she ever had cancer. Wow. How in the hell did she not retire after 2012? She was asked about it once and her answer was basically "you're insane if you think Obama would ever get anyone like me through the Senate".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:I did not realize she ever had cancer. Wow. How in the hell did she not retire after 2012? Hypothetical: if she had announced her resignation in February 2013 (not taking effect till a successor is confirmed, obviously), would the GOP have tried the same bullshit they used on Scalia’s vacancy? I’m leaning “no”, but only because the situation is different when there’s a sitting justice still writing opinions. If she’d died in February 2013, I don’t see why they couldn’t run out the clock for four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Clunk Tap It posted:I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down? I mean the Republicans just spent about a year refusing to nominate a justice so they could hand it over to a Republican president, and before the election when it looked like it was going to be Hillary they accidentally let slip that they were ready to block him for another four years. Why would they change now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I mean the Republicans just spent about a year refusing to nominate a justice so they could hand it over to a Republican president, and before the election when it looked like it was going to be Hillary they accidentally let slip that they were ready to block him for another four years. Cynically, so the Republicans can continue railing against activist judges to rile up the base?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Clunk Tap It posted:I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down? No because Garland won’t be let out of committee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Cynically, so the Republicans can continue railing against activist judges to rile up the base? They can probably run just as well on "We destroyed Obergefell and Roe, but you know what will happen if you let those Democrats back in power!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
McConnel was gloating about the swift repeal of Obamacare loving yesterday and Walker was right behind him floating the end of the filibuster, so no, there is absolutely zero chance of anything remotely "positive" like a Garland within a million miles of current reality. The GOP straight up won, they are the dog that caught the car, and they are going to go absolutely hog wild on every righter-than-right, insane bill that you can think of. The only hope that I can think of is that President Trump keeps tweeting idiotic poo poo, his opinion tanks into the teens, and the GOP has to oppose him because the midterm numbers look so bad for them. Even that's an incredible stretch, but it's the best I can do less than 48 hours removed...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Serious question: can we be confident that there will be a free and fair 2020 election or that Trump would peacefully cede power if he lost it? It will be fair and free for (most) white people on some means. Everyone else? Please look to NC and WI for a taste of what's to come for more of the country. Wellwinds posted:Can someone walk me through what's the most likely situation for the court in the next four years? Thomas's replacement would pretend to care about oral arguments and might not be as massively FYGM on minority issues. Trump picking an RBG replacement would likely mean the end of SSM, Abortion, and a lot of other things unless Trump stuns the world by actually picking a liberal replacement for 'balance' but I think that'll happen right after Paul Ryan passes his new budget that raises taxes on the rich and establishes a mincome and UHC.  Nevvy Z posted:I'm so disappointed that the GOP is getting away with pulling this bullshit on Garland. It's one of the most painful parts of the election by far. The GOP outright refused to do their job, set a precedent of "no nominations for the last year of a president's term and have successfully prevented the court from having a non-conservative majority. Clunk Tap It posted:I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down? No. Literally the only way Garland could be seated is if Obama recess appoints him (and I 100% believe Obama should recess appoint every single vacancy the GOP has stonewalled him on, even if it means Trump has to immediately fire everyone who isn't getting a lifetime appointment) but that would only last until Congress recesses again, which they could opt to do immediately after Trump's sworn in. That would make Garland's time on the bench meaningless and he'd lose his current spot which would also get a Trump-picked replacement. The GOP has completely and utterly won the SCOTUS fight by doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Clunk Tap It posted:I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down? He could recess appoint Garland, and that would be fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It will be fair and free for (most) white people on some means. I seriously think you're underestimating the shape of things to come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Literally the only way Garland could be seated is if Obama recess appoints him (and I 100% believe Obama should recess appoint every single vacancy the GOP has stonewalled him on, even if it means Trump has to immediately fire everyone who isn't getting a lifetime appointment) but that would only last until Congress recesses again, which they could opt to do immediately after Trump's sworn in. That would make Garland's time on the bench meaningless and he'd lose his current spot which would also get a Trump-picked replacement. The GOP has completely and utterly won the SCOTUS fight by doing nothing. They’d have to start a new session, not just declare recess. The last time a special session was held was in 1948.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
I wanna game out the consequences of abolishing SSM a little, given that there already are people who are same-sex married. Would they leave those marriages intact or abolish them retroactively? I mean you probably can do that but would that be a bridge too far for the more sane Republican justices? Or would abolishing SSM look more like giving states free hands to do whatever the gently caress they want but not forcing states to recognize each other's same sex marriages? Also there are powerful and privileged gay men like Peter Thiel who are probably okay with SSM but nothing beyond that in terms of human rights (especially if it involves virgins whose blood you want to drain for eternal youth). Does that impact the GOP calculus at all? I just sense that abolishing abortion would be an easier path for them to take because you can't retroactively stop abortions that have already been done. (Without going into dystopian horror movie territory, anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The #1 pick for Trump Whacky SCOTUS Nominee is his older sister who is a judge on the third circuit of appeals. Sure she's old but that's no obstacle to The Donald. To be fair, it's Donald Trump. I wouldn't at all be surprised at him nominating people that make Harriet Miers look like John Jay. Really the best hope for our nation is that he appoints ancient cronies with no real philosophy beyond graft is good, who make it to the court and are promptly impeaches, resign, or die come January 2020. Also I hope any Trump nominee is someone who Roberts absolutely despises, is an open and obnoxious racist, and who constantly thanks him for ending the VRA. Gyges fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Best case scenario is actually that he nominates his sister because "gently caress you I do what I want"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:To be fair, it's Donald Trump. I wouldn't at all be surprised at him nominating people that make Harriet Miers look like John Jay. Trump nominates judge judy to the SCOTUS then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Antti posted:I wanna game out the consequences of abolishing SSM a little, given that there already are people who are same-sex married. Would they leave those marriages intact or abolish them retroactively? I mean you probably can do that but would that be a bridge too far for the more sane Republican justices? It was a 5-4 decision to, so won't be going anywhere without a test case and another replaced justice beyond Scalia's replacement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:02
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:I would be very surprised if we lost the right to marry. it's a done deal now. Check out North Carolina for an example of what happens when people think <x> is a done deal. Hell, look at Bevin re: Kynect. "Oh sure they say "I'm repealing <x>" but they can't because precedent" *North Carolina places bathroom monitors in all public shitters, Kentucky shutters Kynect" "loving GLOBALISTS"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:31 |
|
The Iron Rose posted:I would be very surprised if we lost the right to marry. it's a done deal now. Eleven Justice Supreme Court.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:21
|
|
