|
dwarf74 posted:So, Donald Trump is making mouth-sounds about preserving gay marriage and the like. Knowing that this is actually up to the Supreme Court at this stage, I think this is absurd at face value, but I'm open to being wrong. So... Both already have 4 liberals plus Kennedy to defend them. Given the people Trump is surrounding himself with I can't imagine his SCOTUS pick is going to be anything but a far right activist but if he did somehow lose it and re-nominate Garland, or picked someone closer to the center like him, I think that the white wing would turn on him pretty much immediately. Mr. Nice! posted:Its because of the basis for the law. Roe v Wade required effectively created the right to an abortion under the penumbral due process right to privacy declared in Griswold. It doesn't have an independent legal basis. The kind of judges the GOP want on the bench give zero fucks about the basis of prior rulings.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The kind of judges the GOP want on the bench give zero fucks about the basis of prior rulings. * except insofar as it is in support of mainstream conservative causes, in which case it's just fine to use precedent or hell, just invent new laws on the spot, like replacing an OR with an AND; anything goes, really!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Reminder that, according to Thomas, the 20th century is full of dangerous and overreaching precedent. A GOP candidate wouldn't give a gently caress about Griswold's privacy ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Reminder that, according to Thomas, the 20th century is full of dangerous and overreaching precedent. That's why people think that it has less strong a footing than the equal protection rights from obergefell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's why people think that it has less strong a footing than the equal protection rights from obergefell. He also wouldn't give a gently caress about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
We need RBG to invest in Peter Thiel's vampiric immortality technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It seems like you need to nominate thoughtful justices that actually care at least a little bit about conventional jurisprudence. You don't though. If a president decides to shameless stack the court with a bunch of political ideologues who care nothing for law beyond "I want it to be X and will rule as such" the court will be a farce but the country isn't going to decide "yeah gently caress this court and its bogus rulings" short of a civil war or similar level of chaos. Trump's court pick is only going to happen because the GOP has outright stolen it from Obama. If a decade ago someone in the national media said "Congress will refuse to even consider a SCOTUS pick for an entire year in a naked attempt at grabbing power for themselves" you'd get laughed off the stage. If a justice dies in 2020 the GOP is going to move to confirm their replacement so loving fast it won't be funny. If Trump lost reelection and the senate flipped to the Dems they'd still replace a justice in the lame duck and openly laugh in the faces of everyone who even thinks to bring up Scalia and their block of Garland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:We need RBG to invest in Peter Thiel's vampiric immortality technology.  (source)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Given the people Trump is surrounding himself with I can't imagine his SCOTUS pick is going to be anything but a far right activist but if he did somehow lose it and re-nominate Garland, or picked someone closer to the center like him, I think that the white wing would turn on him pretty much immediately. Now that we got Trump as president with Bannon and Priebus whispering in his ear I feel like it's starting to get more important to distinguish far-right from alt-right. I'm not sure how ideologically consistent the alt-right is since they define themselves much more in terms of what they're against than what they're for; but outside of identity politics and related issues such as immigration their views seem to tend towards libertarianism, being against government prohibitions on anything including discrimination. A libertarian justice could thread the needle much easier since they already view equal protection laws with suspicion. I'm not sure where you'd fine one in the existing judiciary though. Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Chuu posted:A libertarian justice could thread the needle much easier since they already view equal protection laws with suspicion. I'm not sure where you'd fine one in the existing judiciary though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Now that we got Trump as president with Bannon and Priebus whispering in his ear I feel like it's starting to get more important to distinguish far-right from alt-right. I'm not sure how ideologically consistent the alt-right is since they define themselves much more in terms of what they're against than what they're for; but outside of identity politics and related issues such as immigration their views seem to tend towards libertarianism, being against government prohibitions on anything including discrimination. Except the GOP's far right is authoritarian, not libertarian. They are also 100% ok with discrimination, they just let "states decide" and
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Except the GOP's far right is authoritarian, not libertarian. They are also 100% ok with discrimination, they just let "states decide" and It's this. They don't want Roe v. Wade overturned in the sense that states will be able to decide, they want abortion outlawed at the federal level. They don't want states' rights, they want a specific brand of authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Except the GOP's far right is authoritarian, not libertarian. They are also 100% ok with discrimination, they just let "states decide" and And Trump only believes in Trump so obviously he'll nominate his 79 year old Clinton appointed sister.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And Trump only believes in Trump so obviously he'll nominate his 79 year old Clinton appointed sister. I can live with his sister on the court. He won't do that though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:It's this. They don't want Roe v. Wade overturned in the sense that states will be able to decide, they want abortion outlawed at the federal level. They don't want states' rights, they want a specific brand of authoritarianism. Basically, state's rights don't exist for vices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
duz posted:Basically, state's rights don't exist for vices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Except when they decide to legalize the vices. I'm talking from the Republican position. They've already mentioned enforcing the drug laws again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And Trump only believes in Trump so obviously he'll nominate his 79 year old Clinton appointed sister. I never knew I wanted this until now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Except when they decide to legalize the vices. It's not entirely out of reason for Republicans to look for a way to squeeze around that little issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And Trump only believes in Trump so obviously he'll nominate his 79 year old Clinton appointed sister. I think this might actually piss off the GOP more than if he'd do something like re-nominate Garland. Neither will happen, but I'd love to see it and the fallout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
His son-in-law Jared Kushner has a legal degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Reminder that, according to Thomas, the 20th century is full of dangerous and overreaching precedent. I'd rather have Clarence Thomas 2: Clarence Thomaser (...how?), than a Scalia or Alito clone. In the Alito case it would even lead to reliably better policy outcomes because Alito is horrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, that's why I posed the question. I mean, if you don't actually believe that 'legal precedent' means anything past the Constitution*, welp... How DO you thread that needle, exactly? It seems like you need to nominate thoughtful justices that actually care at least a little bit about conventional jurisprudence. There are very few if any legal minds of Supreme Court caliber that don't believe in Stare Decisis. They definitely believe various rulings were made wrongly, but they will either chip away at those rulings or find a different justification to explain away the difference in ruling. None of them are going to get on the bench and just wipe out Roe with a legalistic nuke. poo poo like Dred Scott never actually got overturned, and everyone agrees it was wrong. Another anti-abortion judge will find new ways to kill Roe, not just write it out of existence off hand. It'd be something like the bullshit medical "safety" limitations on abortion clinics that Texas and other such states were trying to push last year or the year before. Roe will still be law, it'll just be amended to death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think there's a danger from Trump (Or Pence through Trump) just appointing a Liberty graduate to the SC simply because, yes that guy (probably won't be a girl) will probably vote horribly each and every time but they won't be able to pull anyone else to their side. They'd probably be less successful than Thomas, they'd be far less damaging than Scalia and probably less damaging than another Roberts type appointment. The real danger lies in them getting 3 appointments (i.e. RBG and Kennedy as well) where even if their crazy conservative judges can't persuade anyone else they've managed to create their own bloc vote and all it takes is Thomas and one other judge joining the majority (with some additional commentary on how this totally isn't as insane as the majority opinion says).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections? "Who gives a poo poo about the optics of putting a white establishment politician at the helm", says person who wasn't around for the 2016 Presidential elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Supreme Court caliber If you think the GOP gives one gently caress about someone's mental capacity to serve on SCOTUS right now, then I think you're being naive. Decorum is dead, over, gone. They don't have to pretend anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections? Like I'm not suggesting that the guy should be automatically disqualified or anything, but the world and how campaigns are run have changed quite a bit from 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:His son-in-law Jared Kushner has a legal degree. Pretty sure you don't actually need to have a law degree to serve on the Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections? the Clintons had a pretty good strategy in 1992
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections? Dean can still work with Ellison despite not being the head of the DNC. It's not like head of the DNC is the only position Dean could be hired for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:If you think the GOP gives one gently caress about someone's mental capacity to serve on SCOTUS right now, then I think you're being naive. Decorum is dead, over, gone. They don't have to pretend anymore. Associate Justice Miers would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Associate Justice Miers would disagree. Ah, memories. http://stillangryblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/et-tu-w.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Associate Justice Miers would disagree. We'll have to see whether nothing truly matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We'll have to see whether nothing truly matters. A serial sexual predator reality TV show host will be President and the Senate just blocked a SCOTUS nominee for an entire year with no discernible cause or negative political consequences for their Party. As it turns out, nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Pretty sure you don't actually need to have a law degree to serve on the Supreme Court True, just like you technically don't need to be a priest to be Pope. It's been awhile since anybody cashed either of those checks, but this year who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:True, just like you technically don't need to be a priest to be Pope. It's been awhile since anybody cashed either of those checks, but this year who knows. Ain't no rule says a dog can't be on the court. Coming this spring, Judge Bud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:True, just like you technically don't need to be a priest to be Pope. It's been awhile since anybody cashed either of those checks, but this year who knows. But the Pope is selected by a group of cardinals, and the supreme court by Donald Trump and his self-selected advisors. Maybe the best case scenario is the Senate rejecting Trump's nomination of his wife, and he gets so mad he nominates an endless string of RBG Jr's out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:His son-in-law Jared Kushner has a legal degree. I'm seriously interested to see if Trump pardon's Kushner's dad. Kushner loving hates Chris Christie for prosecuting his dad too. Unzip and Attack posted:If you think the GOP gives one gently caress about someone's mental capacity to serve on SCOTUS right now, then I think you're being naive. Decorum is dead, over, gone. They don't have to pretend anymore. If we get another Harriet Miers situation the GOP might reject the pick simply because "this person is on are team... for now, and they're dangerously stupid so we can't trust them" will be probably the only thing that'd make the GOP not go lockstep behind Trump's pick. The GOP knows they don't have to settle for some half-assed conservative and considering Bannon is going to be the guy whispering in Trump's ear the most often, we should probably hope that his pick isn't someone who believes Dred Scott was a good decision. They sure as poo poo aren't going to just accept the first person Trump names if it's some toady idiot Trump is trying to gift with a SCOTUS seat. He said he'd pick someone from the Heritage Foundation's list of judges and they're going to expect a pick of that kind. Re-nominated Garland is probably the worst case scenario for them simply because they cannot win in that case. They either defy Trump or they defy the white wing base. Trump isn't going to give Garland the nod though, despite the fact it'd be a seriously ballsy "I'm a Uniter" move to try and pull off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
e: dumb edit not quote argh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 23:23
|
|