|
hobbesmaster posted:We'll have to see whether nothing truly matters. Having already been "burned" by picks before, the Senate is going to demand sufficient proof of ideological purity. Which means the pick has to be someone on list of approved judges who have adequately proven their hatred for all that is good. Harriet Miers wasn't DOA because she was an idiot and Bush toadie. She was nixed because there was no paper trail to prove she also wasn't a stealth impure thinker. Being an idiot and a toadie was just the easy reason to give to deny the appointment.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
I think Trump's sister has functionally already retired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think Trump's sister has functionally already retired. Senior status judges work, they just get to pick and choose what they do usually so they work less
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think Trump's sister has functionally already retired. So you're saying she'd be a modern day Cincinnatus, coming back to serve her country. Truly, there is nothing the Trump family won't sacrifice for this nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Comedy option: Trump’s sister serves for three and one half years, resigns in 2020 so it can be an election issue again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Is there any reason not to think Trump will just follow through with the list he put out weeks ago? They're mostly private midwestern law school graduates on state supreme courts, which is a bit of a departure from orthodoxy, but a long jump from immediate family.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted: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. It would be hilarious if he did this just out of sheer laziness and not giving a poo poo. "Didn't you guys have someone in the pipeline already? I just found out I have to restaff the whole White House! Just use that guy and leave me alone!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
clockworx posted:It would be hilarious if he did this just out of sheer laziness and not giving a poo poo. It's the only reason I could see him doing so, but even then all Pence and others have to do is say something along the lines of "hey Donald we made this list for you." *one week later* "Ok Donald just announce this person's name as your official pick and then once you do that we'll get your next rally planned." Even if Obama is actually going to be helping Trump more than outgoing presidents normally help their successor I can't see him managing to convince Trump to do anything unless Obama's the last person to speak with Trump before Trump goes and announces his decision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's the only reason I could see him doing so, but even then all Pence and others have to do is say something along the lines of "hey Donald we made this list for you." *one week later* "Ok Donald just announce this person's name as your official pick and then once you do that we'll get your next rally planned." I guarantee you Obama will do everything in his power to try and make sure that he is. I would genuinely watch the Obama-Trump sitcom, it'd be thoroughly hilarious watching an elder statesman bury his horror at his puerile, moronic successor as he mentors him through the hardest job in the world, if it weren't the actual thing that is happening right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is there any reason not to think Trump will just follow through with the list he put out weeks ago? They're mostly private midwestern law school graduates on state supreme courts, which is a bit of a departure from orthodoxy, but a long jump from immediate family.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is there any reason not to think Trump will just follow through with the list he put out weeks ago? There's always reason not to think Trump will follow through on things he says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm seriously interested to see if Trump pardon's Kushner's dad. Kushner loving hates Chris Christie for prosecuting his dad too. Kushner seems to be purging Trump's transition team of any and all ties to Christie. He fired two more today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Martian Manfucker posted:Kushner seems to be purging Trump's transition team of any and all ties to Christie. He fired two more today. Hopefully purging New Jersey of any and all ties with Christie is next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
clockworx posted:It would be hilarious if he did this just out of sheer laziness and not giving a poo poo. The lazy choice would be to leave SCOTUS at 8... ... which wouldn't be that bad, imho. Effectively, SCOTUS could still fix the clear mistakes, but couldn't muck around in anything controversial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
What are the chances we see a follow up to Korematsu in the next four years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:What are the chances we see a follow up to Korematsu in the next four years?  dont ask this question...except do. gently caress. Why are we living in a time when it is not entirely loving outrageous at face value to ask this question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
The day we see a follow up to Korematsu is the day I get my antifa on. Scratch that. The day I spend the entire day getting my antifa on. I'm ready to bash the fash as-is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:The lazy choice would be to leave SCOTUS at 8... The problem I can see with that is a circuit court could come up with a decision that should be reviewed by the SC, for example Roe, but the SC throws up it's hands 4-4 and says "too hard for us, let the State ruling hold for now."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
chyaroh posted:The problem I can see with that is a circuit court could come up with a decision that should be reviewed by the SC, for example Roe, but the SC throws up it's hands 4-4 and says "too hard for us, let the State ruling hold for now." There are still a couple limiting factors: 1) you can't push too far or it becomes a 5-3 issue, not 4-4; and 2) it's only controlling authority in that circuit. Factor 2) is interesting - I could see one circuit pushing on Roe and another pushing on Heller / Citizens United. We end up with something that looks like federalism, bounded by the need to get 4 votes. The bigger issue, imho, is what we do when the next justice dies. Or moves to New Zealand, as promised. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EW/status/799083255282679808 https://twitter.com/BlitznBeans/status/799084081459830784
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I think I have identified the next opinion most likely to be reversed by the Trump SCOTUS.quote:Federal judges struck down Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative districts as unconstitutional on Monday, marking a victory for minority Democrats that could force the Legislature to redraw the maps. http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Whitford%20v.%20Gill%20Opinion.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I think I have identified the next opinion most likely to be reversed by the Trump SCOTUS. They'll also get to hear the lawsuits against NC. The next 4-8 years of Trump are going to do untold damage for decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Can we wait until one of the liberal justices actually dies or resigns before panicking about Trump's SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can we wait until one of the liberal justices actually dies or resigns before panicking about Trump's SCOTUS? Just having that 5th conservative justice is going to cause a lot of problems. Kennedy will certainly not sign on to the end of Roe or anything, but he's awful on labor rights and a lot of other things that will certainly be challenged shortly by those trying to undo the social safety net and rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can we wait until one of the liberal justices actually dies or resigns before panicking about Trump's SCOTUS? The court has been doing an enormous amount of damage since O'Connor retired, so I don't see why that would be necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Five conservative justices gutted the VRA in Shelby County and there's no reason to assume trump will nominate a liberal judge. Trump's nominee will be at least as conservative as Scalia. There's a perfectly valid reason to worry about how the Supreme Court rules on gerrymandering, and it's unlikely the Court gets 5 liberal justices soon to overturn that hypothetical ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The court has been doing an enormous amount of damage since O'Connor retired, so I don't see why that would be necessary. Didn't she end up not being able to spend any quality time with her husband in the end? I wonder how much she regrets stepping down now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Five conservative justices gutted the VRA in Shelby County and there's no reason to assume trump will nominate a liberal judge. Trump's nominee will be at least as conservative as Scalia. It's not hypothetical, NC (and now WI) have had their gerrymandering challenged in courts and WI just lost and yes they're absolutely going to appeal. A Clinton pick could've meant an end to Gerrymandering, or at least some restrictions on the hilariously blatant poo poo going on in some states. Instead we're going to get a ruling of "lol nah it's totes legit for the party in power to effectively nullify the majority of a state's voters through carefully rigged layouts oh and the rest of the VRA is trash and nullified now as well."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Any chance at all that Kennedy wants to be on the right side of history here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's not hypothetical, NC (and now WI) have had their gerrymandering challenged in courts and WI just lost and yes they're absolutely going to appeal. A Clinton pick could've meant an end to Gerrymandering, or at least some restrictions on the hilariously blatant poo poo going on in some states. Instead we're going to get a ruling of "lol nah it's totes legit for the party in power to effectively nullify the majority of a state's voters through carefully rigged layouts oh and the rest of the VRA is trash and nullified now as well." Well, iirc, the NC one was pretty bad, with the government asking for data specifically on African Americans then using that to screw them. If it's as blatant as that, it might not get 5 conservatives. I dunno about Wisconsin or what it's like. That's why I said hypothetical. I don't think a Hillary pick would have necessarily ended gerrymandering. It's been before the court before, and the main issue is they can't get consensus on what scrutiny to apply to it. However A Hillary pick prolly would be more likely to limit Partisan gerrymandering that is racial gerrymandering in everything but name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Goddammit, every time I think I can get through the day without feeling abject despair, I think of SCOTUS and how we were on the verge of enormous social progress, that polls all showed we were going to get those crucial victories, and then SURPRISE we get decades of regression instead. gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Goddammit, every time I think I can get through the day without feeling abject despair, I think of SCOTUS and how we were on the verge of enormous social progress, that polls all showed we were going to get those crucial victories, and then SURPRISE we get decades of regression instead. Don't do this to yourself. It's over and we need to deal with the reality that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Didn't she end up not being able to spend any quality time with her husband in the end? I wonder how much she regrets stepping down now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Well, iirc, the NC one was pretty bad, with the government asking for data specifically on African Americans then using that to screw them. If it's as blatant as that, it might not get 5 conservatives. I dunno about Wisconsin or what it's like. That's why I said hypothetical. The NC case will hinge on Kennedy (because I can't imagine Trump's pick will give a poo poo about voting rights or dislike Gerrymandering) but I don't believe for a second that Roberts, Thomas, or even Alito give a poo poo about how bad it is. Roberts hates the VRA and there's no way he didn't see this sort of thing happening when the VRA was gutted. Like, the idea we'd see the SCOTUS rule against NC or Roberts write anything even remotely close to "we declared racism was over, clearly we were wrong" is unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Goddammit, every time I think I can get through the day without feeling abject despair, I think of SCOTUS and how we were on the verge of enormous social progress, that polls all showed we were going to get those crucial victories, and then SURPRISE we get decades of regression instead. The GOP would've continued to block appointments under Clinton. If you don't think they would have and could have and that they could've got away with it, you don't understand the GOP. We weren't all that close to any kind of progress; the idea that we were was just something to motivate Clinton voters. All of these systems and processes we take for granted were made by men, and so can they be unmade. "Well, a 3/4/5 person court is fine!" The media would play along, craven cowards they are. Trump, or a Trump-a-like was inevitable given decades of neoliberalism and the bought-and-paid-for DNC. We got lucky with Obama; he's an extraordinary man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Hey, at least Arizona's (and, by proxy, California's) non-partisan redistricting scheme cleared the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Hey, at least Arizona's (and, by proxy, California's) non-partisan redistricting scheme cleared the Supreme Court. The original referendum didn't have this feature, and thus was opposed by state democrats (particularly Nancy Pelosi) - it narrowly failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
drat, I had already managed to forget there was already that one voting lawsuit against NC, I was already thinking about the pending second lawsuit that'll probably happen when the NC legislature installs McCrory for a second term even though he got thousands of votes less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Note that California's scheme exempts congressional districts from the non-partisan rules, which are instead drawn by California's democratic supermajority legislature. That was true until Prop 20 passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can we wait until one of the liberal justices actually dies or resigns before panicking about Trump's SCOTUS? No. Actuarial tables give even odds to the death of a liberal justice. We could adjust that slightly downwards for wealth, but RBG has had cancer twice, and that alone pushes it back up. And remember what Trump’s odds of election were? Sometimes stuff is worth worrying about beforehand. Kennedy as the “swing” vote is bad enough. Even a dead conservative is bad for the composition of the court at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 08:41
|
|