|
vyelkin posted:I'm surprised that one Alabama judge who keeps getting kicked off the court for putting the Ten Commandments everywhere isn't on the list.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:I'm surprised that one Alabama judge who keeps getting kicked off the court for putting the Ten Commandments everywhere isn't on the list. Moore? I'm pretty sure he's older than most current members of the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Moore? I'm pretty sure he's older than most current members of the SCOTUS. I looked him up and he's 69 (how appropriate), so yeah that's too old for the GOP's purposes of cementing a half-century of regressive judicial bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Clerking for a conservative judge isn't an indicator of anything, plenty of liberal lawyers clerk for them. If you want a Supreme Court clerkship, you're gonna apply for all of them and not turn them down Being floated by the heritage foundation prolly means your a poo poo bag tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Pretty sure He'd never get approved. Never. They hate him too much. If there was some way they could convince him to step down first in exchange for a seat they'd screw him out of it in a second.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Oracle posted:FTFY That would make me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
They would approve Cruz just so they could get the chance to impeach him
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
SCOTX Justice Willet thinks Lochner was Cool and Good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
thecluckmeme posted:If Cruz gets the seat we might see RBG reveal that she's actually another lich as her immortal army rends asunder the floor of the chamber and flays Ted alive during his first session in the grimdark future, ruth bader friggsberg beseeches the faithful to find obaldrma; ted cruz arrives at vígríðr with all hel's people metal af
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Clerking for a conservative judge isn't an indicator of anything, plenty of liberal lawyers clerk for them. If you want a Supreme Court clerkship, you're gonna apply for all of them and not turn them down In the case of Thomas and probably alito they're only picking federalist society true believers. The rest hire (somewhat) more broadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Wasn't it Scalia who specifically slotted one of his spots for an ideological opposite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Wasn't it Scalia who specifically slotted one of his spots for an ideological opposite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Wasn't it Scalia who specifically slotted one of his spots for an ideological opposite? Did he have a memento homo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:In the case of Thomas and probably alito they're only picking federalist society true believers. The rest hire (somewhat) more broadly. I looked at the list of thomas' clerks and there are some well known conservative poo poo heads including John yoo so you're probably right
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
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? dwarf74 posted:So, anyone else listening to the Opening Arguments podcast? Great multi-part series on the Trinity Lutheran case just wrapped up. Forever_Peace posted: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. Reaching way back but thanks, both Amicus and Opening Arguments are top notch podcasts. I only wish there were tons more of Opening Arguments. I'm nearly through them 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Reaching way back but thanks, both Amicus and Opening Arguments are top notch podcasts. I only wish there were tons more of Opening Arguments. I'm nearly through them  And yeah, me too. You can find several pre-OA episodes in the Atheistically Speaking podcast, with Andrew and Thomas talking about the law. You kind of have to hunt for them though. That's where the recent Second Amendment podcasts have come from, but there's more. 225 & 236 are about Scalia and Originalism. 221, 257, & 280 have Andrew, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/garland-nomination-officially-expires/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
 I'm filled with rage at those bastards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
I blame Obama. Within reason. Resurgent nationalism, lack of a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS, I blame him. In the name of bipartisanship, guy squandered a massive opportunity to unfuck Confederateland and secure proper human rights for women & gays and stronger voting rights (VRA federal review, for example) for minorities. [Edit: poo poo, labor. Environment. All of it. We're going to lose progress on all of it.] Fucker wouldn't play hardball with these chucklefucks. This is where we ended up. At some point, even a bipartisan hero needs to realize that poo poo worth fighting for is poo poo worth fighting for. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I blame Obama. Within reason. How exactly could Obama have forced the Senate to confirm anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:How exactly could Obama have forced the Senate to confirm anyone? All you needed was for 9 Republican Senators to suddenly die in mysterious circumstances and Garland would have been set for confirmation. You know, hardball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
How could someone be MORE conservative than Scalia? I don't see how it's going to get any worse than it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I blame Obama. Within reason. There is maybe some truth to the idea that Obama was far too naive in dealing with the GOP, but how could anyone have known that a solid amount of Americans don't care? JUST MAKING CHILI posted:How could someone be MORE conservative than Scalia? I don't see how it's going to get any worse than it was. Isn't Scalia a decent jurist for like, one thing? They could find someone who is not even principled or good for that one thing either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Isn't Scalia a decent jurist for like, one thing? They could find someone who is not even principled or good for that one thing either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:How could someone be MORE conservative than Scalia? I don't see how it's going to get any worse than it was. You're correct that no matter who replaces Scalia it will represent effectively a resumption of the status quo. When you should worry is when one of the liberal justices kicks it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
I got the feeling like Obama felt like he had to toe a gentle line to avoid being seen as an angry black man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:All you needed was for 9 Republican Senators to suddenly die in mysterious circumstances and Garland would have been set for confirmation. Ah yes, the Shonda Rhimes approach to DC politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Isn't Scalia a decent jurist for like, one thing? They could find someone who is not even principled or good for that one thing either. Calling Scalia "principled" is triggering me hard. I'm gonna let somebody else field this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Scalia was an extremely principled jurist who just happened to change principles whenever it was convenient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Obama's going to be lucky if he's viewed as well as Carter. Between his cowardice on things like this and his inability to grasp basic concepts like Republicans loving hate you don't hire/appoint them to government positions like head of the loving FBI he's been the exact mediocrity that one would expect from the Democratic Party. If the positions were flipped and it was a Dem coming in with a unified government we'd have seen some last-second poo poo, like renominating their SCOTUS pick and calling an emergency session of the Senate the second that the outgoing Dems were gone and the GOP had a majority due to the freshmen not being sworn in, and ram the pick through a 30 second confirmation with a "gently caress You This Is My Right" statement. Hopefully the Dems get their poo poo together but I'd sooner bet money on the party's establishment rallying around human garbage like Andrew Cuomo in 2020 and the GOP ending up with super majorities in both chambers, even without the nationwide voter suppression that's going to ramp up as Roberts continues to poo poo on the VRA at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:How exactly could Obama have forced the Senate to confirm anyone? 2013: Obama: "Retire, Ginsburg. We're ahead." Ginsburg: "No." Obama: "Do it." Ginsburg: "No!" Obama: "I'm going to select Kim Wardlaw." Ginsburg: "Okay fine." The above is a fantasy, but tell me with a straight face Ginsburg would not step down under a congressional Dem majority / Dem presidency for someone who repeatedly crusades for the dispossessed from the bench. Maybe this is all fantasy fiction from a furious mind. But if there's a lesson to be had, it's don't settle on loving anything. Fight tooth / nail / claw / bleeding stump on every possible loving thing you can, railroad the poo poo out of the minority as hard as you can when you're in power, and scream and bitch and whine to traditional and social media when they try to stop you because we know that's exactly what the right does, and it looks like it loving works. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obama's going to be lucky if he's viewed as well as Carter. Between his cowardice on things like this and his inability to grasp basic concepts like Republicans loving hate you don't hire/appoint them to government positions like head of the loving FBI he's been the exact mediocrity that one would expect from the Democratic Party. I think Obama didn't realize the depths they would sink, but also that 4 years of Trump will also quite possibly cement Obama as a Democratic Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:All you needed was for 9 Republican Senators to suddenly die in mysterious circumstances and Garland would have been set for confirmation. No, just one, head of the Judiciary Committee so that the nomination could go up to a vote. If it went to a vote, he would've passed, that's why they bottled it in committee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Wasn't RBG originally going to retire in 2016 to make sure a democrat got to nominate her successor? Guessing that went out the window when Scalia died and they went full roadblock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:33
|
|
Potato Salad posted:2013: Indeed, principles are for naive idiots, the only way to do what is right is to use any and every method available to you regardless of what it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Javid posted:Wasn't RBG originally going to retire in 2016 to make sure a democrat got to nominate her successor? Guessing that went out the window when Scalia died and they went full roadblock. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/gail-collins-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-no-interest-in-retiring.html?_r=0 edit: AVeryLargeRadish posted:Indeed, principles are for naive idiots, the only way to do what is right is to use any and every method available to you regardless of what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Interesting. Trump will probably replace her with Sarah Palin when she croaks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
duz posted:No, just one, head of the Judiciary Committee so that the nomination could go up to a vote. If it went to a vote, he would've passed, that's why they bottled it in committee. Ok, so instead of killing 9 senators to gain a majority he needed to keep on killing the head of the judiciary committee until republicans were no longer a majority?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
I'm assuming the new head would care more about their own life than a judicial appointment
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
In addition to a replacement for Scalia likely representing a shift on Fourth Amendment issues, Trump could appoint a Harriet Miers-type idiot. Alternatively, he could appoint someone like Peter Thiel, which will turn previously 9-0 issues into 8-1 issues (not a big problem in itself, but very bad if Trump gets to appoint more of them). I don't think either type of nominee is likely to pass the Senate, though.
Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:30
|
|