|
VitalSigns posted:If true, then the filibuster is worthless so best to make the Republicans get rid of it now rather than hand-wring about tradition and consensus and bipartisanship next time Democrats control congress. I kinda hope they do nuke the filibuster from orbit. It will be nice for those "but Republicans" Democrats see how stupid their excuses to not just tear up the filibuster and get poo poo done were. Of course the majority of me hopes I become the stupid one when Republicans respect the filibuster and allow Democrats to obstruct their poo poo. But I think the first is far more likely. Although I guess there's always the option that Republicans don't remove the filibuster because Democrats just don't use it anyway.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:honestly tempted to bet money he just nominates his sister Wouldn't his sister legitimately be a better choice than the ones we're down to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Wouldn't his sister legitimately be a better choice than the ones we're down to? Absolutely, plus she's half retired already Hot tip: reporters should ask Trump why he isn't considering his sister
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I kinda hope they do nuke the filibuster from orbit. It will be nice for those "but Republicans" Democrats see how stupid their excuses to not just tear up the filibuster and get poo poo done were. The Dems did tear up the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointments in November 2013 though
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
He'll nominate his daughter so that she's always in town with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Wouldn't the Republicans just go nuclear specifically for the SCOTUS nom and then reinstate the rule? That's what the Dems did after their non-SCOTUS appointments and Trump doesn't get a say in Senate floor rules so cool(er) heads can prevail in closing the nuke option back up again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:23
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Do the Republicans have anything to gain from bringing it back?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
I think the idea is that once it's done once, the dems will just nuke it again when they have the numbers, so it's effectively gone for good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/how-scalia-esque-will-donald-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-be/quote:We have updated the paper in light of recent developments (see pages 12-15). Specifically, the shortlist is now rumored to be down to three names: Gorsuch, Hardiman, and Pryor. We have calculated the likelihood that the potential nominees will be the most Scalia-like of the group, and for comparison’s sake have added data on Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito from their time on the D.C. Circuit and Third Circuit, respectively. We find that Gorsuch (62.2-79.4%) and Pryor (70.5-76.7%) have much higher likelihoods of being the most Scalia-like of the potential nominees than Hardiman (34.8-42.9%). In fact, Hardiman looks more like John Roberts (32.6-33.7%) or Samuel Alito (39.4-52.8%) did when they were federal appellate judges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Apparently the only reason Hardiman's name is being seriously mentioned is because Trump's sister <3's him. It's going to be Hardiman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Apparently the only reason Hardiman's name is being seriously mentioned is because Trump's sister <3's him. I'll goddamn take it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:honestly tempted to bet money he just nominates his sister HIs sister would be fine. She's moderate and old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
If it's Pryor, do you think they'll go with the good old pink triangle patches on our clothing, or will they be a bit more modern and put rainbow patches on us instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:HIs sister would be fine. She's moderate and old. Old part he probably doesn't give a poo poo about. Moderate part he apparently would definitely give a poo poo about since the guiding doctrine I've seen in the week elapsed since inauguration is "what would the most ginormous rear end in a top hat you can possibly conceive of do in this situation?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it's Pryor, do you think they'll go with the good old pink triangle patches on our clothing, or will they be a bit more modern and put rainbow patches on us instead. Probably just shoot you and save the textiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Old part he probably doesn't give a poo poo about. Moderate part he apparently would definitely give a poo poo about since the guiding doctrine I've seen in the week elapsed since inauguration is "what would the most ginormous rear end in a top hat you can possibly conceive of do in this situation?" Giving the job to a family member qualifies for that criteria though
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Old part he probably doesn't give a poo poo about. Moderate part he apparently would definitely give a poo poo about since the guiding doctrine I've seen in the week elapsed since inauguration is "what would the most ginormous rear end in a top hat you can possibly conceive of do in this situation?" He's not making the pick. A few fascist pieces of poo poo from the Federalist Society are. Thats why it's going to be a mid 40s Alito clone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Giving the job to a family member qualifies for that criteria though Nah, being a dick to your moderate family member in order to install an embryonic lich king on the supreme court to be an rear end in a top hat to people for the next two generations is definitely the bigger rear end in a top hat thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
I expect Pryor or the guy who thinks the 4th was a mistake. I also expect the democrats to fully drop the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-nuclear-option-234221quote:"Leader McConnell's been pretty forthright that the Supreme Court nominee would be confirmed. But obviously, we'd hope to do that by appealing to the better angels of the Democrats," said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). LOL Agnosticnixie posted:I expect Pryor or the guy who thinks the 4th was a mistake. If a Trump SCOTUS Nominee gets 60 votes in the Senate the Democratic party should be disbanded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If a Trump SCOTUS Nominee gets 60 votes in the Senate the Democratic party should be disbanded. Fired, out of a cannon Also by better angels they mean Feinstein, Manchin or Tester
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
I get the heebie jeebies when I see congressmen given the title "leader." Sounds Orwellian to me. Might exist in some style book but it sounds so wrong to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I get the heebie jeebies when I see congressmen given the title "leader." Sounds Orwellian to me. Might exist in some style book but it sounds so wrong to me. It also sort of exists in Congressional structure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
He's saving his sister for when rbg dies so he can replace a woman with a woman, duh. It'll be her or Sarah Palin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Javid posted:He's saving his sister for when rbg dies so he can replace a woman with a woman, duh. It'll be her or Sarah Palin. I herd that the reason Scalia Died wuz cuz RBG stole his phylactory and is using it to make herself immortal ...one can only hope
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I herd that the reason Scalia Died wuz cuz RBG stole his phylactory and is using it to make herself immortal She wouldn't do that to a friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:She wouldn't do that to a friend Best way to honor him really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/#q=badass+supreme+court+judge
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/825802250907815936 Rip, Pryor. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Well, small victories
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Well, small victories N10Cocks is completely sincere. And frankly I'll believe hes out of the running when the pick is made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
After this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump listens to Bannon whispering in his ear and goes gently caress IT to nominate Pryor. On Monday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
I've never seen this guy's blog before but he had an interesting take on the airport cases. Anyone have any thoughts on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Blackman is definitely worth following, if you follow legal people on Twitter. That blog post is something of a developing think-piece as he was getting input from outside voices. His ultimate conclusion is pretty solid: quote:In a vacuum, the proper sequencing would be to (1) ascertain who is in custody, (2) file complaints on their behalf, (3) seek injunctive relief on their behalf. Due to the haze of war yesterday, with good reason, the various groups skipped step 1, and filed briefs on behalf of unknown parties. In any event, I am still skeptical that the courts had an adequate justification to grant relief to a putative class here consisting of unnamed members, when the unnamed individuals could have been ascertained given a few more hours. Though, I am not blind to the circumstances of yesterday. People were being detained in violation of the law, and dedicated attorneys were scrambling to draft habeas petitioners, often while sitting on the floors of airports. They should be commended for their valor. This post purely seeks to analyze the procedural issues from an abstract perspective. There's certainly a procedural concern, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. Courts generally have broad equitable powers, and with the defendant(s) brought properly before it, a court should be able to enjoin their actions with regard to the actual plaintiffs and then similar actions against similarly situated individuals--at least on a temporary basis. There's a lot to unpack in this situation, even when taking a step back from it, that would inform a reviewing court's analysis about whether these court orders are valid--separation of powers with the defendants being federal government parties, and the unclean hands notion that the defendants were preventing these other parties from appearing by refusing access to legal representation are the two that come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
So given that this runs afoul of at least the law passed back in 1965, what sort of tortured insanity could we expect to hear from any conservative justice that dissents if this Trump's EO isn't struck down unanimously?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So given that this runs afoul of at least the law passed back in 1965, what sort of tortured insanity could we expect to hear from any conservative justice that dissents if this Trump's EO isn't struck down unanimously? It's not really clear that it does run afoul of the 1965 law; implementation of immigration controls has a massive scope of discretion afforded to the executive. If you're referring to the NYT article on it from yesterday, the article was mostly wishful in that it tried to minimize the scope of the discretion. While the action is far, far broader and obviously really, really dumb, that deference for "procedural" actions in, I forget the language, national interest or what have you, are of the same type as that of past administrations. It may be all the figleaf the administration needs. On the other hand, the discriminatory animus for EP may wind up being provable, just because of how poorly disguised it was. I mean, this page is still up for heaven's sake. People who are competent in setting up a discriminatory law usually make it hard to prove- the standard's pretty high. In this case they were pretty drat explicit about their goals. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So given that this runs afoul of at least the law passed back in 1965, what sort of tortured insanity could we expect to hear from any conservative justice that dissents if this Trump's EO isn't struck down unanimously? Clarence Thomas: Chy Lung vs Freeman (1875) was wrongly decided, the federal government cannot decide immigration law, every state gets to make its own immigration decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Clarence Thomas: Chy Lung vs Freeman (1875) was wrongly decided, the federal government cannot decide immigration law, every state gets to make its own immigration decisions. Isn't this more of a reason the EO should be struck down than it shouldn't? As in, not only does the CBP not have the right detain people under the EO, the CBP doesn't have a constitutional basis to detain anyone under federal law, period? I'm not even how Executive Orders fit into our legal framework. When people are talking about "striking down" an Executive Order what exactly do they mean? Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:On the other hand, the discriminatory animus for EP may wind up being provable, just because of how poorly disguised it was. I mean, this page is still up for heaven's sake. People who are competent in setting up a discriminatory law usually make it hard to prove- the standard's pretty high. In this case they were pretty drat explicit about their goals. I know this is the wrong thread, but having everyone scream that this law is a de-facto Muslim ban pretty much means the administration doesn't have to explicitly say it -- but reap all the rewards from their base that is a fan of the idea. Which means that if/when the courts strike it down it's the perfect lead into the narrative that courts are taking an activist position against the current administrating and need to be curtailed. I can't think of any way this ends well. Every endpoint is either an outright victory by getting a core policy implemented by fiat, or a banner to rally support for some unknown piece of legislation or executive order to highly curtail court power; pre-vetted with whoever their nominee will be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Chuu posted:Isn't this more of a reason the EO should be struck down than it shouldn't? As in, not only does the CBP not have the right detain people under the EO, the CBP doesn't have a constitutional basis to detain anyone under federal law, period? An Executive order directs Federal Agencies how they should enforce legislation on the books. It can even advise them to prioritise or outright ignore enforcement of particular laws. EOs cannot instruct federal agents to carry out acts that are actually forbidden. An EO can be 'struck down' in the sense that if Trump ordered the CBP to forbid entry or exit for all passengers who had the ACLU's website in their browsing history he would be ordering those agents to violate the law. Likewise if he ordered FBI agents to begin conducting financial audits of all citizens they come into contact with it would be (I believe, happy to be corrected) illegal in conducting audits would be outside the scope of the agencies powers. I think that would might be ok if the EO also made all FBI agents also IRS agents and then ordered them to do that (within the legally defined scope of the IRS's powers).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 10:41
|
|
