|
I think Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided, but the thing about revisiting Supreme Court decisions is that you need a new case. Trump is the first president in a long time who might do that.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:I think Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided, but the thing about revisiting Supreme Court decisions is that you need a new case. Watch, the court he'll have will rule so narrowly we'll have to rename the Planck Length the Roberts Width, and then they'll tack a "no precedent!" tail on it to make sure everyone needs to sue separately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I think Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided, but the thing about revisiting Supreme Court decisions is that you need a new case. If his appointment s are consistent with his governance, Korematsu might get confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If his appointment s are consistent with his governance, Korematsu might get confirmed. Unless Trump gets to replace everyone except Alito, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
lol @ Gorsuch being right of Alito just not true in any sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
So Virginia finally filed a motion to show cause and contempt for the feds not following the stay. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/826989984288800770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Watch, the court he'll have will rule so narrowly we'll have to rename the Planck Length the Roberts Width, and then they'll tack a "no precedent!" tail on it to make sure everyone needs to sue separately. Ah, the O'Connor Gambit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MariaSohn1/status/827018316917121024
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Daily mail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Javid posted:Daily mail. Well, yeah. They know all about fascism. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Javid posted:Daily mail. Is someone upset over them May meeting or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Hopefully someone more reputable will try and get in touch with the dude they got the yearbook photos from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So Virginia finally filed a motion to show cause and contempt for the feds not following the stay. Even if it's approved, I wonder if the US Marshalls will actually loving do something about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
JHomer722 posted:Even if it's approved, I wonder if the US Marshalls will actually loving do something about it VitalSigns posted:Wasn't drawing up a list of Supreme Court cases to revisit one of the biggest pitches of the right's campaign this cycle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Nah, the right wing and Mitch McConnell were the ones who decided to treat SCOTUS vacancies that way chief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actually arresting other federal LEOs or taking people from their custody by force is probably the last thing the rank-and-file Deputy Marshals want to do. I image they will work pretty hard to avoid it. Don't really care whether they want to do it or not it's their job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
collegerepublicans.jpg
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:lol @ Gorsuch being right of Alito https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-trump/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I think Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided, but the thing about revisiting Supreme Court decisions is that you need a new case. I suspect it will be cited sooner rather than later. Any reason to believe it's not still good law? I'm pretty confident in three votes to keep it and reasonably confident in a fourth at least. Of course, if you ignore court orders none of that matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Now we know why President Bannon likes him. Javid posted:Daily mail. You think they forged his yearbook?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:You think they forged his yearbook? It's still the Daily Mail, if it's real someone respectable will perform due diligence and then report it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't really care whether they want to do it or not it's their job. Yeah, and it's the job of the EPA to faithfully follow the orders of the executive to assist in their own destruction, but in both cases, career bureaucrats are going to drag their feet as long as possible to avoid what they see as a huge mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, and it's the job of the EPA to faithfully follow the orders of the executive to assist in their own destruction, but in both cases, career bureaucrats are going to drag their feet as long as possible to avoid what they see as a huge mistake. The originating account has since protected his tweets, but you can see a political science professor casting doubt on the idea that the bureaucracy will actually have as much impact as you might hope. https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/827184371136393216
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
That certainly is a wrong line graph and is terrible shorthand when we have actual voting records to compare rather than "who nominated the guy." Here's the methodology for that line graph: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-nominee-will-alter-the-supreme-court/ posted:We can glimpse the possible futures of the court using one such approach, “judicial common space” scores, developed by Lee Epstein, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, and several co-authors. These measures — offspring of Martin-Quinn scores for the Supreme Court and DW-Nominate scores for legislatures — use the ideologies of the nominating president and the judge’s home-state senators to triangulate a judge’s ideology. The latter is included as a nod to the norm of “senatorial courtesy” — the tacit agreement that other senators not support a nominee who is opposed by senators from the nominee’s state.1 The higher the number, the more conservative the judge. (These measures aren’t perfect, of course, and there have been ideological surprises in the past. Justice David Souter, a reliably liberal voter, was appointed by President George H. W. Bush.) Using actual votes in previous cases, Gorsuch is not to the right of Alito (nor is Gorsuch a liberal; he's basically a Scalia clone, and Scalia was better than Alito). Pick any position, and Alito is conservative on it. Not principled, small-r republican conservative; as in, what partisan conservatives would want. This is known. Just off the top of my head, based on what limited information we have about his voting history, Gorsuch is to the left of Alito on Fourth Amendment and vagueness criminal statutes. Gorsuch also would reach "liberal" decisions in protecting non-Christian practices by prisoners (liberal in scare quotes because I don't know how this falls on the left/right divide, but it's something Alito would not be in favor of because prisoners are bad guys). Gorsuch is not to the right of Alito. Gorsuch would probably vote alongside Alito in a lot of cases. Gorsuch would also break from Alito to vote in favor of liberal results in some cases. I haven't read anywhere of an area of law that Gorsuch would break from Alito to cast a more conservative vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:That certainly is a wrong line graph and is terrible shorthand when we have actual voting records to compare rather than "who nominated the guy." He's way out of the mainstream of where public opinion is on basically every issue. (Not to say Alito isn't too)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
How are you distinguishing "out of the mainstream" with "overall conservative"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How are you distinguishing "out of the mainstream" with "overall conservative"? He's far to the right of even your median republican voter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
I haven't read anything backing up that accusation. He's just conservative. Is there anything in particular you're thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:That certainly is a wrong line graph and is terrible shorthand when we have actual voting records to compare rather than "who nominated the guy." Eliminating Chevron deference during a republican administration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Doesn't that suggest both things: eliminating deference (executive-with-smaller-power conservative position) during a crazy Republican's tenure (liberal-favoring results)? (I'm not sure which one you're pointing to.) By way of comparison, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Alito suddenly thinks agencies should have all the deference in the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
An anti-Chevron ruling during Trump would be yuuuuuge for the Dems if they don't completely gently caress up 2018 (they will).esquilax posted:Eliminating Chevron deference during a republican administration? Gorsuch's ruling on the topic was to prevent an immigrant who had overstayed their visa, hadn't committed any crimes, and was about to naturalize through an exception explicitly laid out in the law from being screwed over by the AG, yes. Your team doesn't have a lock on separation of powers. http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/01/gorsuch-defends-illegal-immigrants-right
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Gorsuch would be more likely to eliminate deference, which is the more conservative legal position (even if it does lead to liberal results in the short term) From what I've read, Alito was very pro deference during the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're the one that argued that we need to totally abandon the idea of appointing experienced, moderate jurists and treat Supreme Court vacancies like snap elections for a nine member Senate with lifetime terms, so I honestly have no idea what your point is. Nah, I argued opposite: that Ginsberg or Breyer are experienced jurists, and there's nothing wrong with a president appointing someone with a similar judicial philosophy to one of them, even if you personally don't like some of their rulings. But nuance is lost on the deliberately obtuse. Anyway my point here is: given the Republican candidates were promising to overturn specific rulings by hook or by crook (Roe, Obergefell), it's unlikely that the people voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court were concerned with appointing experienced, moderate jurists with a respect for stare decisis and deference to mainstream American opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So Virginia finally filed a motion to show cause and contempt for the feds not following the stay. Hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/virginia-trump-contempt_us_5892bb6ae4b070cf8b80b621
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
So what kind of a stick does a district court have to beat the president with over contempt? Like I get that they can order agencies to stop doing something, but it's not like they can have him arrested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Javid posted:So what kind of a stick does a district court have to beat the president with over contempt? It eventually gets to the supreme court and if he still refuses its up to congress to impeach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It eventually gets to the supreme court and if he still refuses its up to congress to impeach. It would be pretty funny if the court orders the US's assets frozen until it complies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Frankly I don't think assets would be the only thing getting put on ice if it went that far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
Javid posted:So what kind of a stick does a district court have to beat the president with over contempt? I think judges can levy fines against police and US attorneys in similar contempt circumstances if they're being particularly uncooperative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:34
|
|
