|
Since the judges on the court are all pretty much political hacks, what we should be worried about is how they are likely to rule and what outcomes those rulings will have, not arcane legal theory or horseshit about balls and strikes.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:53 |
|
mcmagic posted:Since the judges on the court are all pretty much political hacks, what we should be worried about is how they are likely to rule and what outcomes those rulings will have, not arcane legal theory or horseshit about balls and strikes. The judges on the court aren't all pretty much political hacks. Several of them are insane loons.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The judges on the court aren't all pretty much political hacks. Several of them are insane loons. Which ones?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which ones? The ones who disagree with you on arcane legal theory, of course! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The ones who disagree with you on theory, of course! I still find it disturbing to hear the voices of the Justices. Even when I agree with them, the idea that my constitutional rights are ultimately defined by basically* my grandparents makes me very nervous. *This was more true when I first realized the problem. Now that I'm older, it's more like the generation between my parents and grandparents. ulmont fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
This is the thread where we were discussing interesting case names, right? I give you: PEOPLE V. ANONYMOUS FEMALE
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
It's not just the title, either, the opinion itself is terrific too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Everyone knows in rem actions have the best names. United States of America v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's not just the title, either, the opinion itself is terrific too. Seconded. KernelSlanders posted:Everyone knows in rem actions have the best names. Sharkfins still wins that category, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:22
|
|
quote:This case is before me on several recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, and related objections thereto, as well as un-referred motions currently pending before me in this matter. Off to a strong start.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
quote:Plaintiff's council is hereby ORDERED to familiarize himself with civil local rules, general orders regarding electronic filing procedure, and to submit a declaration within ten days hereof declaring that he has done so. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Off to a strong start. Some comlaw professor out there somewhere is asking 1Ls if there's a property interest in a tree business license Also quote:My de novo review reveals that there is clearly a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Fortner is a convicted sex offender. quote:One or more Your honor, I watched the video in question several times EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Unusual spelling mistake for a judge to make, he or she must have really been on tilt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
This would be a decent time to hammer Susan Collins, Flake, Heller and Merkowski with calls telling them not to go nuclear on the stolen SCOTUS seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
I wonder if this will be effective or not: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-will-target-democrats-who-vote-against-gorsuch/article/2618235 IIRC there's 12 Dem senators from states that went for Trump and a few of them have NRA A-ratings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:47
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326435-dem-leaders-give-centrists-space-on-gorsuchquote:Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch despite strong pressure from the liberal base to sink President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
McCaskill said in private what she says in public, news at 11quote:“The Gorsuch situation is really hard. There are going to be people in this room that are going to say, ‘No, no, no. You cannot vote for Gorsuch,’ ” McCaskill said in the recording. “Let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that we turn down Gorsuch, that there are not eight Democrats that vote to confirm him and therefore there’s not enough to put him on the Supreme Court. What then?”
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Dems are never going to learn
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
"look at these scars" she says pointing to the yellow stripe down her back
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
You can kind of see her point. They can fight and lose now or they can throw it this time so that they have the ability to lose in the future. It's important to show powerlessness at the right time. When you think about it, when RBGs replacement comes up you might not want to lose then either. The allure of future opportunities to fail is very strong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Because pushing the fight back means it totally won't loving happen anyways, how are they so loving stupid and spineless. Maybe if we let this one through if Ruth dies they'll be nice and pick a liberal judge we like! loving idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I can see the tactical play here but strategically, if their position is that Obama was wrongly denied an appointment (that is that denying him a hearing was a legal but illegitimate tactic) then any approval for another appointment is a tacit renunciation of that claim. By voting for Gorsuch to have a hearing without one on garland first they are acknowledging what happened as a legitimate tactic. So i guess it's a question not just of whether dems will be in a position to use it but whether they think it's something that should be left in place so that it can be used by either side in the future, that it contributes to a well functioning system of government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I can see the tactical play here but strategically, if their position is that Obama was wrongly denied an appointment (that is that denying him a hearing was a legal but illegitimate tactic) then any approval for another appointment is a tacit renunciation of that claim. By voting for Gorsuch to have a hearing without one on garland first they are acknowledging what happened as a legitimate tactic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:This doesn't make any sense. Even ignoring the obvious bad outcome that this strategy demands Senators vote against good nominees (supposing Trump accidentally nominated someone good) who aren't specifically named Garland. How is this supposed to scale? Do we have to wait for Garland to die before we can start voting on Supreme Court nominees other than Garland? If Trump nominates a judge that Dems like more than they liked Garland, then there wouldn't be any problems with Dems voting for that nominee. But there's no need to worry about that, because if the GOP thought a nominee to the left of Garland was acceptable, then they wouldn't have blocked Garland in the first place. When Republicans thought Hillary was going to win, they insisted that not only would they prevent Obama from appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but they would do all they could to prevent Hillary from nominating one too. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's way too late to get concerned about the sanctity of the Supreme Court and Senate traditions of bipartisanship. The Supreme Court nomination process is already broken, and it can't be put back together again - particularly when Republicans still insist even now that what they did was justified and refuse to offer up even the slightest hint of compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I can see the tactical play here but strategically, if their position is that Obama was wrongly denied an appointment (that is that denying him a hearing was a legal but illegitimate tactic) then any approval for another appointment is a tacit renunciation of that claim. By voting for Gorsuch to have a hearing without one on garland first they are acknowledging what happened as a legitimate tactic. If the minority party doesn't feel it can use a well established procedure because it can revoked on a whim, what value is that procedure and how does it promote government functionality? The Democrats didn't want to use it themselves for fear of the tables turning and now they're in as much risk as if they had. Paralyzed because the filibuster has no power for the minority party. What are they saving it for? The theoretical next nominee is a monster and they filibuster him and it just gets taken away then. Are there even any ramifications for that? "The Obstructionist Party won't let the government work after this tragedy/retirement/, so we were forced to. Because we're the party that governs." At least lose the ability on an easy to grasp concept like protesting the year long abduction if Scalia's seat. I hate 2017
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I can see the tactical play here but strategically, if their position is that Obama was wrongly denied an appointment (that is that denying him a hearing was a legal but illegitimate tactic) then any approval for another appointment is a tacit renunciation of that claim. By voting for Gorsuch to have a hearing without one on garland first they are acknowledging what happened as a legitimate tactic. The entire strategy rests on the assumption that either dems retake the senate before the next liberal justice dies or that the republicans for some reason decide not to kill the filibuster when they have a chance to shift the balance of the court. Both of those are very weak assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Trump nominates a judge that Dems like more than they liked Garland, then there wouldn't be any problems with Dems voting for that nominee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
If we assume the filibuster has a 0% chance of success and a 100% chance it'll be removed once it's done, it's a one-shot publicity stunt and probably best used for the worst possible nomination. Replacing Scalia with Scalia 2.0 isn't that. In 2019 when RBG dies and Trump nominates Sarah Palin, that's the hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:This doesn't make any sense. Even ignoring the obvious bad outcome that this strategy demands Senators vote against good nominees (supposing Trump accidentally nominated someone good) who aren't specifically named Garland. How is this supposed to scale? Do we have to wait for Garland to die before we can start voting on Supreme Court nominees other than Garland? You know what? I'd be willing to make an exception if they could get the support of the president who had been denied. In that case though there wouldn't have been any point in performing that kind of obstruction in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Seems eminently reasonable to me. I'd rather Gorsuch than just about anyone else the Republicans could nominate. He's qualified, not a raving ideologue and that's about as good as we can get from the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 03:48
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:not a raving ideologue disagree, but The Iron Rose posted:about as good as we can get from the Republican Party. agree I still think the Democrats should filibuster because the seat was Obama's to appoint and pretending otherwise is destructive to constitutional norms. With luck, we filibuster long enough to hit impeachment hearings on Donaldus, and then the whole presidency is delegitimized and we don't have to consider further nominees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:disagree, but Since Trump is barely nominating anyone or appointing anything, and is already at historic lows in polls... One finger on the monkey's paw curls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Since Trump is barely nominating anyone or appointing anything, and is already at historic lows in polls... One finger on the monkey's paw curls. Well, yeah, I mean. . Pence is not going to appoint anyone better. Still though some fights have to be fought even when you know there's no chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Seems eminently reasonable to me. I'd rather Gorsuch than just about anyone else the Republicans could nominate. He's qualified, not a raving ideologue and that's about as good as we can get from the Republican Party. The Republican Party can do a lot better, they just don't want to because they're about as willing to compromise on Supreme Court appointments as they are on healthcare. This "well, Gorsuch is only a little to the right of Scalia, he's the best we could possibly hope for and we should be grateful for it" narrative is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
There's also the idea that showing the Democrats actually have a spine and are willing to fight for things they think are important could actually help them in both the short- and long-term, rather than demonstrating once again that while they might tut-tut and shake their heads disapprovingly, in the end they'll let the Republicans get away with murder as long as it makes them look like the grownups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:disagree, but Yes well known political moderate Mike Pence will not just find a bunch of Alito clones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Yes well known political moderate Mike Pence will not just find a bunch of Alito clones. lmao if you think Mike Pence is getting anything done in a world where Trump is successfully impeached. he'll be the lamest duck to ever duck
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:lmao if you think Mike Pence is getting anything done in a world where Trump is successfully impeached. he'll be the lamest duck to ever duck If they do get Trump you're looking at President Pence in a scandal ridden office with a fractured party apparatus and zero faculty, since all of Trump's choices will loving leave as soon as he goes down (bar a few of the cabinet picks who won't leave). He will have no mandate. I'm curious who he would get stuck with as a VP. Probably one of the big Dems to counter his positions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:If the minority party doesn't feel it can use a well established procedure because it can revoked on a whim, what value is that procedure and how does it promote government functionality? The Democrats didn't want to use it themselves for fear of the tables turning and now they're in as much risk as if they had. Paralyzed because the filibuster has no power for the minority party. Because it won't be revoked on a whim? It would be revoked for someone like gorsuch, sure. But McConnell is clearly very reluctant to do so- and more than likely would not do so for a future extremely controversial replacement of someone like RBG. So by using it now you might eliminate any future chance to do so when it actually matters instead of now where it's just pissing into the wind. Really a lot of people here need to get over the whole 'illegitimate' nonsense. The dems and republicans played hardball politics and the dems badly lost the game. Quit crying about how the ref was out to get you because quite frankly nobody gives a single solitary poo poo about it. MrNemo posted:I can see the tactical play here but strategically, if their position is that Obama was wrongly denied an appointment (that is that denying him a hearing was a legal but illegitimate tactic) then any approval for another appointment is a tacit renunciation of that claim. By voting for Gorsuch to have a hearing without one on garland first they are acknowledging what happened as a legitimate tactic. And who gives a gently caress?? Nobody cared about this argument months ago and nobody cares now. Also legal and legitimate are synonymous, duh. Maybe Obama should have made a sliver of effort throughout the whole ordeal instead of just assuming a Trump victory was literally impossible! Hieronymous Alloy posted:
lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 12:11
|
|