|
FuturePastNow posted:Stacked the court by returning it to the same partisan condition it was in a year ago? I missed the rule in the US constitution where it says the Supreme Court needs to have a 5-4 conservative split. The moment one party decides that the other doesn't even get to nominate judges when it holds the government position that has the right to do so then that's partisan stacking the court.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm skeptical. I think what he meant is there's plenty of other stuff they might look bad for not passing and they'd rather it just never come up. FuturePastNow posted:Stacked the court by returning it to the same partisan condition it was in a year ago? Stacking the court by deciding only one party is allowed to nominate justices. Remember that they didn't just refuse to consider Obama's nominee, they said they would continue to confuse to consider anyone Hillary put up. Deciding Supreme Court justices solely on the basis of the party that proposes them is about as partisan as you can get, and succeeding in getting your own appointments as a result is quite obviously stacking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I missed the rule in the US constitution where it says the Supreme Court needs to have a 5-4 conservative split. Technically it's a 4-1-4 split until Kennedy retires at the end of the year. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
evilweasel posted:Plus, Congress absolutely has the power to ban gerrymandering because they've done it before. They should just do it again. Friendly reminder that the last time there was an opportunity to do this the Dems also had the power to unilaterally pass the ACA, and just couldn't be arsed to put their enlightened supermajority blue states in the same pre-clearance category as those goddamned racist hicks. The SCOTUS VRA decision even explicitly said it's Congress' job to fix it and the people complaining, could, you know just hypothetically, have done so whenever.~~ People in the thread acting like VRA is SCOTUS' problem don't understand separation of powers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Friendly reminder that the last time there was an opportunity to do this the Dems also had the power to unilaterally pass the ACA, and just couldn't be arsed to put their enlightened supermajority blue states in the same pre-clearance category as those goddamned racist hicks. The SCOTUS VRA decision even explicitly said it's Congress' job to fix it and the people complaining, could, you know just hypothetically, have done so whenever.~~ The SCOTUS VRA decision was flagrantly unconstitutional and grounds to impeach every justice who voted for it, as the Constitution reserves to Congress the determination of what measures are appropriate to combat racial discrimination in voting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Like I don't want to overstate the case: the VRA decision was unsupportable on every level, from the factual argument that "the VRA prevents racist states from bring racist in voting, so it hasn't happened recently, so it's no longer a problem" to the very idea that the 15th Amendment, part of a package of amendments expressly written to make Congress the enforcer of civil rights and to squash any state that dared get in the way of it because the Dred Scott Supreme Court was (reasonably) not trusted to do it, can be overridden by federalism concerns. There are many Supreme Court decisions I disagree with. That one I don't just disagree with, it's literally grounds for impeachment. That's unlikely to ever happen, but it should happen and it would be absolutely justified. It's not just not in the Supreme Court's wheelhouse. It's that it was affirmatively removed from their wheelhouse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
You act like the 15th wasn't discussed in the decision, and that other amendments don't also apply to Congress' conduct. I'd like to see pre-clearance on all states but to act like you couldn't at least craft a legal argument for either side is pretty delusional, seeing that different courts ruled different ways on the case. My point was that Congress could've avoided the whole thing and not doing so was their problem, not the umpire's problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You act like the 15th wasn't discussed in the decision, and that other amendments don't also apply to Congress' conduct. I'd like to see pre-clearance on all states but to act like you couldn't at least craft a legal argument for either side is pretty delusional, seeing that different courts ruled different ways on the case. My point was that Congress could've avoided the whole thing and not doing so was their problem, not the umpire's problem. Congress doesn't need to extend preclearance to all states. Congress, if it likes, can single out a single state and place them under preclearance, but no other states, for no other reason than Congress thought that putting that one state under preclearance would assist in securing the protections of the 15th Amendment. The fact it's not the only racist state, the most racist state, or even that racist of state is not relevant. All that's relevant is if Congress legitimately is advancing the 15th Amendment's ban on racial discrimination in voting rights. The Supreme Court was not given the power to weigh in. That is completely aside from the fact that Congress was absolutely correct to continue keeping the named states under preclearance as the worst offenders, not least because they could have bailed out if they actually avoided doing racist things long enough. New Hampshire, which got swept in due to a quirk in the law, was able to bail out because, well, they weren't racist. The rush to pass racist voting rights restrictions - two different states have managed to hit the high bar of being found to have intentionally discriminated on the basis of race already, despite the fact that courts routinely ignore the evidence of such intent because they don't like to accuse state legislatures of being openly racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You act like the 15th wasn't discussed in the decision, and that other amendments don't also apply to Congress' conduct. I'd like to see pre-clearance on all states but to act like you couldn't at least craft a legal argument for either side is pretty delusional, seeing that different courts ruled different ways on the case. My point was that Congress could've avoided the whole thing and not doing so was their problem, not the umpire's problem. There wasn't a problem for Congress to fix until the Supreme Court decided to create one when it decided that voting rights law had an expiration date.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I disagree this is why Republicans haven't removed the legislative filibuster. I believe they haven't removed the legislative filibuster because it is not in their interests, full stop. The GOP agenda the Senate is actually interested in can be done through reconciliation, so they don't need to eliminate the filibuster. The GOP Senate is not interested in passing every idiot proposal with 17% approval the House shits out, and the legislative filibuster is great cover for quietly killing those proposals. But any Democratic agenda if the Democrats retake control would need to pass ordinary legislation, so leaving the filibuster in place makes it more likely that roadblock will still be around to thwart Democrats if they retake control. And for truly toxic poo poo that makes it through the House the filibuster allows the Dems to kill it while the GOP can go "look at these rotten dems!  " while breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't just pass the Burn Everything To Ash Act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
I won't criticize the GOP for nuking the SCOTUS filibuster since Reid nuked it for every other nomination. Sitting on Garland was a dick move but it paid off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Honestly? Nuking it this way has been way, way too nakedly political. The GOP had their fig leaf for obstructing garland, they then made no attempt to compromise or otherwise deal with democratic obstruction and went straight to nuking the filibuster. The democrats had the argument that vacancies had been unfilled for too long and it was affecting the operations of the court system. If republicans make that argument now it's pretty hollow since democrats were obstructing for about a day before republicans decided compromise was impossible. They ensured the seat was empty for 11 and half months. If McConnell had made some attempts to compromise with more centrist appointments and the democrats had insisted on only garland, i would at least feel somewhat better about getting rid of the filibuster. I'd still think the republicans were awful but they'd have been justified in nuking. This was all part of the same game though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I won't criticize the GOP for nuking the SCOTUS filibuster since Reid nuked it for every other nomination. Sitting on Garland was a dick move but it paid off. What about what lead up to Reid's move on lower nominations? Republican obstruction on a completely unprecedented level. Reid had no choice other than to do what he did in order for the government to function. evilweasel posted:The SCOTUS VRA decision was flagrantly unconstitutional and grounds to impeach every justice who voted for it, as the Constitution reserves to Congress the determination of what measures are appropriate to combat racial discrimination in voting. Bush v Gore was too. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
"But don't you see, both sides are equally bad! The truth is in the middle!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
It's still amazing that in the Bush v Gore decision opinion they had to put a very clear note saying 'this is not precedent'. I know at least some of them regret getting involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's still amazing that in the Bush v Gore decision opinion they had to put a very clear note saying 'this is not precedent'. I know at least some of them regret getting involved. For years if anyone asked O'Connor about it she'd grimace and Chang the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:If republicans make that argument now it's pretty hollow since democrats were obstructing for about a day before republicans decided compromise was impossible. They ensured the seat was empty for 11 and half months. Less than that. CBS posted:11:02 a.m. The Senate is now holding the cloture vote to advance Gorsuch’s nomination. This vote is expected to fail since the GOP needs 60 votes, but 43 Democrats have said they will oppose the move to end or limit debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Less than that. They couldn’t risk their erections lasting more than four hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:They couldn’t risk their erections lasting more than four hours. They are gonna last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
The sun seemed to shine a little brighter today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:The sun seemed to shine a little brighter today. Just another example of human-caused climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
quote:Eleven minutes into the morning session, he asked a string of questions in a case involving which court or courts should hear discrimination and civil service claims brought by government employees. Off to a good start!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Off to a good start! Hey, he's just calling balls and strikes. He might personally believe that the strike zone extends to six feet out from either side of the plate, and is somewhat larger for minor league and/or black batters, but who are we to disagree with his impartial methods?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Hey, he's just calling balls and strikes. Don't dox us, bro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What about what lead up to Reid's move on lower nominations? Republican obstruction on a completely unprecedented level. Reid had no choice other than to do what he did in order for the government to function. That tactic also made it abundantly clear that the filibuster for judicial appointments was gone the minute Republicans held the presidency and the senate again. If they had succeeded in keeping the appeals courts from getting a single new appointment for Obama's entire presidency, there's no way they would have just let the courts sit empty and stop functioning when they were in power. Once they went all-in on blocking Obama's appointments, the filibuster was as good as gone. It was a one-time gamble to block as many appointments as possible and then take them all when they got presidency again so they could retain the control over the court system that Reagan-Bush-W.Bush had given them. And it would have worked even better than it did if Ted Cruz hadn't hosed up in 2014 and given Reid the parliamentary opportunity to shove through a whole bunch of justices just before Christmas that the Republican minority had been delaying with procedural tactics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Off to a good start! NYT posted:Mr. Landau said his client was “not asking the court to break any new ground” by interpreting the statute to allow some filings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Off to a good start! Lmfao they finally got their Justice Miers
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread: Welcome Justice Fishmech
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
It's like he only thinks the SCOTUS' role is to determine whether existing law is Constitutional and doesn't involve any kind of interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
No but see they put a line in the law that says "this law is constitutional" so when we judge solely by the plain text of the statute it has to be constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No but see they put a line in the law that says "this law is constitutional" so when we judge solely by the plain text of the statute it has to be constitutional. Aw gee willikers folks, if we just read the statute...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
i hope the op never gets updated. in solidarity,
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Gorsuch attempted to respond on statute's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No but see they put a line in the law that says "this law is constitutional" so when we judge solely by the plain text of the statute it has to be constitutional. This is a remarkably concise condemnation of textualim
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
haveblue posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Gorsuch attempted to respond on statute's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Law specifical states that a particular element is subject to interpretation, Gorsuch turns into that meme of the sweating guy hovering his finger over two buttons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Dear lord, he isn't just a terrible soulless conservative, he's a loving idiot. "Well I may just be a humble country Judge, but back round my home we've got a saying involving the linens on the lines, which is to say we should really just read the Constitution and be done with it as the Fathers intended in their day" ((leans back, fans himself))
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
He's the "Hey guys, you ever just try READING the law?' dumbshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Gorsuch is that guy you know who thinks all our problems would be solved if we just elected normal people instead of politicians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:Gorsuch is that guy you know who thinks all our problems would be solved if we just elected normal people instead of politicians. That's strange since he is not a normal person
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:30
|
|