|
Drone posted:Nothing good will come of this. It'll be 5-4 with Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Notorious RBG in the minority. Is there a reason to expect Breyer to be part of that 5?
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Drone posted:Nothing good will come of this. It'll be 5-4 with Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Notorious RBG in the minority. Kennedy is the swing vote on the SCOTUS. Are you saying Breyer is going to side with the conservatives?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Source? Here's one of many such links. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/332286-blunt-senate-will-wait-for-cbo-score quote:Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said on Sunday that the Senate will wait for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score new GOP healthcare legislation before proceeding with a vote. There are others quoting Collins and Murkowski also waiting. If they had 50 votes, they wouldn't be waiting on a score, they'd be pushing it to the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Kennedy is the swing vote on the SCOTUS. Are you saying Breyer is going to side with the conservatives? Everyone always forgets about Breyer. I bet he has easily the lowest name recognition among the justices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Everyone always forgets about Breyer. I bet he has easily the lowest name recognition among the justices. Breyer's statutory construction is great as an intellectual antidote to the dumber strains of textualism. He's probably my favorite justice for interpreting statutes. His opinions are also really thoughtful and rigorous without being overly ideological like RBG can be. I like Breyer loads. He's also probably the funniest justice now that Scalia is dead. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/879332569203867650 Bad omen Gorsuch was a dissent
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Everyone always forgets about Breyer. I bet he has easily the lowest name recognition among the justices. Maybe all the recent hand-wringing over Kennedy possibly retiring has convinced some folks that he's actually one of the liberal justices. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/879332569203867650 He probably dissented because the original text of the constitution doesn't mention this situation. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Kennedy is the swing vote on the SCOTUS. Are you saying Breyer is going to side with the conservatives? I always forget Breyer exists. It all really depends on Kennedy then -- on the one hand, widely celebrated for his opinion on Obergefell, but on the other hand I could see him just as likely siding on the religious freedom side of this because centrists are weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
One of the few things Kennedy is good on is gay rights. I wouldn't worry. I also can't imagine that based on the precedent of the 1960s cases where store owners were refusing service to black people and that was ruled unconstitutional, the Court is going to side with the bakers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/879332569203867650 We are going to need to pack the court the next time there is a Dem president and a Dem congress. Gorsuch will do too much harm in the next 30 years. And that is before Trump gets any more picks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Drone posted:I always forget Breyer exists. He's the "libertarian" justice. I don't know where his logic will end, but I don't think he's going to be in favor of Jim Crow for Gays. If you can realistically put a sign in the window of your shop that says "No Gays" then that is where we are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Worth remembering there's a non zero chance that Kennedy will be a SCOTUS judge for another hour, tops. So don't put a ton of stock in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We are going to need to pack the court the next time there is a Dem president and a Dem congress. Gorsuch will do too much harm in the next 30 years. And that is before Trump gets any more picks. Why do people think this will ever actually happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Worth remembering there's a non zero chance that Kennedy will be a SCOTUS judge for another hour, tops. So don't put a ton of stock in it. They didn't announce it at the clerk reunion, and they would have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ. This really has the chance to completely gently caress up lgbtq lives in the US. This one case could decide whether or not a doctor has the right to deny treatment to a gay man who is bleeding to death, whether or not landlords can refuse to allow us to rent from them or buy houses, whether or not loving cashiers at grocery stores can let us buy food. gently caress. The only silver lining to this is that the court may implement a very limited ruling to avoid controversy. RBG better not loving die. For the sake of all of us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:One of the few things Kennedy is good on is gay rights. I wouldn't worry. Kennedy sided with the other Republicans to destroy the Voting Rights Act
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:Why do people think this will ever actually happen? Because governing norms don't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We are going to need to pack the court the next time there is a Dem president and a Dem congress. Gorsuch will do too much harm in the next 30 years. And that is before Trump gets any more picks. Every president packs the court every time they have the support of the senate. It's not like "oh man, we better do that next time!" We were always going to do it. And so were they. This is the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Kennedy sided with the other Republicans to destroy the Voting Rights Act
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We are going to need to pack the court the next time there is a Dem president and a Dem congress. Gorsuch will do too much harm in the next 30 years. And that is before Trump gets any more picks. The conservative justices are all young (relatively speaking) and won't be retiring anytime soon. Kennedy, RGB, and Breyer are all quite old. The best the Democrats could hope for would be to replace liberal justices with liberal justices -- and in Kennedy's sake, maybe getting someone more predictable. RGB will almost definitely wait until there's a positive combination in the WH/Congress. Unless, of course, someone figures out a way to hook her up to the Golden Throne and her judicial Astronomican will guide us for millennia to come.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/879332569203867650 The imagined persecution over gay cakes is astounding. "B-b-but I'm the victim!" he whined, while declaring another's love invalid. NewCivilRightsMovement posted:In 2013 Fox News asked Phillips if he was willing to go to jail. “If that’s what it takes,” he replied. “I don’t believe I need to drop my religious convictions at any time for any reason.” loving drama queens. e: Oh, that's birth certificates. Well what I said still stands. Brain hiccup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Every president packs the court every time they have the support of the senate. It's not like "oh man, we better do that next time!" We were always going to do it. And so were they. This is the status quo. I'm talking about adding 2-4 seats to the court. (This will be a major plank of the Dem platform in a few years) mcmagic fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:Jesus loving Christ. This really has the chance to completely gently caress up lgbtq lives in the US. This one case could decide whether or not a doctor has the right to deny treatment to a gay man who is bleeding to death, whether or not landlords can refuse to allow us to rent from them or buy houses, whether or not loving cashiers at grocery stores can let us buy food. gently caress. No, this is only about cases in which "expression" is the issue. Like wedding cakes expressing beliefs the bakers don't hold. At least that is my small understanding of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
If FDR, who was insanely popular and had a supermajority in Congress couldn't get away with court packing, I don't think anyone can
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Yeah, Court-Packing refers to creating new seats and then filling them with your appointees. It's a way to shift the balance of the court without waiting on openings. Roosevelt was threatening to expand SCOTUS to 15 seats but eventually dropped that plan when we got his way with decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That wasn't a gay rights case. He is lovely on other things but not gay issues. Yeah but he also wants to bring back segregation, so it's a tossup whether he'll care that non-rich white gay men are getting discriminated against if it brings back rich white men's freedom to discriminate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
There's no constitutional requirement for a nineman court. Congress and the executive have added seats in the past. There's an argument to be made that there should be justices for each major circuit, which would be 13 (unless you throw the D.C. Circuit in with someone, in which case twelve).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm talking about adding 2-4 seats to the court. (This will be a major plank of the Dem planform in a few years) Not to mention adding term limits because these 40 year appointments are insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If FDR, who was insanely popular and had a supermajority in Congress couldn't get away with court packing, I don't think anyone can Again, norms don't exist anymore. If you ask me, the first thing the next Dem government needs to do is pack the SCOTUS and make PR and DC states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:This one case could decide whether or not a doctor has the right to deny treatment to a gay man who is bleeding to death Aren't there separate laws that prevent this? Or otherwise license repercussions that a doctor would face from his/her state medical board. Who'm I kidding, it's America, so the answer is "loving LOL of course not"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm talking about adding 2-4 seats to the court. (This will be a major plank of the Dem platform in a few years) lmao then the next time republicans get in charge, they add 2-4 seats until we end up with like 50 supreme court justices
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Not to mention adding term limits because these 40 year appointments are insane. That would require constitutional amendment. Drone posted:Aren't there separate laws that prevent this? Or otherwise license repercussions that a doctor would face from his/her state medical board The question at hand is whether religious belief trumps anti-discrimination law. When this was examined in the context of racial discrimination, the anti discrimination laws won, but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No, this is only about cases in which "expression" is the issue. Like wedding cakes expressing beliefs the bakers don't hold. In the conservative lexicon, religious expression isn't just about the creation of things such as wedding cakes that could be used to express ideas. It covers anything a person might do in accordance with their religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Again, norms don't exist anymore. If you ask me, the first thing the next Dem government needs to do is pack the SCOTUS and make PR and DC states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:That would require constitutional amendment. Actually it would not, there's no constitutional mandate for lifetime appointments at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:lmao then the next time republicans get in charge, they add 2-4 seats until we end up with like 50 supreme court justices Yeah. It's a one way ratchet but the only recourse is to exercise political power wherever and whenever you can. FlamingLiberal posted:I agree, especially after the stolen Scalia seat. I'm just not very confident that voters will agree. Voters don't care about process, if you have the power to do it, you do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If FDR, who was insanely popular and had a supermajority in Congress couldn't get away with court packing, I don't think anyone can The support for FDR's court-packing went away when the need for it did. If I were proposing the 2020 Supreme Court Correction Act I'd include a provision that it automatically voids if Gorusch resigns before the second justice is confirmed. It is not acceptable to allow the Republicans to control the Supreme Court on the back of a stolen seat. The only way court packing is not 100% required in 2020 is in the extremely unlikely chance that the Democrats retake the Senate in 2018 and a justice dies/resigns after that and they keep the seat open until there's a Democratic president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Actually it would not, there's no constitutional mandate for lifetime appointments at all. I'd argue holding for good behavior necessarily implies lifetime appointments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Drone posted:Aren't there separate laws that prevent this? Or otherwise license repercussions that a doctor would face from his/her state medical board. There are existing laws against this, but supreme court decisions have the authority to overrule existing laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Drone posted:Aren't there separate laws that prevent this? Or otherwise license repercussions that a doctor would face from his/her state medical board. If the doctor was working in a hospital then yes, he could be sued, fined, and possibly lose his license if he refused to treat someone bleeding to death. EMTALA statutes state that anyone who shows up to a hospital MUST receive a medical screening examination and if an emergent condition found, treated and stabilized. If he just happened to come across a car crash, there would be no real duty to treat by law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
