|
Ague Proof posted:Didn't his wife turn into Roy Moore? Given how the two of them are dealing with losing, a pillar of salt can indeed describe roy moores wife
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
I would be shocked if Dems have the balls to expand the Supreme Court. What exactly would be required to do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
e; ^^^ Franklin Delano Roosevelt.yronic heroism posted:Idgi, if the extension would already violate the constitution what does the law add? You misunderstand what they meant, the law reads as follows; quote:THE CONSTITUTION PART XII - MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS Specifically, this means you can extend a budget, as evilweasel says, without violating this. Budgets are annual things, so extending it once by the proposed mechanism (i.e. automatically if the legislature fails to pass a new one) would be permitted. The second time around, however, doing so would run afoul of this clause, meaning it would be unconstitutional to do so more than one time consecutively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:I would be shocked if Dems have the balls to expand the Supreme Court. What exactly would be required to do that? Pretty sure just an act of Congress. They'd have to abolish the fillibuster if they have less than 60 votes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Actually I was proposing expanding it to seventeen Justices, impeaching Gorsuch, and replacing Roberts as Chief Justice with one of the nine. Can't replace a sitting chief justice, he has to resign or be impeached. But there's no point, his only real power is the ability to assign cases for opinion writing. Impeaching Gorusch would need 67 votes but if they have that I'm all in favor (and would do that instead of expanding the court: why leave that power lying around for use with 50%+1; 50%+1, plus the presidency for a future republican admin when using impeachment requires the democratic party basically have ceased to exist?) Demon Of The Fall posted:I would be shocked if Dems have the balls to expand the Supreme Court. What exactly would be required to do that? A law, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Amendments are specifically not permitted to forcibly remove Senate representation, it's the only constraint placed on them other than slavery-related ones that expired centuries ago. Oh huh, did not know that. Although you could probably do two amendments where the first one removes the constraint!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Also, I mention this from time to time, but what power does Congress have to remake the lower courts? I know they can't really impeach a bunch of judges (well they sort of could, but probably won't) but could they remake the courts such that all the existing ones are responsible for various unpopulated regions in Alaska or whatever, and then make new courts, with new judges, to take over the actual judiciary? Because they should do this, or something like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Also, I mention this from time to time, but what power does Congress have to remake the lower courts? I know they can't really impeach a bunch of judges (well they sort of could, but probably won't) but could they remake the courts such that all the existing ones are responsible for various unpopulated regions in Alaska or whatever, and then make new courts, with new judges, to take over the actual judiciary? I don’t know if anyone has ever litigated what hold “their offices” means and if it prohibits reassignment (it doesn’t prohibit splitting circuits though). But you can just pack the circuit courts without risking losing on that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/944276638178537472 So, who's this guy and how badly will he lose now that Trump has endorsed him?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Can't replace a sitting chief justice, he has to resign or be impeached. But there's no point, his only real power is the ability to assign cases for opinion writing. And the point is "gently caress you". It's a good point, and worth making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
quote:DeSantis proposed an amendment that would halt funding for Mueller’s 2017 Special Counsel investigation probe six months after the amendment’s passage.[74] In addition, this provision also would prohibit Mueller from investigating matters that occurred before June 2015, when Trump launched his presidential campaign.[75]
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
LaserShark posted:https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/944276638178537472 Trump already turned Florida blue with the Puerto Rico disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
I'm sure those 300,000 newly settled Puerto Ricans in Florida will be happy to know who Trump is backing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There are varying degrees of functionality. yes, technically zero is a degree
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Isn't it just a separate appointment and vote to do so? I'm not referring to removing him from the court, just nominating and appointing a different Chief Justice. I thought I'd read somewhere this was a thing. Chief Justice is a specific named judicial office given specific power in the constitution (presiding over impeachment of the president) meaning the lifetime appointment clause applies to it. New ones only get nominated when the old one quits or retires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Is this sort of legislation actually possible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I disagree. I view a 5-4 liberal majority as preferable to a 7-4 liberal majority - it's better to have a "legitimate" liberal court than a bigger liberal majority. I don't see Kennedy lasting very long since he seems to want to retire, so Democrats will get their chance. If Gorush's seat stays stolen that's a smaller majority than they'd otherwise have, but if they expand the Supreme Court it is certain that the first time Republicans control the Supreme Court they will do the same. I would rather have a narrower majority now and a more likely chance that a future Republican administration is hamstrung than a larger majority now and near-certainty that a future Republican administration has no meaningful check on it from the judiciary. It's worth remembering that there were only three dissenters in King. I forget that sometimes. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
botany posted:yes, technically zero is a degree Well by your definition has there ever been a functional democracy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's worth remembering that there were only three deserters in King. I forget that sometimes. That was after the initial joke of a case over if the individual mandate was illegal where all five conservatives agreed it was and required striking down Obamacare in its entirety and then Roberts blinked. It’s believed he wrote most of the dissent when he was going to have it be the majority. King was 6-3 because Kennedy didn’t feel like continuing the nonsense after he lost the first time with a new attempt every year. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Welp better just impeach and remove Roberts for gutting the VRA then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well by your definition has there ever been a functional democracy? It's not exactly an uncommon definition (it's also referred to as a Substantive Democracy). There is not, and never has there ever been, a real-world substantive/functional democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Welp better just impeach and remove Roberts for gutting the VRA then. I would get behind that, that was a completely lawless decision that trampled on power specifically taken away from the Supreme Court and given to congress instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:January 3rd was more than ten non-sundays away from when Congress passed the bill, meaning that waiting that long would result in either a pocket veto (in the unlikely event congress adjourned) or Trump's only legislative achievement becoming law without his signature. lol, I remember immediately thinking of that when I read about the january 3rd plan. "wait, isn't that too long? I'm pretty sure the president only has a couple weeks to sign it" If my random unremarkable rear end immediately knew there could be a problem from high school civics class, its unbelievable that no one in the president's staff didn't think of it till now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I mean we could find a really awesome Enlightened Despot and figure out a way for them to live forever I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Todd_Gillett/status/944246412589625345
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well by your definition has there ever been a functional democracy? that was just a shrowaway shitpost, i apologize
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Pompeo has, evidently, stepped in it again somehow: https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/944278448410853376
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Really to ensure a republican minority there should be a thousand Supreme Court seats and every adult citizen should be a
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Welp better just impeach and remove Roberts for gutting the VRA then. As much as I despise that decision and Roberts for making it, the idea of impeaching a judge because of how they rule in a case gives me the heebie-jeebies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
CRIP EATIN BREAD posted:it's hosed up that i'm going to get a big tax cut because of this because im the last person that needs it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I would get behind that, that was a completely lawless decision that trampled on power specifically taken away from the Supreme Court and given to congress instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:America will never be a functioning democracy One could argue that it was always meant to be an oligarchy/plutocracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:As much as I despise that decision and Roberts for making it, the idea of impeaching a judge because of how they rule in a case gives me the heebie-jeebies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Is there precedent for impeaching Justices (or federal judges for that matter) because they make too many terrible decisions and are just bad at the loving job? No. A federal judge gets impeached roughly once or twice a decade, but it has always been for being found guilty of some kind of felony or some kind of (usually age-related) mental insanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
ummel posted:One could argue that it was always meant to be an oligarchy/plutocracy. Yeah, I thought from square one it was "Democracy for all*" *excluding brown people, women, poors who don't own land, the filthy Irish, and other undesirables
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
So the tax bill passed and we're all screwed, but because Trump is an idiot man child and signed the bill today instead of in January we're all going to realize just how screwed we are right before midterms. Yay....? It's bad, but it's bad in a way that might make things good in the future. That's better, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Pompeo has, evidently, stepped in it again somehow: I'm guessing it's some particularly venomous way of reminding them The Reason for the Season.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/learyreports/status/944282005696598017 My guy REALLY likes watching TV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
There is “precedent” in some banana republic I am sure, but I prefer the rule of law myself.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:09
|
|