|
Unzip and Attack posted:You think Trump and his insane nominees are constrained by "corporate benefactors"? That's cute but not true at all. These are true believers. I’m talking about the Senate, who doesn’t want to raise a fracas inside insurance companies, medical conglomerates, the entertainment industry that already came out against trans bathroom bills, etc who write the checks to their PACs. When there’s employees inside these companies who will have rights taken away, the correct course of action for those companies is simply to pull out of contributions for the next cycle. So if this is fast tracked as people seem to think it is, it could hurt Republicans financially in the midterms. As for Trump, the guy is stupid and doesn’t care to learn how the political system works. I fully expect him to nominate Giuliani just to Peter Principle him out of the media spotlight where he can’t stop private details from rolling out of his mouth.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Thank god trump has a voice of reason in his ear for nominating judges. My biggest fear with him was he would be nominating people like Roy Moore. Gorsuch is a godsend. A 2nd Gorsuch would make me forgive all the retarded poo poo he has done and has yet to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The liberals on the court are any better? Literally every one of Sotomeyer's dissents or opinions is a rant on the underlying policy with little to nothing on legality or constitutionality. Ginsberg is not far behind, though she at least tries to make a (stretched) legal argument on matters. Kagan and Kennedy and Roberts are the only ones who seem capable of evaluating the legal merits of their cases, and not just the effects their decisions will have on legislative or executive policy. The real loss with Kennedy is that he added some legitimacy and premise of neutrality to the institution; now it will turn more into an un-elected version of congress. compromise is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The liberals on the court are any better? Literally every one of Sotomeyer's dissents or opinions is a rant on the underlying policy with little to nothing on legality or constitutionality. Ginsberg is not far behind, though she at least tries to make a (stretched) legal argument on matters. Kagan and Kennedy and Roberts are the only ones who seem capable of evaluating the legal merits of their cases, and not just the effects their decisions will have on legislative or executive policy. The real loss with Kennedy is that he added some legitimacy and premise of neutrality to the institution; now it will turn more into an un-elected version of congress. this is a pretty spicy take and anyone who doesn't list thomas as someone capable of evaluating the legal merits of their cases is an idiot or disingenuous his legal axioms are insane, but he's pretty consistent about applying them
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk. posted:Thank god trump has a voice of reason in his ear for nominating judges. My biggest fear with him was he would be nominating people like Roy Moore. Gorsuch is a godsend. A 2nd Gorsuch would make me forgive all the retarded poo poo he has done and has yet to do gorsuch is a garbage idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m talking about the Senate, who doesn’t want to raise a fracas inside insurance companies, medical conglomerates, the entertainment industry that already came out against trans bathroom bills, etc who write the checks to their PACs. When there’s employees inside these companies who will have rights taken away, the correct course of action for those companies is simply to pull out of contributions for the next cycle. So if this is fast tracked as people seem to think it is, it could hurt Republicans financially in the midterms. supreme court justice michael cohen can't indict a president and a justice for the same crime  edit yeah i can never decide whether i hate gorsuch or alito more - the answer should be alito, he's a monster, but gorsuch is insultingly dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk. posted:Thank god trump has a voice of reason in his ear for nominating judges. My biggest fear with him was he would be nominating people like Roy Moore. Gorsuch is a godsend. A 2nd Gorsuch would make me forgive all the retarded poo poo he has done and has yet to do Same, judges were the main reason I overlooked his manifest personal failings (LOL Hillary for comparison) and I’m surprised not to have been betrayed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha stardust is either a fascist or a troll pretending to be one
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
I wonder if Harry Reid still thinks it was a good idea to nuke the filibuster for judicial nominations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The problem with the Supreme Court is the same problem with the Presidency. Government is becoming more about absolute control of institutions and less about compromise. This is only a problem because the US system has been built into a ridiculous contraption over the centuries where minority (formerly, slaveholder) rights have been backed by multiple procedural gimmicks instead of a solid grounding in basic rights like everywhere else. If you have a chamber like the House and a chamber like the Senate and a bullshit electoral college to elect a powerful executive, nothing will ever get done in an otherwise normal partisan political environment and once bad faith and procedural abuse seep into the system it quickly rots. Compromise was the only way to get anything done because the system was built to require it; not because compromise is an intrinsic good. The problem, essentially, is that normal partisan politics have caught up to the problems baked into the Constitution and they are quickly becoming impossible to resolve through the system itself because of how broken it is. You don't see anything like this in Westminstrian or continental parliamentary regimes (outside of massive shocks like civil wars, which has also already happened in the US for this exact same set of constitutional issues!), because the judiciary is independent and non-partisan and because partisan political tension is resolved by absolute control of institutions. It's perfectly fine for politics to be a struggle for control of the electorate and the legislature, and in fact, pretending it isn't is what caused the US mess in the first place. Pithily, the outcome of the Civil War didn't stick. Somehow it always comes back to race; emancipation crumbled after Reconstruction, and these fundamental issues have come back to the fore decade by decade after the civil rights struggle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Kennedy is the only reason SSM is legal right now. If you don't think the challenges to overturn that decision haven't been plotted and held for Kennedy's retirement I have some bad news for you: ALEC is extremely good at what it does. I get that; I was only pointing that when this inevitably happens we won’t need to update the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:I wonder if Harry Reid still thinks it was a good idea to nuke the filibuster for judicial nominations. McConnell would nuke it if he hadn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:stardust is either a fascist or a troll pretending to be one Trump really is pro gay rights, I don’t understand the laughter on this point. Sure, he’s in bed politically with people who very much are not, but c’mon, Trump has zero moral or religious based motivations to condemn anyone. Everything is personal, not principled. He personally likes gay people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The liberals on the court are any better? Literally every one of Sotomeyer's dissents or opinions is a rant on the underlying policy with little to nothing on legality or constitutionality. Ginsberg is not far behind, though she at least tries to make a (stretched) legal argument on matters. Kagan and Kennedy and Roberts are the only ones who seem capable of evaluating the legal merits of their cases, and not just the effects their decisions will have on legislative or executive policy. The real loss with Kennedy is that he added some legitimacy and premise of neutrality to the institution; now it will turn more into an un-elected version of congress. we basically are in the crisis of the end of the roman republic where nothing could be accomplished because everyone vetoed everything. the only question is who our octavian is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:McConnell would nuke it if he hadn't. At this point I don't know why the filibuster survives in any form. The next major legislation push that can't get through the senate will likely remove it once there is a need. Pandora's box has been opened, which means it is just a matter of time before they get rid of it. Might as well do so now and reap some benefits while the GOP still has a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Perhaps, they made it through Bush's administration without touching it and congress doesn't currently have an incentive to go above and beyond to support Trump. If there is a major democratic victory in the midterms I would not be surprised if they tried to pull something in the lame duck like is often done at the state level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1012047617466003456 lmao Dems are so fuckin afraid of their own shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:stardust is either a fascist or a troll pretending to be one There's no difference. "Pretending" to be one is only them pretending they don't sincerely believe it when they obviously do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The liberals on the court are any better? Literally every one of Sotomeyer's dissents or opinions is a rant on the underlying policy with little to nothing on legality or constitutionality. Okay you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, Sotomayor is too detailed in terms of legal rationale and gets bogged down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1012047617466003456 https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1012049932965044226
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qduJjDJnQfoLemming posted:There's no difference. "Pretending" to be one is only them pretending they don't sincerely believe it when they obviously do. LOL, I think the federal government has almost none of the powers it exercises, I’m hardly a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
I think the best angle on this is bring up the horror of Citizens United / letting gerrymandering stand / gutting the VRA / assaults on the democratic fabric of the country, form that into a case against Roberts, and then impeach him that way. Pick between that and adding two justices and then push for whatever is easier in 2020 (if we get back control).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:25
|
|
Y'all should really be smarter with these guesses about the next SCOTUS nominee. We're going to get a SuperTaft.Kazak_Hstan posted:https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1012047617466003456 He is saying this because it establishes expectations that the Republicans will then violate with their nominee-----which then lets the Democrats oppose the nominee more vocally. It's not complicated.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Kozinski isn't doing anything, nominate him
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1012047617466003456 Why? McConnell and Trump have the votes to move a nominee through the Senate. The best the Democrats can do right now is not try to antagonize the five year old in the White House and hope for a more centrist nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:He is saying this because it establishes expectations that the Republicans will then violate with their nominee-----which then lets the Democrats oppose the nominee more vocally. It's not complicated. also he then said that the correct length of time was months and months and months https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1012053921739702273
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:Obergefell was an aberration. Kennedy should go down in history in the same footnote as the likes of
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidlawler10/status/1012050344484986881?s=21 What might have been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:Evil has won This is how I feel. The country is hosed for the next 30+ years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I think the best angle on this is bring up the horror of Citizens United / letting gerrymandering stand / gutting the VRA / assaults on the democratic fabric of the country, form that into a case against Roberts, and then impeach him that way. Pick between that and adding two justices and then push for whatever is easier in 2020 (if we get back control). "A conservative SCOTUS is going to block our legislation for naked partisans reasons, several of the justices have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote, and one seat was stolen from a Democratic President" is already a good case for packing, and I feel like packing is a much easier ask than impeaching a sitting justice. Impeachment becomes a referendum about the accused official and their behaviour and history, whereas packing is a referendum on the court as a whole. Harsh but fair
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Lot more Republicans in here today than I would have expected
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I think the best angle on this is bring up the horror of Citizens United / letting gerrymandering stand / gutting the VRA / assaults on the democratic fabric of the country, form that into a case against Roberts, and then impeach him that way. Pick between that and adding two justices and then push for whatever is easier in 2020 (if we get back control). Packing takes 50 votes in the senate, impeachment takes 67.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Packing also requires a president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Packing also requires a president. yeah but i think we can safely assume that if you have 67 senate votes you probably won the presidency in 2020
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
if the legislative filibuster is abolished with a republican majority, it's probably time to emigrate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Packing also requires a president. If we have 67 votes to impeach justices, just impeach down the line of succession until you get someone ready to accept your list of justices to pack with
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Y'all should really be smarter with these guesses about the next SCOTUS nominee. We're going to get a SuperTaft. I'm sure he's hard at work, tongue slightly protruding from his pursed lips, on a carefully worded statement explaining the problems with Trump's nomin-- oh, the senate confirmed the exhumed corpse of Roger Taney ten days after it was nominated, cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Lot more Republicans in here today than I would have expected Fascists get emboldened when they feel powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
she would've replaced none of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:43
|
|