|
Professor Skittles posted:Holy everliving gently caress were there just some fireworks on msnbc just now. Here it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuqzfzM3jpY
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While I doubt they'll annul anyone's marriages federally, I'm sure they'll greenlight states refusing to marry any new couples because of ""religious objections"" from county clerks, I'm sure they'll let states discriminate against gay married couples who already live there. I'm sure we'll also see red states start enforcing their sodomy laws again which will be bad for gay people living there even if the SCOTUS ultimately declines to overturn Lawrence (wouldn't be surprised if they overturn it anyway though) Eh, I don't think even a horrid all-conservative SCOTUS would overturn Lawrence. What possible legal challenges could there be that A) involve consensual sodomy, B) would make it up to the supreme court, and C) result in the conclusion of "Buttfucking is so bad it needs to be re-made illegal, but only between two dudes"? And, if states were planning on going back to enforcing their now-defunct sodomy laws, surely they would have done so by now, what with the whole "entire American government right now" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
i mean how they can say an off-hand comment is animus enough to throw out a finding of bigotry but ignore a deepwell of animus to say a bigoted ban was ok since the text didn't say nothing bad. they're not going to use actual law, they haven't for a whole mess of decisions in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's the over/under on a bet that this will be the youngest person ever nominated? Just so you know, this is not how over/under bets work. You might say “what is the over/under on the age of the next Justice” and I’d say “45”. But there needs to be some kind of value to guess to have an over/under.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Eh, I don't think even a horrid all-conservative SCOTUS would overturn Lawrence. What possible legal challenges could there be that A) involve consensual sodomy, B) would make it up to the supreme court, and C) result in the conclusion of "Buttfucking is so bad it needs to be re-made illegal, but only between two dudes"? Lawrence v Texas round two boogaloo? They'll discard as much precedent as they want, they'll make poo poo up where they want, they'll base it all on "strongly held religious convictions" and "this is a political question, maybe texas should just stop electing bigots" because they've done this calvinball bullshit already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Lawrence v Texas round two boogaloo? They'll discard as much precedent as they want, they'll make poo poo up where they want, they'll base it all on "strongly held religious convictions" and "this is a political question, maybe texas should just stop electing bigots" because they've done this calvinball bullshit already. Let's just break this down a bit: a neighbor could sue them for violating their rights to hate homosexuals. Sure this is frivolous, but doesn't matter because you can sue anyone for anything and the Supreme Court can pick up tossed out cases. The courts only need three justices to hear a case. Considering that it's guaranteed Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would hear anything that's anti-progressive, it'll get heard. Then all you'd have to do is convince Justice Roberts it's enough and did you read his dissent in the DOMA case? He hates gay people with a passion. Stare Decisis is maybe where you can argue and Roberts seems somewhat reasonable on that, but barely. Only Kennedy actually cared enough to abide by it on the right and even then he broke from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
That straw Chris Matthews is clutching for is his belief in the existence of a just or fair political system guess what chrissy you're part of the loving problem
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Bearded Whiteguy posted:Let's just break this down a bit: a neighbor could sue them for violating their rights to hate homosexuals. Sure this is frivolous, but doesn't matter because you can sue anyone for anything and the Supreme Court can pick up tossed out cases. The courts only need three justices to hear a case. Considering that it's guaranteed Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would hear anything that's anti-progressive, it'll get heard. Then all you'd have to do is convince Justice Roberts it's enough and did you read his dissent in the DOMA case? He hates gay people with a passion. The idea of this somehow getting through the appeals process is stupid as hell, considering that the Religious Right's current strategy is just barely squeaking cases with legitimate religious freedom concerns up to the Supreme Court. The court system entertained "is a commercial product considered art if there's a religious motivation behind it" enough for the Supreme Court to punt it away with a narrow decision, but nobody's going to touch "arrest those gays, it is my religious right never to see them out of jail" with a ten foot pole. I'm not trying to downplay the badness of this situation, but we haven't reached Gilead-levels yet. Crunch Buttsteak fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Eh, I don't think even a horrid all-conservative SCOTUS would overturn Lawrence. What possible legal challenges could there be that A) involve consensual sodomy, B) would make it up to the supreme court, and C) result in the conclusion of "Buttfucking is so bad it needs to be re-made illegal, but only between two dudes"? After the rulings of the past two days do you really think they'll be bothered by something as trivial as having well-reasoned logic and proof of damages? That only applies to cases involving the 'Non-Regressives waterfountain'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:The idea of this somehow getting through the appeals process is stupid as hell, considering that the Religious Right's current strategy is just barely squeaking cases with legitimate religious freedom concerns up to the Supreme Court. The court system entertained "is a commercial product considered art if there's a religious motivation behind it" enough for the Supreme Court to punt it away with a narrow decision, but nobody's going to touch "arrest those gays, it is my religious right never to see them out of jail" with a ten foot pole. Just a reminder they punted it down because liberal justices realized it was going to be far worse if they didn't write the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:The idea of this somehow getting through the appeals process is stupid as hell, considering that the Religious Right's current strategy is just barely squeaking cases with legitimate religious freedom concerns up to the Supreme Court. The court system entertained "is a commercial product considered art if there's a religious motivation behind it" enough for the Supreme Court to punt it away with a narrow decision, but nobody's going to touch "arrest those gays, it is my religious right never to see them out of jail" with a ten foot pole. You're forgetting that Turtle McGee's obstruction means Trump has already appointed 12% of the Court of the Appeals (20 judges). If they can ram them through on time, he has 13 vacancies left to fill. By comparison, Obama appointed only 55 Appeals justices over 8 years, less than half Trump's rate. Saturate the system with enough lovely cases and something is going to squeeze through. Stickman fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
FYI if you want to follow the betting on nominees, here's the list: https://www.predictit.org/Market/3232/Who-will-be-Trump%27s-next-Supreme-Court-nominee Kavanaugh out in front at the moment. I've got a big bet on one of these names.  I've also requested a few additional markets that I think could be interesting: nominee born before 1968 or during/after?; nominee a female?; will ABA give them a "Well Qualified"?; a market on when the Senate vote is held.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Arkane posted:FYI if you want to follow the betting on nominees, here's the list: Reminder that Kavanaugh has some serious issues when it comes to respecting freedom and rights. quote:The Times referred back to Kavanaugh's position in Bush's White House and asked whether he played a role in the controversial policy that allowed the National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens. It also brought up his work in Starr's impeachment case against Clinton, noting that Kavanaugh made partisan remarks like calling Starr an "American hero" and saying there had been a "presidentially approved smear campaign against him." Let's remember that. https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-judge-brett-kavanaugh-the-supreme-court-frontrunner-knows-anthony-kennedy-well-9607041
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
"HARD.SCOTUS2.DJT" is a very appropriate phrase right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:FYI if you want to follow the betting on nominees, here's the list: From Wikipedia: quote:When a unanimous panel found that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. Sooo, young Scalia clone with Gorusch's "plain reading" bullshit? Anyone have experience with his work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Packing the court. Hahaha. Look, elections have consequences. Dems lost, Trump won. Sorry but the SCOTUS is gonna be conservative for 50 years at least. You lost. If you don’t like it leave. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Samara posted:Packing the court. Hahaha. That's some incisive analysis there, forum's poster Samara. Did you get it from a country song perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Packing the court is a really, really bad idea and I think people in favor of it are severely underestimating just how vicious the blowback would be from doing so. I fully support Democrats pulling a McConnell if they somehow manage to take the senate, but actually packing the court would almost certainly trigger a secession crisis and probably serious political violence that I do not think the country is in a state to recover from. Like, FDR -- the most popular president since Washington -- couldn't do this in a political climate where the country was probably more unified than it's been at any point since. What the gently caress do people think is going to happen if you try to force this in the current political climate? Look, what the GOP did with Garland was shameful and the consequences have been bad. But we shouldn't aspire to emulate the Venezualan judicial system, where the party in power just appoints extra justices to get the ruling they want. An independent judiciary is a good thing, and the fact that republicans have been undermining that doesn't justify giving up notion of a non-politicized court system. (Or minimally politicized I guess.) I think a better solution, that would ultimately work towards achieving the ends people here seem to want, would be a gradual expansion of the court spread across a few presidential terms. Maybe two new justices per term for 4-6 terms. Given demographic trends over the next 20 years you'd expect that to end up with a more liberal court, and you could sell a plan like that in such a way that it wouldn't destroy the country or cause a civil war, since it's nonpartisan on the face of it. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have a bigger court anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Packing the court is a really, really bad idea and I think people in favor of it are severely underestimating just how vicious the blowback would be from doing so. I fully support Democrats pulling a McConnell if they somehow manage to take the senate, but actually packing the court would almost certainly trigger a secession crisis and probably serious political violence that I do not think the country is in a state to recover from. Like, FDR -- the most popular president since Washington -- couldn't do this in a political climate where the country was probably more unified than it's been at any point since. What the gently caress do people think is going to happen if you try to force this in the current political climate? the republicans have already packed the court. the court system is already politicised. you are worried about preserving an ideal judiciary that has not existed since Bush v. Gore, if it ever existed. if you believe in creating a strongly independant judiciary without changing the nature of the us, you would still be forced to get rid of most appointees since reagan. it doesn't matter if this is done by packing the courts, impeachment, or making the supreme court an elected position, but the republican appointees must go for there to be any hope of a just legal system in the us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:the republicans have already packed the court. the court system is already politicised. you are worried about preserving an ideal judiciary that has not existed since Bush v. Gore, if it ever existed. if you believe in creating a strongly independant judiciary without changing the nature of the us, you would still be forced to get rid of most appointees since reagan. it doesn't matter if this is done by packing the courts, impeachment, or making the supreme court an elected position, but the republican appointees must go for there to be any hope of a just legal system in the us. Since impeachment is near impossible, packing effectively becomes the new impeachment. Let's be honest though, democrats don't have the resolve to pack the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:The court system entertained "is a commercial product considered art if there's a religious motivation behind it" enough for the Supreme Court to punt it away with a narrow decision, but nobody's going to touch "arrest those gays, it is my religious right never to see them out of jail" with a ten foot pole. Snopes posted:In short, the States should remain free to protect the moral standards of their communities through legislation that prohibits homosexual sodomy. If legislation of such activity is no longer supported by a majority of the citizens of the States, the legislatures of the States will repeal them, or elected executive officials will cease to enforce them. -- William Pryor, a Trump short-list pick
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
He shouted too much, but I don’t think Matthews is too out there. Between all the enemies Trump has made, the number of people not running for re-election and the ladies who will be concerned about Roe, either Trump puts a softer conservative whose hearings go a lot like Roberts’s did (“stare decisis” ad nauseum) and it sails through, or he doesn’t and they get somebody to flip. If he picks another Alito and Flake/Snowe/Murkowski all vote yes, it’s a guaranteed leadership change to someone with a spine. Not that a Dem Senate will be able to do much in the long road ahead, but we shouldn’t have to eat poo poo on this, even if it’s just because the Republicans would rather have the Democrats they have right now than the party of Bernie & Warren. Because the next leader would not be as amenable as Schumer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:He shouted too much, but I don’t think Matthews is too out there. Between all the enemies Trump has made, the number of people not running for re-election and the ladies who will be concerned about Roe, either Trump puts a softer conservative whose hearings go a lot like Roberts’s did (“stare decisis” ad nauseum) and it sails through, or he doesn’t and they get somebody to flip. If he picks another Alito and Flake/Snowe/Murkowski all vote yes, it’s a guaranteed leadership change to someone with a spine. Republicans clearly give no fucks about propping up Schumer and his cohort. If they did, they would throw them a bone every so often to feed their "compromise" narrative. Instead, they've simply locked every D out of everything for the past year and a half, making it much easier to brand any aisle-crossers as spineless cowards and paving the way for more a more liberal party. If the centrist leadership has no compromise wins, why should the Democratic base support them, especially since the base leans far more to the left than our current leadership?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Most of you seem to be assuming that Trump *wants* this to be straightforward, overlooking that he's just been handed a colossal poker chip. He doesn't give a flying gently caress about Roe v Wade or really any of the social issues that animate progressives in respect of SCOTUS nominees. He's going to nominate or at least indicate an intention to nominate the Democrats' worst nightmare, then trade down to a Roberts or another Kennedy in exchange for a whole bunch of other stuff, probably to do with immigration. This is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Look, what the GOP did with Garland was shameful and the consequences have been bad. But we shouldn't aspire to emulate the Venezualan judicial system, where the party in power just appoints extra justices to get the ruling they want. An independent judiciary is a good thing, and the fact that republicans have been undermining that doesn't justify giving up notion of a non-politicized court system. (Or minimally politicized I guess.) it absolutely does everything is politicized and republican policies are explicitly evil, anything that stops them from continuing that evil is justified
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
the independent judiciary died decades ago and democrats keep loving its corpse
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Most of you seem to be assuming that Trump *wants* this to be straightforward, overlooking that he's just been handed a colossal poker chip. He doesn't give a flying gently caress about Roe v Wade or really any of the social issues that animate progressives in respect of SCOTUS nominees. He's going to nominate or at least indicate an intention to nominate the Democrats' worst nightmare, then trade down to a Roberts or another Kennedy in exchange for a whole bunch of other stuff, probably to do with immigration. This is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term. i disagree that getting the wall through congress (and/or ensuring a mild conservative) would secure a second term the rest of this isn't entirely nuts, if we assume that donald john trump has a strategy, which is... iffy i can't quite nail you to the wall for being a troll despite the insinuation of the wall thing, so good job
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Most of you seem to be assuming that Trump *wants* this to be straightforward, overlooking that he's just been handed a colossal poker chip. He doesn't give a flying gently caress about Roe v Wade or really any of the social issues that animate progressives in respect of SCOTUS nominees. He's going to nominate or at least indicate an intention to nominate the Democrats' worst nightmare, then trade down to a Roberts or another Kennedy in exchange for a whole bunch of other stuff, probably to do with immigration. This is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term. There's no way for him to do this trade. SC nominations can't be indivisibly tied to other agenda, and no Democrat is going to trust him to keep his word about swapping the nomination when the Republicans can ram through any nominee they want. Conversely, there's also no way that they cave on the nominee in exchange for trusting Democrat's future support on the wall, etc. Even Schumer knows that voting for that poo poo is toxic, doubly so if it's not inextricably attached to an obviously good deal. Stickman fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:his is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term. He’s not getting a second term, since he can’t deliver any kind of results for the crucial swing voters who voted for him. He can nominate Roy Moore and get 100% turnout in two hard red Bible Belt states, he can get a substantially beefed up border fence, but it’s not going to help anyone in Michigan or Pennsylvania by late 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
trumpo has blown up things that would have been big giveaways for his border bullshit because of his petulance and short attention span, but believe me he has a plan to undercut his own party to make a deal with the dems for something that like 5% of the house actually cares about
End boss Of SGaG* fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Is it more likely that Trump is going to play both sides in a cunning deal to get a long-term advantage, using his stock in his word to get a deal through, or is he a lazy stupid racist who will agree to the first name his handlers put in front of him because he doesn't care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
If Ginsburg retires before Trump is out of office, it's likely that half of the court will be hyper conservatives with bizarro-world perspectives on law. I could easily see Alito+Trump block+Thomas instigating changes to social programs such as Medicare that destablize the United States far worse than any court packing scheme ever could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
the only way ginsburg retires while a republican is president is feet first
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Istvun posted:the only way ginsburg retires while a republican is president is feet first Ginsberg refused to retire while Obama was president, because she (rightfully) believed that he would nominate some milquetoast moderate. She'd get her aids to weekend-at-Bernie's her for years before she'd consider retiring under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Bearded Whiteguy posted:Reminder that Kavanaugh has some serious issues when it comes to respecting freedom and rights. Worked to allow spying on US citizens and was part of Starr's team to impeach Clinton? He's a lock if he gets the nomination. Craptacular! posted:He shouted too much, but I don’t think Matthews is too out there. Between all the enemies Trump has made, the number of people not running for re-election and the ladies who will be concerned about Roe, either Trump puts a softer conservative whose hearings go a lot like Roberts’s did (“stare decisis” ad nauseum) and it sails through, or he doesn’t and they get somebody to flip. If he picks another Alito and Flake/Snowe/Murkowski all vote yes, it’s a guaranteed leadership change to someone with a spine. No Republican is going to flip on a Trump SCOTUS nomination if that flip would mean the nomination fails, unless the nominee is a card-carrying communist do far to the left that they make RBG look like Alito. In reality he's going to pick a name from the heavily curated list that produced Gorsuch and the GOP is going to blitz that fucker through the confirmation process at break-neck speed, and with a handful of Democrats voting in favor to try and help their reelection in red states but that'll be one of many reasons the media will vigorously jerk off Trump and the GOP while talking about bipartisanship. Craptacular! posted:He’s not getting a second term, since he can’t deliver any kind of results for the crucial swing voters who voted for him. He can nominate Roy Moore and get 100% turnout in two hard red Bible Belt states, he can get a substantially beefed up border fence, but it’s not going to help anyone in Michigan or Pennsylvania by late 2020. He doesn't have to help those people. He just needs to make them feel good, which his racist-as-gently caress policies do. Also the GOP's continuing to gut voting rights in every state where they control the government (Dems in some states are poo poo and helping to do so as well). Suppression literally gave Trump multiple states in 2016 and in states like Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan those laws are still going to be in place, if not worse, unless Dems take single-party control over those states and immediately undo everything. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Professor Skittles posted:Holy everliving gently caress were there just some fireworks on msnbc just now. Comes across like a USPOL "they should've done something!" poster
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Most of you seem to be assuming that Trump *wants* this to be straightforward, overlooking that he's just been handed a colossal poker chip. He doesn't give a flying gently caress about Roe v Wade or really any of the social issues that animate progressives in respect of SCOTUS nominees. He's going to nominate or at least indicate an intention to nominate the Democrats' worst nightmare, then trade down to a Roberts or another Kennedy in exchange for a whole bunch of other stuff, probably to do with immigration. This is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term. Trump never negotiates a compromise. He also knows that his one rock-solid constituency is evangelical Christians who would vote for Satan if he promised an end to abortion, so he's going to pick William Pryor or whoever floats their boat, and every Republican (and Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly) will fall in line because they fear Trump purity voters the way they feared the Tea Party post-2010.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Eh, I don't think even a horrid all-conservative SCOTUS would overturn Lawrence. What possible legal challenges could there be that A) involve consensual sodomy, B) would make it up to the supreme court, and C) result in the conclusion of "Buttfucking is so bad it needs to be re-made illegal, but only between two dudes"? Uh what. Did...you think the cops stopped using sodomy laws to harass and arrest gay people after Lawrence because they did not. All it would take is a state or even a sheriff to start doing that and LGBT people would have to fight them in court, and as each federal court slaps the state down citing Lawrence, they appeal it on up to SCOTUS which could overturn Lawrence if they so choose. If you want to argue that say Roberts has too much respect for stare decisis to do that, you may be right. But it's absurd to argue they couldn't, they absolutely could. In fact it's exactly what Republicans do for abortion: pass a bunch of state laws infringing on Casey, then argue it up to SCOTUS to see what sticks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i disagree that getting the wall through congress (and/or ensuring a mild conservative) would secure a second term Those things in themselves won't, but the perception of victory in respect of those things will. If he uses this as a wedge successfully (I don't doubt he can), he's going to split progressives along lines of prioritising either women's/LGBT issues or immigration policy. If played effectively, there's no way the Democratic base comes out of this anything but crushingly demoralised with the right feeling vindicated and energised. Stickman posted:There's no way for him to do this trade. SC nominations can't be indivisibly tied to other agenda, and no Democrat is going to trust him to keep his word about swapping the nomination when the Republicans can ram through any nominee they want. Five hours ago you were taking someone to task for suggesting packing SCOTUS is a terrible idea, so I find it ironic that you're using "but that's not The Done Thing" to help cope here. He's going to secure the deal by negotiating it in public. It doesn't need to be indivisibly tied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
The most likely loss to gay rights is going to be worker protection laws. It’s easy pickings given the conflicting circuits and allows them to deliver something to the base. They won’t have to pester Roberts too much to get a hearing, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 04:22
|
|