Craptacular! posted:Gorsuch is qualified. Evil, but qualified. And it was filling Scalia’s seat, and a lot of regular people (e.g. people not here) think a SCOTUS with the thinnest of margins between ideologies “best represents America” because we are such a bitterly divided nation. The nub of the issue is that Gorsuch is freaking illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The nub of the issue is that Gorsuch is freaking illiterate. A lack of literacy in the case of the justice, who himself is the newest of nine robed individuals in the job of arbitration of constitutional disputes, is that central nub of the issue
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Gorsuch writes like Yoda if Yoda had Huntington's Disease
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm also inclined to skepticism when it comes to the notion that Republicans are going to dismantle abortion rights as quickly and absolutely as possible. I have no romantic notions that they want to do the right thing and not be bullies. My thinking is, the last time the Supreme Court forced most of the country to legalize a wildly unpopular law (Dred Scott) we got a Civil War within a few years. Forcing every state to prosecute miscarriages just on the off-chance they were deliberately induced would not only destroy what little integrity the court has right now, it would virtually guarantee huge Democratic gains in the next election. Unless the Dems are willing to pack the court, "huge Democratic gains" can't do anything to the Supreme Court for probably a decade, by which point the Dems will have totally squandered whatever goodwill they've managed to accrue. The fact that the Dems are unwilling to declare themselves a pro-choice party makes it difficult for them to truly capitalize on that, too. Meanwhile, the GOP will get massive evangelical turnout thanks to actually living up to their campaign promises. The way you're talking about the Dred Scott decision suggests you have no idea what it actually was. It did not "legalize a wildly unpopular law". As for its relationship to the Civil War, its main contribution was emboldening the slaveowners to pursue further anti-democratic measures - such as secession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They can. Overturning Griswold v Connecticut overturns Roe, Lawrence, and Obgerfell to name a few. they'll stop at griswold, they'll stop at griswold, i repeat to myself as i slowly transform into an eight year old working in a coal mine
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:How will that happen? Conservatives just want to punish women for having sex. Are Democratic prosecutors going to lead the charge against miscarriers? I can imagine the odd paranoid boyfriend accusing his girlfriend and finding a sympathetic crazy backwoods prosecutor, but I don't see how it becomes widespread. I don't either. But it's one of the ridiculous hypotheticals the more alarmist posters in this thread have been pulling out. There's a lot of middle ground between our current situation and outright banning abortion everywhere. Main Paineframe posted:Unless the Dems are willing to pack the court, "huge Democratic gains" can't do anything to the Supreme Court for probably a decade, by which point the Dems will have totally squandered whatever goodwill they've managed to accrue. The fact that the Dems are unwilling to declare themselves a pro-choice party makes it difficult for them to truly capitalize on that, too. Meanwhile, the GOP will get massive evangelical turnout thanks to actually living up to their campaign promises. This is entirely why court-packing, previously a pie-in-the-sky scheme that was considered a horrific crime against decorum, is now something being seriously discussed in liberal publications. No argument that the Dems would probably find a way to gently caress that up though. quote:The way you're talking about the Dred Scott decision suggests you have no idea what it actually was. It did not "legalize a wildly unpopular law". As for its relationship to the Civil War, its main contribution was emboldening the slaveowners to pursue further anti-democratic measures - such as secession. Slavery was not a wildly unpopular law? Like OK, I'm not using the word correctly in the technical sense (and this is probably the only thread where pedantry can be justified as on-topic) but I thought my point was pretty clear. And it's not just the slaveowners who were radicalized by Dred Scott. I'm sure you've heard of a certain patriot by the name of John Brown?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:How will that happen? Conservatives just want to punish women for having sex. Are Democratic prosecutors going to lead the charge against miscarriers? I can imagine the odd paranoid boyfriend accusing his girlfriend and finding a sympathetic crazy backwoods prosecutor, but I don't see how it becomes widespread. https://twitter.com/fresnobee/status/996874181177294848 Even blue states have plenty of conservative leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Like OK, I'm not using the word correctly in the technical sense (and this is probably the only thread where pedantry can be justified as on-topic) oh god, i've been doing everything wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:https://twitter.com/fresnobee/status/996874181177294848 who the gently caress is that fat piece of poo poo who is apparently Trump's August Von Mackensen  e: lmao at sgt shulz leering at Von Mackensen's superior Flair Former DILF fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jul 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Ah, I see that completing the destruction of our democratic institutions is now a bipartisan consensus. Is this what liberalism does to your brain? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:This is true, but I think “bad thing is actively happening now” is a greater motivator than “bad thing COULD happen”. "LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO MAKE BABY MURDER LEGAL AGAIN" is a pretty good motivator for those assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Ah, I see that completing the destruction of our democratic institutions is now a bipartisan consensus. You useless melt oval office. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Slavery was not a wildly unpopular law? Like OK, I'm not using the word correctly in the technical sense (and this is probably the only thread where pedantry can be justified as on-topic) but I thought my point was pretty clear. And it's not just the slaveowners who were radicalized by Dred Scott. I'm sure you've heard of a certain patriot by the name of John Brown? The Dred Scott case didn't "legalize slavery". It did strike down the Missouri Compromise and prohibit the federal government from automatically freeing slaves in territories which banned slavery, but that's a far cry from "legalizing slavery". The main reason it's so notorious has nothing to do with slavery: it ruled that African-Americans (both slaves and freemen) were Constitutionally prohibited from being citizens, did not possess civil or constitutional rights, and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. The reason people got fired up about it wasn't the impact of the decision itself, but the content of the ruling. It was legal horseshit to a degree that would even impress Scalia. By taking originalism to absurd extremes, the Court decided that Scott didn't have standing to bring the case...and then went on to rule on the case itself anyway. Not only that, but Taney was known to be fiercely pro-slavery, and some of the concurring opinions used language that suggested they were setting the stage so that a future lawsuit could push back states' ability to regulate slavery. Northerners felt the Court was barely even pretending to care about legal reasoning at that point. In terms of moving toward the Civil War, though, the impact of the Dred Scott decision was relatively small compared to the previous developments, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the caning of Charles Sumner. By the time the Dred Scott ruling was issued, for instance, John Brown had already earned considerable noteriety for his part in anti-slavery militias during the escalation of the violence in Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Dred Scott effectively announced that the Supreme Court was going to rule, in short order, the constitution mandated the expansion of slavery to free states. So the idea that it was going to legalize slavery is actually reasonably correct, as long as you remember the qualifier "in the north." After all, if you have a right to bring your slave into a free state and he doesn't become free, what exactly does a free state even mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Twitter rumormongering and reporting suggests it’s Kavanaugh, unless the fake out is that the nominee won’t be at the announcement and Judge K is doing some decoy work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Twitter rumormongering and reporting suggests it’s Kavanaugh, unless the fake out is that the nominee won’t be at the announcement and Judge K is doing some decoy work. New York Times confirms
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1016486701773066240?s=19 It's Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Yep, knew it. Kavanaugh is there solely to provide cover in case of indictment or impeachment. Trump is covering his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
How bad is it? My expectation was the corpse of Justice Taney so I have pretty dismal priors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
axeil posted:How bad is it? it's the most "trump is immune from the law" pick he could find
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's the most "trump is immune from the law" pick he could find Well gently caress. Probably should go back to avoiding D&D for my own mental health.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
This piece of poo poo casting the 5th vote to protect Dear Leader (who got 3 million less votes) from a subpoena or an indictment is pretty much the end of American democracy.
mcmagic fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jul 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
The certain bitter aggro Kavanaugh will face sets up Barrett for an easier confirmation which I believe is Trump's intent. Kavanagh will take one for the team.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:The certain bitter aggro Kavanaugh will face sets up Barrett for an easier confirmation which I believe is Trump's intent. Kavanagh will take one for the team. You think the intent is for Kavanaugh to not get confirmed so that they can put Barrett on the court?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:The certain bitter aggro Kavanaugh will face sets up Barrett for an easier confirmation which I believe is Trump's intent. Kavanagh will take one for the team. Donald "I meant to do that" Trump, master of nth-dimensional chess
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
I think the Maggie Habermann theory of 'Mitch and the other Republicans wanted someone other than Kavanaugh, so I will pick Kavanaugh' is correct
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
In what way does Kavanaugh provide more legal cover to Trump than any of the other heritage foundation picked shitters on his short list?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:In what way does Kavanaugh provide more legal cover to Trump than any of the other heritage foundation picked shitters on his short list? Kavanaugh has stated he believes presidents should be immune to civil and criminal prosecution while in office -- no lawsuits, no criminal charges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:The certain bitter aggro Kavanaugh will face sets up Barrett for an easier confirmation which I believe is Trump's intent. Kavanagh will take one for the team. Are you not aware that republicans have a majority in the senate and have enough votes to confirm him already? Short of something coming out that he diddles kids, Kavanaugh is the new justice. A 53 year old to the right of Alito and Gorsuch. Thanks, Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You think the intent is for Kavanaugh to not get confirmed so that they can put Barrett on the court? yeah, this allows the threat of the opposition publicly being criticized as mindless "obstructionists" to ease the path for Barrett. If he's confirmed, it's not a big deal. It's a win. But Barrett is a bigger win for his base, and women, but she wouldn't have made the hearings for his first pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Kavanaugh has stated he believes presidents should be immune to civil and criminal prosecution while in office -- no lawsuits, no criminal charges. ahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Are you not aware that republicans have a majority in the senate and have enough votes to confirm him already? Short of something coming out that he diddles kids, Kavanaugh is the new justice. It's not a firm majority with McCain's illness and Kavanagh will face opposition even with some Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:yeah, this allows the threat of the opposition publicly being criticized as mindless "obstructionists" to ease the path for Barrett. If he's confirmed, it's not a big deal. It's a win. But Barrett is a bigger win for his base, and women, but she wouldn't have made the hearings for his first pick. She would've, but more importantly, there isn't time for one failed nom and then a second new nom and review process before the November elections, which might flip the senate and deadlock the court for the rest of Trump's term. Trump just picked the most brazenly corrupt option because doesn't care about abortion but he *does* care about not going to jail
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
He has such an insane conflict of interest in any case involving Trump but I'm sure he'll find some way to not recuse himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
If Kavanaugh fails, it requires Republican votes. The one upside to getting rid of the filibuster is that it's harder to blame everything on those unreasonable minority party senators. Even CHUDS can count to 50. Edit: also lol if Kavanaugh recluses himself because he doesn't give a gently caress about Trump and cares more about his own reputation a la sessions
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:It's not a firm majority with McCain's illness and Kavanagh will face opposition even with some Republicans. No he won't. they will all vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Even CHUDS can count to 50. They are absolutely capable of pinning a failure on the Democrats. All that would need to happen is for right-wing media to tell them to blame the Democrats. Which right-wing media will most definitely do. But, who cares? Their brainless predictability also makes them immaterial to political calculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Tyrannosoros posted:CHUDs think Obama founded the Taliban and did Katrina and the financial crisis. Some of them have heard of the number fifty but they all need Sean Hannity to walk them through counting up to it. Yeah, if it fails, for sure they will say, "Those mean old Democrats wouldn't support a qualified nominee. This is shocking hypocrisy and an unprecedented violation of norms!" However, I don't think it's likely that Kavanaugh's nomination fails. GOP has majority, and even if a few vote no or can't vote that's cancelled out by worthless Dems like Donnelly, Manchin, and Heitkamp. So to block the nomination it's not just convincing a few GOP senators. Dems also have to convince at least 3 of their own members. Dems should do everything they can to block this nomination, but Dems probably just gonna Dem it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:It's not a firm majority with McCain's illness and Kavanagh will face opposition even with some Republicans. Based on what? The public statements of a single Senator whose actual voting record contradicts those statements? ErIog posted:Dems should do everything they can to block this nomination, but Dems probably just gonna Dem it up. There is literally nothing they can do. nessin fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jul 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
nessin posted:Based on what? The public statements of a single Senator whose actual voting record contradicts those statements? They can stay united as a caucus and not give this country's minority rule any bipartisan credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 04:15
|
|