|
Literally only john roberts sense of shame, so, nothing
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Sydin posted:Serious question: what prevents the current court from reviewing and blocking a run of the mill court packing? Like I can see the 5-4 decision striking down the appointment of more judges penned by Robert's already. Technically nothing besides some arcane pretextual argument. The SCOTUS has changed in size before, although the last president who tried to pack it was FDR when he was trying his damndest to get the New Deal done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Serious question: what prevents the current court from reviewing and blocking a run of the mill court packing? Like I can see the 5-4 decision striking down the appointment of more judges penned by Robert's already. they have no power to do so, the composition of the supreme court is explicitly given in the Constitution as a power and duty of Congress
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Their lack of an army? Sure but that digs into a very Heinlein-ian world where the only authority is violence. Assuming we dont devolve into that and actually respect SCOTUS decisions though, how far does their power reach wrt striking down laws or appointments that impact their power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Sure but that digs into a very Heinlein-ian world where the only authority is violence. Assuming we dont devolve into that and actually respect SCOTUS decisions though, how far does their power reach wrt striking down laws or appointments that impact their power? congress has the power to change the number of justices on the court. it's happened before repeatedly. the court saying otherwise is just bullshit and can and should be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:congress has the power to change the number of justices on the court. it's happened before repeatedly. the court saying otherwise is just bullshit and can and should be disregarded. Also Congress does ultimately retain the power to impeach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Sure but that digs into a very Heinlein-ian world where the only authority is violence. Assuming we dont devolve into that and actually respect SCOTUS decisions though, how far does their power reach wrt striking down laws or appointments that impact their power? The court cannot strike down appointments, there is no ambiguity. Anyone who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate is a justice and participates in court business. Only a Heinlein approach could interfere with this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Serious question: what prevents the current court from reviewing and blocking a run of the mill court packing? Like I can see the 5-4 decision striking down the appointment of more judges penned by Robert's already. Theoretically nothing I guess, but they are not going to do it. If the law is simple, just expanding the size of the supreme court to 11 or whatever and thats it, then any fear that the supreme court would strike it down to keep it at 9 is not a serious thing to actually worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Serious question: what prevents the current court from reviewing and blocking a run of the mill court packing? Like I can see the 5-4 decision striking down the appointment of more judges penned by Robert's already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Maybe to the extent that it could conflict with other Federal laws or procedures, but they can not bar the court from reviewing the constitutionality of a law. one weird trick to make sure your laws are constitutional: just say that the supreme court can't review them Hieronymous Alloy posted:And then adding the current supreme Court judges to tother courts (which they already do when retired anyway). if i were the current justices i would politely decline the concurrent appointment to a circuit court - i'm very honored, but no thank you, i'll stay here rather than accepting your generous offer of less authority eke out fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jun 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Zoran posted:It would destroy the political power of the court if they were forced to draw from the pool randomly for any given decision, since precedents would no longer be authoritative. A rehearing the next year on a similar case with a different random drawing may very well produce a different result. Isnt this the whole point of Circuit Courts
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out why, when the really easy and obvious answer is "I'm going to add a minimum of two liberal justices to the court, because that's the number of seats that were stolen from us via GOP shenanigans", seemingly every Dem candidate is tripping over themselves to come up with more obtuse and probably unconstitutional solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Because that invites the GOP to make retaliatory alterations. They're trying (vainly) to create a solution that doesn't get undone whenever the pendulum swings back, as it always will. Because We the People are loving Dumb as Hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I'm just trying to figure out why, when the really easy and obvious answer is "I'm going to add a minimum of two liberal justices to the court, because that's the number of seats that were stolen from us via GOP shenanigans", seemingly every Dem candidate is tripping over themselves to come up with more obtuse and probably unconstitutional solutions. Mathematically, adding two justices is a compromise position for just the first stolen seat (ie a 6/5 court instead of the 5/4 without the stolen seat). But good luck explaining that to the public. :/ I’d just advertise it as “rebalancing” and only bring up the math to call the complaining right-wing pundits idiots. Stickman fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Congress can explicitly bar the court from reviewing a rotating justice bill, or any bill. It’s never been tested, but Congress probably can’t strip all jurisdiction to the extent of precluding all remedy for violation of a vested constitutional right. There’s a good citation for that somewhere but I don’t feel like digging it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Because that invites the GOP to make retaliatory alterations. They're trying (vainly) to create a solution that doesn't get undone whenever the pendulum swings back, as it always will. Because We the People are loving Dumb as Hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Dem candidates shouldn't say anything about the Supreme Court because if the GOP thinks Democrats will do something about the court they'll preemptively pack it, even in a lame duck session. They can’t right now though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Dem candidates shouldn't say anything about the Supreme Court because if the GOP thinks Democrats will do something about the court they'll preemptively pack it, even in a lame duck session. They would need to control both houses of Congress to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Dem candidates shouldn't say anything about the Supreme Court because if the GOP thinks Democrats will do something about the court they'll preemptively pack it, even in a lame duck session. Mitch already threatened it a couple of times; we're pretty far past "I know that he knows that I know" games
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It’s never been tested, but Congress probably can’t strip all jurisdiction to the extent of precluding all remedy for violation of a vested constitutional right. There’s a good citation for that somewhere but I don’t feel like digging it up. Yeah but you wouldn't do that, you would just make some lower court the final appellate court for that law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Quorum posted:The answer is no, probably, because the Census is constitutionally mandated to happen within ten years from the last one. eh, you could fudge it. The 1880 census took 8 years to complete. So you could push off demographic changes for awhile. Or you could just completely ignore it. Congress was deadlocked after the 1920 census. So they just let the 1910 census stand for 23 years. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Or you could just completely ignore it. Congress was deadlocked after the 1920 census. So they just let the 1910 census stand for 23 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Dem candidates shouldn't say anything about the Supreme Court because if the GOP thinks Democrats will do something about the court they'll preemptively pack it, even in a lame duck session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
yeah uh the republicans have already packed the court. it's kinda the whole reason the democrats have to do it. the gop packing the court (which they can;t even do now) would be an empty gesture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but you wouldn't do that, you would just make some lower court the final appellate court for that law. The exceptions clause may allow this, but it’s controversial. Ultimately the only real rule for the Supreme Court is that five of them can do whatever they like. I don’t think there’s ever been a statute that said something like “the Supreme Court shall not have appellate jd over cases where the courts must interpret or consider constitutional challenges to this Act”, but I bet SCOTUS would find a limit to the exceptions clause there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m sure this will be a shitshow next term God bless the theocratic states of America.  VitalSigns posted:Congress can explicitly bar the court from reviewing a rotating justice bill, or any bill. I’m sure a court that ignored a loving amendment that restricts their ability to rule on voting rights so they could give a bullshit excuse for their party’s racism will abide by a regular law that restricts their authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I’m sure a court that ignored a loving amendment that restricts their ability to rule on voting rights so they could give a bullshit excuse for their party’s racism will abide by a regular law that restricts their authority. You might be surprised - they’ve obeyed jurisdiction stripping provisions in the past. And if they don’t, well, power of the purse. Defund the entire Supreme Court (or just Kavanaugh’s office). Can’t take their salaries, but you can take away everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Church of Satan need to start a charter school stat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
https://www.adn.com/politics/2019/06/29/dunleavy-cuts-334k-from-alaska-court-system-over-abortion-dispute/ that's the kind of spite and aggression democrats should direct at john roberts
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Was the court's rulings really so unusual this year? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-term-found-trump-s-justices-others-forming-unpredictable-n1024916 quote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Was the court's rulings really so unusual this year? It's not really surprising since the ideological composition of the court hasn't changed that much by losing Kennedy and gaining Beerman. It just continues trucking on slowly eroding progress. The big worry is that the liberal are old as hell; a 7-2 or even 6-3 court would be devastating since the ultra-conservative assholes would have a reliable majority. E: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question... Stickman fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jul 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Was the court's rulings really so unusual this year? I cannot remember another opinion with two different 5-4 coalitions having only one member in common...
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinDaleyDC/status/1145701921321377793 This is really really frightening
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinDaleyDC/status/1145701921321377793 what's up with this unironic daily caller link also title VII already doesn't cover us in the majority of the country, these cases will really be about chastising the second and seventh circuits for allowing anything progressive to happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
I thought there was a worry over the change from straight 5-4 decisions to more usage of 9-0 decisions where the majority has to be tailored so narrowly as to effectively guy what liberals were hoping to defend. Auer being the prime example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Obviously the majority is going to decide that discrimination against LGBT people is ok. Have you ever seen anything from any of those 5 hateful old fucks that suggests otherwise? Roberts would be keen to go back and gut Obergefell. But luckily this isn't something we need to pass a constitutional amendment to fix. If the Dems can get back the senate and the presidency, they can just pass a law to protect LGBT people in the workplace, and probably would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Obviously the majority is going to decide that discrimination against LGBT people is ok. Have you ever seen anything from any of those 5 hateful old fucks that suggests otherwise? Roberts would be keen to go back and gut Obergefell. But luckily this isn't something we need to pass a constitutional amendment to fix. If the Dems can get back the senate and the presidency, they can just pass a law to protect LGBT people in the workplace, and probably would. yeah I mean at a certain point, we do need to explicitly fix Title VII instead of relying on increasingly broad theories about what its language includes i'd rather that not come in this manner, but in the scheme of bad SCOTUS decisions that are likely to happen next term, it's very fixable
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It's not really surprising since the ideological composition of the court hasn't changed that much by losing Kennedy and gaining Beerman. It just continues trucking on slowly eroding progress. The big worry is that the liberal are old as hell; a 7-2 or even 6-3 court would be devastating since the ultra-conservative assholes would have a reliable majority. Yes, the article says that straight splits between Dem appointed judges and GOP appointed judges was rare this year. Only happened seven times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Some interesting charts https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-might-have-three-swing-justices-now/ quote:...  
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Just like everything else hosed up with our country's first past the poll winner-takes-all system, anything that is one vote above 50% wins. So 5 to 4 for everything conservative for the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future. It doesn't matter how 538 spins it, that is what it all comes down to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:58
|
|
