|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not just an rear end in a top hat but a dumb rear end in a top hat. 
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
My experience is there is a point past three redrafts of any document where if you aren't using those redrafts to make significant changes of substance then every draft creates more errors than it fixes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:how is he a meticulous writer if the clerks are writing the opinions for him. it’s almost like judges, and particularly deference to their intellectual might, are a bunch of aristocratic trash
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:it’s almost like judges, and particularly deference to their intellectual might, are a bunch of aristocratic trash I mean, almost any case that comes to the SCOTUS is going to have really good briefs on both sides. All a justice has to do to write an opinion is: 1. Decide who they want to win; 2. Copy and paste from the appropriate briefs; and 3. Edit to put your prose style (Scalia, Kagan, Gorsuch, I'm looking at y'all) in the opinion. ...this doesn't apply to Thomas, however, who is usually off in left field arguing for the abolition of a particular 100 year old legal doctrine and consequently has to write more of his own stuff. Or at least copy and paste from his last weird-rear end concurrence/dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's possible that each of those opinions are coming back with paragraphs of rewrites next to each paragraph they submitted. He sounds like an rear end in a top hat and it also sounds like his nepotistic clerks are lovely writers themselves. More like they get lovely feedback and end up having to guess what their abusive drunk uncle means because he's unable to properly convey it while shotgunning beers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
I'd just assume they're full of poo poo since going "oh my boss a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE required me to write HUNDREDS OF DRAFTS and I'd spend eighty hours a week doing it until smart tough strong judge man approved" is exactly the sort of pseudo-intellectual workaholic myth making poo poo that certain circles of people go nuts for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Did we ever get an explanation to the insane “”baseball tickets”” debt or is that just another Trump century corruption trivia that’ll be forgotten by everyone besides us nerds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:Did we ever get an explanation to the insane “”baseball tickets”” debt or is that just another Trump century corruption trivia that’ll be forgotten by everyone besides us nerds? Marco Rubio had insane debts in the hundreds of thousands as well before a billionaire sugar daddy paid them off and funded his run for congress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I'd just assume they're full of poo poo since going "oh my boss a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE required me to write HUNDREDS OF DRAFTS and I'd spend eighty hours a week doing it until smart tough strong judge man approved" is exactly the sort of pseudo-intellectual workaholic myth making poo poo that certain circles of people go nuts for. No, that really is how some lawyers behave when reviewing work. Usually it’s because each time they’re re-editing their own words back to what it was a draft or two back, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I'd just assume they're full of poo poo since going "oh my boss a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE required me to write HUNDREDS OF DRAFTS and I'd spend eighty hours a week doing it until smart tough strong judge man approved" is exactly the sort of pseudo-intellectual workaholic myth making poo poo that certain circles of people go nuts for. not really any different than competitive stressing over outlines in 1L
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In hell, Kav will be a district judge with 500 cases on his docket. He'll be presiding over the Hell version of Traffic Court, which will look and feel just like the courthouse in the Tremont section of the Bronx in the middle of July. Session will never end and the AC will be broken, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
brett kavanaugh has done nothing to earn his way onto the smash television hit "Night Court"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
In Hell, Kav will have to keep writing and rewriting a dissent on Roe v Milwaukee' Best, the landmark abortion case responsible for tragically terminating so many 12-packs at 4, 5, even 6 cans. The crushed fetal husks of aborted, unsold cans of beer are dumped in a landfill outside his DC office, their wailing undead souls filling the night with a shrieking, crinkling cacophony
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I'd just assume they're full of poo poo since going "oh my boss a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE required me to write HUNDREDS OF DRAFTS and I'd spend eighty hours a week doing it until smart tough strong judge man approved" is exactly the sort of pseudo-intellectual workaholic myth making poo poo that certain circles of people go nuts for. That's the part that really loses me. The tweet is making this sound noble when in reality it just sounds like pointless busywork. Thinking back I'm not even sure what the Kavanagh style is even supposed to be or what his clerks are perfecting. He has the most boring generic style on the court. That 538 tweet surprised me because I genuinely can't remember Kavanagh ever siding with the liberals. When Gorsuch crosses party lines he does it in a much more noticable way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
i would blow my brains out if i had to write drafts for gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
thread title
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Three Supreme Court Justices. This appointment system is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:thread title Well, this is public now. Fuuuuuuuuuuuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
I feel like anybody putting out press releases about how healthy they are probably isn't. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
If by some miracle the Dems win the WH and Senate next fall despite trying to sabotage themselves I hope Schumer falls down a well and someone competent replaces him. Not that that'll be enough to fix the damage that'll be caused if Trump gets to replace RBG with another ALEC-molded GenX shitlord.
Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Aug 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
She could have retired in 09...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If by some miracle the Dems win the WH and Senate next fall despite trying to sabotage themselves I hope Schumer falls down a well and someone competent replaces him. Not that that'll be enough to fix the damage that'll be caused if Trump gets to replace RBG with another ALEC-molded GenX shitlord. At this point, only court-packing is going to save us from a decades long fascist majority. And there's definitely no such momentum behind that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
In some ways having Ginsburg pass away or become unable to serve might be a good thing. The Supreme Court as is will be fascist majority for at least 20 to 30 years. Losing another seat probably won't impact many decisions but it might Force the conversation or actual action on Court packing which is the only way any Progressive legislation gets passed meaningfully in the next couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Has accelerationism ever actually worked? In the 60s we were all ready for the revolution until the actual conservatives used actual power and all of a sudden all the leaders on the left were either dead, in jail, or in exile. We got a republican president to resign in disgrace and all we got out of it was carter and neoliberalism. What makes us frogs think that if the pot got just a bit hotter, then we’d finally convince people our side is right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Has accelerationism ever actually worked? In the 60s we were all ready for the revolution until the actual conservatives used actual power and all of a sudden all the leaders on the left were either dead, in jail, or in exile. We got a republican president to resign in disgrace and all we got out of it was carter and neoliberalism. What makes us frogs think that if the pot got just a bit hotter, then we’d finally convince people our side is right? I'm not really sure it's accelerationism in this case. With a 5-4 frothy lizard person majority the kinds of decisions that will be made would probably be pretty similar to a 6-3 froth lizard person majority. The only thing that would change is a few of the non-controversial cases where Roberts sides with the left justices in order to run cover for all the times he votes with the conservatives on controversial matters. He would be less able to do that in a 6-3 lizard person majority. The only thing that changes significantly is the optics of the outcomes, and that could be helpful in demonstrating to people how dire a situation the court is in. I also don't think people need a lot of convincing. A 6-3 conservative majority is going to make a lot of really unpopular decisions. The tricky part is convincing people that expanding the court is the answer, and that could be easier to do if it's clear it's not possible to reabalance the court with the current normal process (especially when that process is obstructed for political reasons).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
"and then the people rise up" thinking is basically prayer, what'll happen is a schism over 11 judges vs 17.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm not sure any one event is going to convince anyone regarding court packing. This country doesn't really run on reality anymore, and the only barometer on this matter I would trust is on who wins the election. If someone far left gets elected, we might have a chance of cajoling enough people into supporting it over the next decade or so. Definitely not during 2020-2024. If a centrist wins, we're riding out the whole 20-30 years, no question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
I suspect the plan isn't to actually court pack (as the government shifted between the parties you'd end up with dozens of SC justices). I think the plan is to take a page from FDR and credibly look like you MIGHT court pack in an effort to reign in the worst excesses of the SC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:I suspect the plan isn't to actually court pack (as the government shifted between the parties you'd end up with dozens of SC justices). I think the plan is to take a page from FDR and credibly look like you MIGHT court pack in an effort to reign in the worst excesses of the SC. That probably doesn't work anymore, from the current state of the Republican party. You do it, or ya don't in today's political climate. Unless that was the joke. I don't think we are in a situation that has the luxury of half-measures. Either we go whole-hog on solving the problem at its source, or a more competent fascism finishes the job Trump started once the next Republican president is inevitably elected. Roluth fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Court packing is necessary, but the problem is there's no plausible way to accomplish it. We would need 1) A Democratic President willing to do it 2) control of The Senate and 3) a broad enough Senate majority to overcome several certain defections like that of Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and others. Chris Coons for instance is taking about bringing the filibuster back for court nominations if there's a Democratic President and Senate. He's not gonna vote to court pack under any circumstances. And the thing is, an activist fascist court, especially a 6-3 one, can "legislate from the bench" enough functionally to prevent all three of the above from happening. Even now Mark Janus is suing for remittance of all his past public sector union dues. If he wins (he will), it will open the floodgates for all public sector unions to get sued into oblivion, thereby further disadvantaging the Democratic Party. A 6-3 fascist court could also rule on other matters that make it tougher for Dems in Senate and Presidential Elections. To pick a mild example, they could rule that college students must vote in their State of permanent address and not the State in which they're attending school. Voter suppression tactics and tipping the scales for the Republicans only gets more extreme from there. Add to that the inherent GOP advantage in the Senate and court packing becomes all but impossible, even though it is likely necessary to prevent an even more overt fascism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Armack posted:Court packing is necessary, but the problem is there's no plausible way to accomplish it. We would need 1) A Democratic President willing to do it 2) control of The Senate and 3) a broad enough Senate majority to overcome several certain defections like that of Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and others. Chris Coons for instance is taking about bringing the filibuster back for court nominations if there's a Democratic President and Senate. He's not gonna vote to court pack under any circumstances. So, there's no hope then? Fascism has already won, going by what you've laid out here? Honestly, we've no choice but to push forward anyways. If democracy is going to die, let's at least be loud about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
I didn't say there was no hope. I said court packing, although a good idea, is highly unlikely to happen and that if we lose another Supreme Court seat to the far right then we can expect the court to tip the scales such that the system becomes more overtly fascist. That scenario, dismal as it is, does not preclude all hope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
I for one look forward to Mitch McConnell taking a new SC nomination through in December 2020 after trump has lost the presidential race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Roluth posted:That probably doesn't work anymore, from the current state of the Republican party. You do it, or ya don't in today's political climate. Unless that was the joke. FDR's political opposition didn't cave out of the goodness of their hearts because they felt ashamed of themselves. They caved because they were scared of getting murdered by an increasingly angry electorate that could plainly see that unelected judges were vetoing popular legislation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
The solution is to take back the Senate and pass legislation. The SC is not going to fix things anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:The solution is to take back the Senate and pass legislation. The SC is not going to fix things anytime soon. and then court strikes down all the progressive legislation you pass without even the faintest hint of constitutional justification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and then court strikes down all the progressive legislation you pass without even the faintest hint of constitutional justification. And that is the point where court-packing might start to become a viable political option, either for real or to exert pressure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:And that is the point where court-packing might start to become a viable political option, either for real or to exert pressure. This already happened with the Voting Rights Act. The vast majority of voters didn't care all that much. Don't wait for things to turn into an emergency, and assume that voters will just sort of come around to your solution. It's important to start the discussion, and the pressure, now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:And that is the point where court-packing might start to become a viable political option, either for real or to exert pressure. the court has installed an illegitimate president, it gutted the VRA without even giving a constitutional justification, and it couldn't even make consistent decisions on masterpiece and the travel ban in the same session.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
The illegitimate president had the support of half the country. The Court specifically outlined an easy legislative fix for the VRA knowing full well that Congress would never pass it. Masterpiece barely affects the only minority that's damaged by it and the travel ban doesn't even affect American citizens. These are all vastly different situations than the hypothetical of Bernie riding into office with congressional majorities passing popular legislation and the court replying with "lol no gently caress you" to every single one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 00:33
|
|