SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

NaanViolence: Mar 1, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

My argument is the same quality as his, with equal supporting evidence. I just used fewer words.

# ? May 8, 2020 19:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:03

NaanViolence: Mar 1, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Even if she had retired it's very unlikely that Obama would have chosen anyone of nearly her quality. Everyone seems to be missing that point.

# ? May 8, 2020 19:39

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

NaanViolence posted:

Even if she had retired it's very unlikely that Obama would have chosen anyone of nearly her quality. Everyone seems to be missing that point.

Sotomayor seems fine

Better than Ginsburg, arguably

# ? May 8, 2020 19:43

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

NaanViolence posted:

Even if she had retired it's very unlikely that Obama would have chosen anyone of nearly her quality. Everyone seems to be missing that point.

It is very unlikely, but more likely than Clinton would have, or that Trump would have, or that Biden would have, or that Tom Cotton would if Biden wins and RBG holds on to after the 2024 election.

What exactly do you think she brings to the table? For all the "quality" she provides, it's from the minority, and when has a dissent mattered unless the minority could actually take the court back?

# ? May 8, 2020 19:44

NaanViolence: Mar 1, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Sotomayor isn't nearly as good as RBG.

# ? May 8, 2020 19:50

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

NaanViolence posted:

Sotomayor isn't nearly as good as RBG.

Again, why does this even matter unless there are four other justices on the court nominally aligned with RBG? Isn't having a majority of tepid justices better than a small minority of stellar ones? Maybe the answer is no, but I'd like to hear why

Can you point me to a decision where she pulled the majority further to the left than it would have been?

HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 19:57 on May 8, 2020

# ? May 8, 2020 19:52

Lemniscate Blue: Apr 21, 2006; Here we go again.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/republicans-ready-supreme-court-vacancy-243574

Senate GOP confirming what everyone knew already.

# ? May 8, 2020 19:59

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

NaanViolence posted:

Sotomayor isn't nearly as good as RBG.

I disagree, I find Sotomayor is on the good side of more cases, like that case last week where Georgia copyrighted their laws and charged you to look at them

But even if she is better, has that ever made a difference, and was an extra few years of RBG worth Trump replacing her with an even drunker rapier judge

# ? May 8, 2020 20:05

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1258860402739380226?s=19

# ? May 8, 2020 22:26

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Lemniscate Blue posted:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/republicans-ready-supreme-court-vacancy-243574

Senate GOP confirming what everyone knew already.

And the Democrats will hem and haw then proceed to do nothing even if Biden wins in November and the SCOTUS doesn't pull another Bush .v Gore.

# ? May 9, 2020 00:02

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

"Once the election is over the Republicans will calm down and start negotiating in good faith again" - Biden & Schumer, probably

# ? May 9, 2020 00:04

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Slaan posted:

"Once the election is over the Republicans will calm down and start negotiating in good faith again" - Biden & Schumer, probably

Biden has said multiple times that he thinks this unironically

# ? May 11, 2020 13:16

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Breyer being a real buzzkill https://twitter.com/jentaub/status/1260229737491947525?s=21

# ? May 12, 2020 16:41

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

Things are hard and annoying and sometimes take time therefore all hail president trump.

# ? May 12, 2020 17:25

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

We cannot allow oversight of the executive because what if the president chooses to obsess over it to the point that it impacts his functioning

# ? May 12, 2020 17:26

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

haveblue posted:

We cannot allow oversight of the executive because what if the president chooses to obsess over it to the point that it impacts his functioning

Trump�s lawyer is literally arguing this, which is just bonkers in so many ways

# ? May 12, 2020 17:47

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

FlamingLiberal posted:

Trump�s lawyer is literally arguing this, which is just bonkers in so many ways

What's worse is that there are members of the SCROTUS who agree it should exist.

# ? May 12, 2020 18:07

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

�Your honor, my client is far too incompetent and brain-dead to do any work, therefore I motion for dismissal.�

# ? May 12, 2020 18:35

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

wielder posted:

Flashback to 2014:

On Tuesday, we learned more about what Ginsburg herself thinks, from an interview she did with Elle's Jessica Weisberg. Here's the key exchange:

WEISBERG: I'm not sure how to ask this, but a lot of people who admire and respect you wonder if you'll resign while President Obama is in office.

GINSBURG: Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam.... I think I'll recognize when the time comes that I can't any longer. But now I can.

Ginsburg emphasizes, as she has in the past, that she can still do the job at "full steam." But she lays out a political rationale that's new, arguing that any nominee Obama would appoint this year that she'd "like" would be filibustered. However, since the Democrats are certain to lose at least three Senate seats this fall � and likely a couple more � it will surely only be more difficult for him to get a nominee confirmed next year.

What about after 2016? Well, despite Ginsburg's previously-expressed opinion that "it's going to be another Democratic president," Obama's poll numbers aren't good, which indicate that his successor could have a tough time winning. And if Democrats do hold onto the presidency, it looks unlikely that the party will get the 60 Senate seats necessary to beat a filibuster in the near future. The 60 votes Democrats controlled for a few short months in late 2009 and January 2010 were a once-in-a-generation majority, the biggest since the 1970s. So Ginsburg shouldn't be optimistic that things will improve anytime soon.

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6836091/ruth-bader-ginsburg-not-retiring

I'm really appreciating the borderline panic about Ginsburg's refusal to retire here contrasted with the open Supreme Court seat in 2016, where everyone was so smugly confident that Clinton was going to win they didn't even try to push back against McConnell's shenanigans. Obama gave him a compromise pick and said he could keep it even after McConnell repeatedly told the Democrats to go gently caress themselves.

# ? May 13, 2020 13:11

MrNemo: Aug 26, 2010; "I just love beeting off"

I think the difference there is Ginsburg had the option of a less (but still) liberal replacement and said, 'nah I reckon I'm good for another decade or two if I need to stay on'.

On the other hand there isn't really anything Obama could have done with the Garland pick besides managing to engineer a majority on the senate or picking a constitutional fight that the court would have slapped him down on and Merrick garland would likely have rejected as a way of placing him on the court.

Basically Ginsburg could have reduced the chances of a 6-3 conservative majority on the court by retiring. Obama would have required a constitutional battle that he'd probably have lost and would have required tearing down a whole load of institutional norms in the process of that losing. That's why people are more pissed with Ginsburg than Obama.

# ? May 13, 2020 13:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Remember that by 2014, Ginsburg already had dealt with cancer twice

# ? May 13, 2020 14:06

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MrNemo posted:

I think the difference there is Ginsburg had the option of a less (but still) liberal replacement and said, 'nah I reckon I'm good for another decade or two if I need to stay on'.

On the other hand there isn't really anything Obama could have done with the Garland pick besides managing to engineer a majority on the senate or picking a constitutional fight that the court would have slapped him down on and Merrick garland would likely have rejected as a way of placing him on the court.

Basically Ginsburg could have reduced the chances of a 6-3 conservative majority on the court by retiring. Obama would have required a constitutional battle that he'd probably have lost and would have required tearing down a whole load of institutional norms in the process of that losing. That's why people are more pissed with Ginsburg than Obama.

With his pick on the court, Obama could have won in a 5-4 ruling about the legitimacy of that appointment with identical reasoning to Bush v Gore ("gently caress you we have 5 votes and you have 4")

But Democrats would never do that, and that's why Republicans have 30+ years of majorities locked in despite only winning the most votes in one presidential election in the last 30 years

# ? May 13, 2020 15:30

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

VitalSigns posted:

With his pick on the court, Obama could have won in a 5-4 ruling about the legitimacy of that appointment with identical reasoning to Bush v Gore ("gently caress you we have 5 votes and you have 4")

But Democrats would never do that, and that's why Republicans have 30+ years of majorities locked in despite only winning the most votes in one presidential election in the last 30 years

He would not have had 5 votes.

# ? May 13, 2020 19:22

Mikl: Nov 8, 2009; Vote shit sandwich or the shit sandwich gets it!

Aimee Stephens, the trans woman whose case is currently pending judgement at the SC, died yesterday.

What does this mean for the case? If it means anything.

# ? May 13, 2020 19:40

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Rigel posted:

He would not have had 5 votes.

yeah that's what I said, the liberals on the court would never do that, but they could have

just as conservatives could have used their majority to steal presidential election to ensure their continuing control, and they did do that

# ? May 13, 2020 19:52

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Mikl posted:

Aimee Stephens, the trans woman whose case is currently pending judgement at the SC, died yesterday.

What does this mean for the case? If it means anything.

It probably depends on whether the majority wants to dodge the issue or if they want to set a precedent. They could moot it or they could decide well the decision is already written we'll release it.

VitalSigns posted:

yeah that's what I said, the liberals on the court would never do that, but they could have

just as conservatives could have used their majority to steal presidential election to ensure their continuing control, and they did do that

Merrick would have "recused" himself and it would have been 8-0 in favor of the president not having that power because "historical norms"

# ? May 13, 2020 20:00

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Garland wouldn't have accepted it in those conditions because he (and everyone else) knows the challenge would fail. The liberals on the SCOTUS are not "win at all costs" like the conservatives, which is why the GOP's a single liberal away from having a judicial death grip on the country for the next 30+ years.

# ? May 13, 2020 20:40

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

FacebookEmpathyMom posted:

Merrick would have "recused" himself and it would have been 8-0 in favor of the president not having that power because "historical norms"

Well it wouldn't have to be Merrick, but yeah that's what I said, Democrats had the raw power to abuse the constitution to seize the court but they would never do it.

That's what Republicans do, which is why they control the court and Democrats do not despite Democrats winning most presidential elections die 30 years

# ? May 13, 2020 21:42

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

Garland wouldn't have accepted it in those conditions because he (and everyone else) knows the challenge would fail. The liberals on the SCOTUS are not "win at all costs" like the conservatives, which is why the GOP's a single liberal away from having a judicial death grip on the country for the next 30+ years.

I�d propose that they already have it and another liberal is just icing on the cake

VitalSigns posted:

Well it wouldn't have to be Merrick, but yeah that's what I said, Democrats had the raw power to abuse the constitution to seize the court but they would never do it.

That's what Republicans do, which is why they control the court and Democrats do not despite Democrats winning most presidential elections die 30 years

Unless you�re defining winning by who really won in 2000 as opposed to who took power then it�s 4-4 over the last 30 years and 5-4 republican advantage if you go back to 88 but I take your point and you�re basically right

Or no it�s not. I�m a loving idiot who�s counting Trump twice so shows what I know.

HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 13, 2020

# ? May 13, 2020 23:13

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

FacebookEmpathyMom posted:

I�d propose that they already have it and another liberal is just icing on the cake

I'm holding out hope that the Democrats manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, get at least 50/50 in the senate, and then one of the older conservatives keels over before Biden's out of office so that he gets to take one back for Obama in addition to replacing RBG.

# ? May 14, 2020 00:35

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

I'm holding out hope that the Democrats manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, get at least 50/50 in the senate, and then one of the older conservatives keels over before Biden's out of office so that he gets to take one back for Obama in addition to replacing RBG.

That�s entirely fair, but Clarence Thomas is the oldest and he�s only 71 so he�s got almost a full two terms before he hits life expectancy, and given he has rich and powerful people healthcare I�m not sure I�d hold my breath. Scalia was horribly unhealthy looking and still made it almost it 80.

# ? May 14, 2020 01:54

Yuzenn: Mar 31, 2011; Be weary when you see oppression disguised as progression

The Spirit told me to use discernment and a Smith n Wesson at my discretion

Practice heavy self reflection, avoid self deception
If you lost, get re-direction

FacebookEmpathyMom posted:

That�s entirely fair, but Clarence Thomas is the oldest and he�s only 71 so he�s got almost a full two terms before he hits life expectancy, and given he has rich and powerful people healthcare I�m not sure I�d hold my breath. Scalia was horribly unhealthy looking and still made it almost it 80.

This is true, but at least it's in play. A D win with an incumbent D repeat at least puts this within reach.

# ? May 14, 2020 02:41

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

FacebookEmpathyMom posted:

That�s entirely fair, but Clarence Thomas is the oldest and he�s only 71 so he�s got almost a full two terms before he hits life expectancy, and given he has rich and powerful people healthcare I�m not sure I�d hold my breath. Scalia was horribly unhealthy looking and still made it almost it 80.

It's not currently a concern, but the next oldest after Ginsburg is Breyer. All of the conservatives are young except for Thomas and Alito

But any sane Dem president should be packing the court if they get into office and have a Senate majority. Doing anything else is just fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

# ? May 14, 2020 03:26

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

FlamingLiberal posted:

Doing anything else is just fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

Democrats: "hold my white wine spritzer" *cuts off both arms*

# ? May 14, 2020 06:49

SixFigureSandwich: Oct 30, 2004; Exciting Lemon

Biden isn't going to nominate anyone to the left of Garland though, wouldn't want to offend Republicans. And if the Dems don't take the Senate, expect any empty seat to remain empty until the Republicans are in power again.

# ? May 14, 2020 08:33

MrNemo: Aug 26, 2010; "I just love beeting off"

I look forward to Ginsburg resigning January 20th and McConnell refusing to hold hearings because the timing indicates it's a political decision and it's only fair that the American people have a say in the next presidential election. The last one doesn't count because they returned a republican majority in the senate so obviously opinion is divided and your can't rush these things.

Bonus points of Breyer dies January 15th and is replaced January 17th.

# ? May 14, 2020 08:40

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

This is absolutely what he would have done if Hilary had won which is one reason why Trump never upset me as much as Democrats losing the Senate. In part because Hilary stole all the money that was earmarked for the Senate candidates.

# ? May 14, 2020 12:22

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

u brexit ukip it posted:

Biden isn't going to nominate anyone to the left of Garland though, wouldn't want to offend Republicans. And if the Dems don't take the Senate, expect any empty seat to remain empty until the Republicans are in power again.

Biden will nominate whoever the Senate GOP wants as a sign of bipartisanship

# ? May 14, 2020 12:55

NaanViolence: Mar 1, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

MrNemo posted:

I think the difference there is Ginsburg had the option of a less (but still) liberal replacement and said, 'nah I reckon I'm good for another decade or two if I need to stay on'.

On the other hand there isn't really anything Obama could have done with the Garland pick besides managing to engineer a majority on the senate or picking a constitutional fight that the court would have slapped him down on and Merrick garland would likely have rejected as a way of placing him on the court.

Basically Ginsburg could have reduced the chances of a 6-3 conservative majority on the court by retiring. Obama would have required a constitutional battle that he'd probably have lost and would have required tearing down a whole load of institutional norms in the process of that losing. That's why people are more pissed with Ginsburg than Obama.

There is an insane amount of 20/20 hindsight being applied here.

# ? May 14, 2020 18:14