|
Sydin posted:lol can't wait for Mitch's explanation I'm going to stop you there. Mitch will never explain any of his hypocrisy because he is a soulless, power-obsessed goblin without even the faintest whiff of shame.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I'm going to stop you there. Mitch will never explain any of his hypocrisy because he is a soulless, power-obsessed goblin without even the faintest whiff of shame. No, he actually enjoys giving his bullshit explanations with that little smirk of his. He'll give a reason and earnestly explain that he always believed it, like if the people elect the Senate of the same party, then they are fine with a last year confirmation, or that its totally different when a president is running for re-election vs having an open election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No, he actually enjoys giving his bullshit explanations with that little smirk of his. He'll give a reason and earnestly explain that he always believed it, like if the people elect the Senate of the same party, then they are fine with a last year confirmation, or that its totally different when a president is running for re-election vs having an open election. I think the latter will be the explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think the latter will be the explanation. I think he'll just respond to any questions about it with "bless your heart"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
He'll say that it's different from 2016 because in 2014 the American people elected a Republican senate to make sure Obama couldn't appoint any more justices, and in 2018 the American people elected a Republican senate to make sure Trump could keep appointing justices. That's all he has to say, and Democrats will huff and puff about how it isn't fair and McConnell will keep doing whatever he wants with no repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think the latter will be the explanation. He's literally already stated the former, out loud, in front of people. He said that the hypothetical nomination this year would be different than the Garland nomination because this time the same party holds the WH and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
He would happily explain post election that the American people voted for a democratic president and senate but that the nature of the Constitution squarely puts the heavy responsibility for selecting new justices on the shoulders of the sitting president and senate so of course they made a special effort to carry out the will of the framers since both arms of government were of like mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:35
|
|
|
If any justice resigns before November it's a certainty that the GOP will try to fill the seat. The question is what Trump would do. He's not married to the GOP's plans so he might not care to nominate some Heritage Foundation hack unless he thinks it would help him win the election somehow (the ensuing battle getting more GOP voters to the polls, for example, or if it's clear the nominee would sign off on heavy voter suppression measures). I could see Trump being much more interested in nominating someone of the 'it's not illegal if the President does it' variety than any long-term GOP agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
If there was a vacancy and Trump did not nominate someone from the carefully vetted and approved-evil list, then the social conservatives would freak the gently caress out, and threaten to stay home. Unless the unvetted mystery nominee went full Bork and loudly declared that he'd overturn Roe v. Wade, in which case I actually don't believe he would be confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Not ruling out Trump nominating himself
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If there was a vacancy and Trump did not nominate someone from the carefully vetted and approved-evil list, then the social conservatives would freak the gently caress out, and threaten to stay home. Unless the unvetted mystery nominee went full Bork and loudly declared that he'd overturn Roe v. Wade, in which case I actually don't believe he would be confirmed. They'd absolutely be confirmed, especially if the nomination takes place after the election. If the GOP loses the Senate and WH I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't a bunch of lame duck appointments because at that point the GOP has absolutely nothing to lose. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They'd absolutely be confirmed, especially if the nomination takes place after the election. Susan Collins would never!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not ruling out Trump nominating himself This would be a hilarious way for him to drop out of the election
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the GOP knows the courts are their only shot at consistently keeping power and forcing their agenda on the rest of the country. Yes the Senate is horribly skewed in their favor too (making DC and PR in to states would help against this a bit) but locking in domination of the courts for the next 30+ years is a victory that the Democrats aren't going to undo, unless they find their spines (lol) and expand the federal judiciary in the event they manage to take the WH and both chambers of Congress. To be clear, we absolutely need more judges in general, but I don't trust the Democratic Party leadership to actually push for it, let alone appoint non-corporatism-embracing judges that reflect the changing view of younger generations who will be stuck with these judges after the older conservative generations die off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the GOP loses the Senate and WH I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't a bunch of lame duck appointments because at that point the GOP has absolutely nothing to lose. Appointments to what? The courts are full, and anyone else can be fired by Biden on day 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Appointments to what? The courts are full, and anyone else can be fired by Biden on day 1. They'll create a million new judicial posts and appoint everyone who's ever bought a MAGA hat as a judge for life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:They'll create a million new judicial posts and appoint everyone who's ever bought a MAGA hat as a judge for life. The US Senate absolutely will not do that in the two month lame duck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Appointments to what? The courts are full, and anyone else can be fired by Biden on day 1. Appointments to any last second retirements they can bribe/coerce out of ageing federal judges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Appointments to any last second retirements they can bribe/coerce out of ageing federal judges. So, maybe 0 or 1?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This would be a hilarious way for him to drop out of the election Drop out of the election? Why would that make him drop out of the election?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:But I'd be genuinely surprised if Thomas left for political calculation reasons. I could believe Thomas leaving for political calculation if he had some guarantee that his replacement would also follow his particular brand of moon law, but not leave for a generic Heritage Foundation judge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think Thomas is a GOP partisan at all, at least not on the court. He sees himself as being completely alone in the court with no reason to believe a like-minded successor to his bizarro law would ever be appointed to replace him. He'll serve until he either dies or just doesn't want to work anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
A chaos option I would be willing to bet money on not because I believe it would happen but more because I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if it did happen given this timeline; but one possibility is Trump in desperation and spite, refuses to appoint a replacement, citing he will only appoint a conservative justice if he wins, and a liberal justice if he loses, to hold the seat hostage to his reelection chances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Trump craves praise. Your suggestion would make everybody hate him and even OANN would be trashing him for not immediately appointing ALEC Minion #2190230 to the bench. Then he'd appoint Neomi Rao to the bench and the MSM would praise him on appointing another woman and the first Indian to the SCOTUS. Trump would probably take the opportunity to call Warren Pocahontas a few more times while referring to Rao as a "real Indian" as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Where is the decision on the tax returns? Why would they be stalling it? Are they still deciding/writing it? I thought they were done and just spreading out the decisions for some reason, but come to think of it that was just guesswork. Anyone know why after months of deliberations the results are spread out over the final week of their session?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yeah, I don't think Thomas is a GOP partisan at all, at least not on the court. He sees himself as being completely alone in the court with no reason to believe a like-minded successor to his bizarro law would ever be appointed to replace him. He'll serve until he either dies or just doesn't want to work anymore. his jurisprudence predates american political parties
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:Where is the decision on the tax returns? Why would they be stalling it? Are they still deciding/writing it? I thought they were done and just spreading out the decisions for some reason, but come to think of it that was just guesswork. Anyone know why after months of deliberations the results are spread out over the final week of their session? The opinions are likely written. There's a chance that maybe last minute revisions are being made, but we strongly suspect that at the end they often end up with a pile of opinions and just spread them out for drama. The supreme court can pretty much do whatever the gently caress they want with their schedule. Anyway, they announced an opinion day on Monday, so we'll be waiting Monday morning. If they release only three of them and then tell us to come back on Tuesday, all we'll do is roll our eyes, and come back on Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
I couldn't handle a Neomi Rao on the court. She's even worse than the current reactionaries about not even giving the slimmest jurisprudence to justify her decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Honestly you'd probably be lucky to get her or one of the crazies like Judge Jeanine who cosplays a law expert - Trump is perfectly capable of appointing Scott Adams to the Supreme Court and daring the Republicans to defy him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:Where is the decision on the tax returns? Why would they be stalling it? Are they still deciding/writing it? I thought they were done and just spreading out the decisions for some reason, but come to think of it that was just guesswork. Anyone know why after months of deliberations the results are spread out over the final week of their session? My money is on it being dead last because of the impact. It's either going to be Roberts breaking with the conservatives again (or maybe Gorsuch if he actually sticks to plain text readings of law) or a 5-4 ruling where the conservatives double down on unitary executive power while ignoring or outright striking down the law that Congress was invoking. The SCOTUS also kicked the can on the Texas voting challenge until after the election despite Texas's law allowing only people over the age of 65 to vote remote no-questions-asked being a clear cut violation of the 16th amendment, which is a pretty loving obvious case of the Conservatives not wanting to take on a case that would improve turnout among Democrats or require a Shelby County-grade bullshit excuse for why the voter suppression (of Democrats) is ok.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:My money is on it being dead last because of the impact. It's either going to be Roberts breaking with the conservatives again (or maybe Gorsuch if he actually sticks to plain text readings of law) or a 5-4 ruling where the conservatives double down on unitary executive power while ignoring or outright striking down the law that Congress was invoking. Chaos universe outcome is a 5-4 decision striking down the law requiring tax return disclosure to Congress on the basis that it violates the unenumerated right to privacy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
There are also ten cases that have already been argued and are awaiting rulings, so it's probably going to be a few weeks regardless of whether any cases get punted to after the election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Dissent (Breyer):
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
He’s applying a strict legal construction to a statute that explicitly makes “how people feel about it generally, I dunno, gently caress” part of the legal standard. It’s real weird. There’s a reason it’s a solo dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:So Breyer has never used the internet nor does he understand how domain registration works? At first I thought he was going for some "technically correct" argument along the lines of "what is generic, really?" But this is just an absurd argument. By registering a domain you automatically have a monopoly on it, that's how domain names work. Trademark is use it or lose it, so you can't use trademark law to usurp someone else's domain with this decision, so what exactly is he fearmongering about? Couldn't you argue that "book1ng.com" is sufficiently indistinct from "booking.com" and use that as a basis of shutting down domains? That's how trademark works in every other field. E: Even if the "ebooking.com" is distinct as the majority seems to believe, they'd still have to defend their name against the "booking.com" trademark if the owner decides to challenge. VVV Thanks! VVV Stickman fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jul 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 07:07
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Couldn't you argue that "book1ng.com" is sufficiently indistinct from "booking.com" and use that as a basis of shutting down domains? That's how trademark works in every other field. It's not really the same as most of how trademark law applies because of the bad faith requirement. Domains are global within the TLD, so there is no separation by what market they operate in or what type of product they sell like there is with otherwise-identical marks that are allowed to coexist. There have been some famous holdouts that had some tiny business with the same name as some massively larger business get to keep their name, like "dodge.com" was operated by some financial software company until 2001. The bad faith requirement makes Breyer's argument make even less sense though, because it already makes it hard for owners of a "generic.com" mark to exert control over the domain if they, for whatever reason, don't own it. Like let's say "Booking.com" let their domain registration lapse and it gets scooped up by some random talent promoter or something. They'd probably have a difficult time getting it back. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jul 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 08:28
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Couldn't you argue that "book1ng.com" is sufficiently indistinct from "booking.com" and use that as a basis of shutting down domains? That's how trademark works in every other field. This is basically Breyer’s concern - and the “ebooking.com” concern was sufficiently meaningful that Booking’s counsel gave what was essentially a promise that they wouldn’t sue ebooking over their domain during argument. I suspect generic.com trademarks are going to wind up being treated as extremely thin marks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I suspect generic.com trademarks are going to wind up being treated as extremely thin marks. The majority opinion as good as says that. quote:That concern [choking out competition with a broad mark] attends any descriptive mark. Responsive to it, trademark law hems in the scope of such marks short of denying trademark protection altogether. Notably, a competitor’s use does not infringe a mark unless it is likely to confuse consumers. In assessing the likelihood of confusion, courts consider the mark’s distinctiveness: “The weaker a mark, the fewer are the junior uses that will trigger a likelihood of consumer confusion.” When a mark incorporates generic or highly descriptive components, consumers are less likely to think that other uses of the common element emanate from the
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Two other things about the Breyer dissent: First, the reverse situation of what he describes is actually way, way more common - squatting easy-to-remember domains to force anyone that wants it to pay up (a.k.a. anticipatory squatting). The bad faith requirement in the UDRP is worded in a way that the domain basically has to be registered to screw with the specific mark, not any hypothetical future mark, so registering a mark for a squatted domain doesn't mean you get to take over the domain, even if it really is registered only to squat. Second, the situation that he's describing sounds like the Internet from like 20 years ago before search engines existed, where people would plop the thing that they're looking for into the address bar and put ".com" after it. That hasn't been the case for a long, long time, largely because the prime .com naming real estate has long since been scooped up. A more relevant analogue to this (which would have been nice to be addressed in the opinion) is that there are already a ton of trademarks for 1-800 phone numbers. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:38 |
|
