|
Orange Devil posted:Can always count on that American lust for death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
MrNemo posted:Wouldn't that equally violate his Originalism? The whole point of Scaliaesque originalism/textualism is that legislative intent has to be ignored. Originalism and textualism are two different things; originalism is primarily a theory of constitutional interpretation, while textualism is primarily a theory of statutory interpretation. In a sense, they're opposite approaches (especially the older formulation of originalism that tried to divine the framers' intent, as opposed to the newer "original public meaning" formulation). It's textualism that's all about ignoring legislative intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
yeah that's one of the major very hypocritical tensions in Scalia's jurisprudence if you take a textualist approach to the constitution, well the constitution had a lot of idealism (or more cynically, propaganda) written in by the founders and the framers of various amendments, that they didn't actually believe, so you have to rule for huge expansions of legal rights to various groups that were always shat upon by state and federal laws, customs, etc. Hence originialism: you get to ignore the plainly written ideals of liberty, freedom, equal protection, etc because you can find letters from the period expressing any bigoted bullshit you care to look for, and therefore how could bigoted pieces of poo poo have possibly "intended" the constitution to not make allowances for all their poo poo private beliefs that contradicted the ideals they actually wrote So according to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc laws have to be interpreted strictly textually (except when they don't, see Alito's dissent to sexual orientation and identity discrimination falling under sex discrimination) but the constitution ah forget the text, we need to read Richard Henry Lee's diary or something and write his private musings on the humanity of women or whatever into the constitution and make them law of the land (as long as the modern Republican Party agrees with them of course, no liberal or radical founder opinions allowed please and thank you)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Thread title update to 2020 please
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Thread title update to 2020 please The remainder of the title, however, is still accurate: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1283152635370119169
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
2020 don't you loving dare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:2020 don't you loving dare. Monkeys paw curls: RBG dies on January 18 2021 and the Senate confirms Chris Kobach the next day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:Monkeys paw curls: RBG dies on January 18 2021 and the Senate confirms Chris Kobach the next day. They’d have to keep a republican majority in the senate, so just change the date to like January 2. Honestly if they pulled it off I’d be impressed more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Lol that Trump is going to get three justices in four years and Obama only got two in eight. Packing the entire federal judiciary is the only morally correct stance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Dude if RBG loving dies.... Not that the US isn’t already hosed forever but, holy gently caress. That idea will keep me up at night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Packing the entire federal judiciary is the only morally correct stance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Dems should be doing this regardless of whether Ginsburg lives or not I think that having liberal icon RBG replaced by some fedsoc ghoul might be the only thing to make the biden braintrust seriously consider court packing
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:Monkeys paw curls: RBG dies on January 18 2021 and the Senate confirms Chris Kobach the next day. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jul 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Dems should be doing this regardless of whether Ginsburg lives or not There needs to be a substantive feasible reason to do so and "Republicans got some people appointed when it was their right to do so" isn't one of them. There's a strong argument to be made that the judicial branch is under immense strain in terms of its workload and expanding the federal bench at various levels would be the correct thing to do, as Jimmy Carter did. So Dems would need to be able to make it passable, because straight up expanding the Supreme Court by 2 seats isn't going to go over well or have popular support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
A political party on a thirty year drive to insulate their policy preferences from democratic oversight by ensconcing them in the judiciary seems pretty substantive to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There needs to be a substantive feasible reason to do so and "Republicans got some people appointed when it was their right to do so" isn't one of them. Gorsuch is plenty. A 5/11 court is actually a *better* deal for Conservatives than the 4/9 court they should have had. A two-seat expanded court is the compromise position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
I don't let myself get too worried about this because court packing is necessary even without RBG's seat flipping. If you think that anything remotely resembling the GND will survive Roberts being the median vote, well...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There needs to be a substantive feasible reason to do so and "Republicans got some people appointed when it was their right to do so" isn't one of them. Expanding the lower courts, like the House, needs to happen and continued expansion needs to be codified to keep up with population growth, but the makeup of the lower courts ultimately won't mean much if there are 5+ Federalist Society minions on the SCOTUS to rubber stamp rulings fed through the system by conservative groups, while also ruling against progressive cases no matter how flimsy or baseless the arguments are. IE: The Conservatives' naked power grab in Bush v. Gore and Shelby County, among others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Expanding the lower courts, like the House, needs to happen and continued expansion needs to be codified to keep up with population growth, but the makeup of the lower courts ultimately won't mean much if there are 5+ Federalist Society minions on the SCOTUS to rubber stamp rulings fed through the system by conservative groups, while also ruling against progressive cases no matter how flimsy or baseless the arguments are. IE: The Conservatives' naked power grab in Bush v. Gore and Shelby County, among others. Again, that you think its a really good idea is not the same thing as Americans at large agreeing with you; and you basically need a bullet proof reason to do so. Expanding the lower courts can perhaps be couched as a necessary long overdue measure; you absolutely want to avoid seemingly to only be doing it for partisan reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Again, that you think its a really good idea is not the same thing as Americans at large agreeing with you; and you basically need a bullet proof reason to do so. Expanding the lower courts can perhaps be couched as a necessary long overdue measure; you absolutely want to avoid seemingly to only be doing it for partisan reasons. Expanding the lower courts is literally an ongoing request from the Judicial Conference so that one’s pretty easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
yeah don't use the phrase "stacking the courts" say "modernizing the judicial system" that coincidentally brings the supreme court into line with the number of federal appellate courts that just so happens to put four additional seats on the court
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Ugh don’t pretend that CAFC deserves a justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Craig K posted:yeah don't use the phrase "stacking the courts" say "modernizing the judicial system" that coincidentally brings the supreme court into line with the number of federal appellate courts that just so happens to put four additional seats on the court 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Honestly from a tactical point of view, adding more supreme court justices seems to be an even bigger abuse of the rules than even McConnell's poo poo. It's definitely the right thing to do but it'll be hard to persuade people of unless it's combined with codifying something like an independent appointing body citing something like the logjam caused by republicans in the judicial committee refusing to consider and so blocking a vote even happening. That or modernising the lower courts and essentially dissolving the supreme court to be a panel court of the top federal circuit with judges selected by lots each year and a new independent appointing body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 08:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Close, except it'll be Amy Comey Barret. Watching the left throw a collective aneurism when they can't throw sexist (woman), Being a woman doesn't stop them from being sexist ilkhan posted:rapist (again, woman), Being a woman doesn't mean they aren't a rapist, women can rape other people just the same as men can ilkhan posted:or racist (2 of her kids are adopted from Haiti) at her, and might have to consider her on merits, will be amazing. Having a biracial kid or adopting POC does not mean they cannot be racist. Denial and cultural programming are a hell of a thing. Whatever point you're trying to make, you're way off with trying to throw this up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 08:58
|
|
|
Ah, the “merits” of truly believing that requiring employers to provide adequate coverage for essential services vital to women’s health is an unconstitutional violation of their religious freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Honestly from a tactical point of view, adding more supreme court justices seems to be an even bigger abuse of the rules than even McConnell's poo poo. It's definitely the right thing to do but it'll be hard to persuade people of unless it's combined with codifying something like an independent appointing body citing something like the logjam caused by republicans in the judicial committee refusing to consider and so blocking a vote even happening. We should try anyway, or else our democracy is lost for another 30 years. Unless someone finally stops Republicans from abusing every loophole in the book, they’re just going to keep tearing up all these precious “norms” the public allegedly holds so dear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
OniPanda posted:Being a woman doesn't stop them from being sexist (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
OniPanda posted:Being a woman doesn't stop them from being sexist Please don't feed the fascist. Also the person they named is an unapologetic believer that Christian Law should influence judicial decisions, among other beliefs that should disqualify them from ever holding a position of power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Honestly from a tactical point of view, adding more supreme court justices seems to be an even bigger abuse of the rules than even McConnell's poo poo. Maybe, so I suppose the smart move is to not bring it up until/unless RBG dies and McConnell starts the proceedings. But we should all try to remember, and to remind/persuade others, that there's nothing magical at all about the number 9 with regard to SCOTUS. It was set by statute; it can be changed by statute; and a perfect and absolute number of Justices is not stated anywhere in the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Florida ex-felon poll tax is... approved, 6-3, with Breyer agreeing. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1283816706859839488 Also, SCOTUS really likes approving executions at odd hours. https://twitter.com/markberman/status/1283748178911690754
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
Breyer didn't necessarily agree. It's not a requirement to note how you voted on this kind of decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Florida ex-felon poll tax is... approved, 6-3, with Breyer agreeing. It's not "approved", please don't do this, it looks stupid in a place like this thread where we're even minimally aware of procedural context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There needs to be a substantive feasible reason to do so and "Republicans got some people appointed when it was their right to do so" isn't one of them. No there doesn't lol. And "Republicans got smashed in actual Senate voting yet gained seats and the guy that lost the vote is president" is reason enough. Very cool the court probably gave Trump Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
It's going to be fun when the people defending poll taxes itt are rending their garments over Trump replacing RBG if the poll tax succeeds in its goal of Republican minority rule
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's going to be fun when the people defending poll taxes itt are rending their garments over Trump replacing RBG if the poll tax succeeds in its goal of Republican minority rule Yeah, it was just allowed to stand despite the fact that Florida has failed to process a single felon because they don’t have accurate data on the costs they need to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:Yeah, it was just allowed to stand despite the fact that Florida has failed to process a single felon because they don’t have accurate data on the costs they need to pay. This is just absolutely incredible So what are you supposed to do just show up with all your money, hand it over, and then hope they don't say "eh not enough bring more next time"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:No there doesn't lol. And "Republicans got smashed in actual Senate voting yet gained seats and the guy that lost the vote is president" is reason enough. It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. You can't campaign on "Republicans do things that are wrong" and then once elected do the same thing they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Well guess we just let a minority control power in perpetuity then. It wouldn't actually be wrong for the party with majority support to do it. This isn't difficult man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. And that's why Republicans control the courts despite only winning the popular vote in one presidential election in the last three decades
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 15:53
|
|