|
evilweasel posted:there's a ton of internal SCOTUS leaks in here that don't typically get made public: I was just trying to wrap my brain around this after someone (you?) also posted this in the USPOL thread. Since it only takes 4 votes to grant cert, he must also be being mysterious enough to make the liberal wing uncertain that he'd go with them, or otherwise they'd be granting cert on these cases too, right?
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Sarcastro posted:I was just trying to wrap my brain around this after someone (you?) also posted this in the USPOL thread. Since it only takes 4 votes to grant cert, he must also be being mysterious enough to make the liberal wing uncertain that he'd go with them, or otherwise they'd be granting cert on these cases too, right? All of the lower court decisions are ones they like. No benefit to putting Roberts on the spot, even if you think it's likely he sides with you. He may not, or (perhaps more likely) he may punt in a way that makes lower courts start chipping away at gun restrictions more than they are today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's a ton of internal SCOTUS leaks in here that don't typically get made public: Social conservatives are extremely mad at the Roberts court because they thought they had their dream team for undoing the last 100 years assembled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
I'll put money on the leaks being someone from Alito's camp
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Social conservatives are extremely mad at the Roberts court because they thought they had their dream team for undoing the last 100 years assembled. The funny (read : not at all funny) part is that they actually do. Roberts is just smart enough not to force through things all at once without "balls and strikes" PR. He always puts things into his opinions that he can use a few years later to finally overturn things he doesn't like so that he can claim to just be following precedent. He would have done much more to advance Trump policies, too, if Trump's Administration wasn't so absolutely bug gently caress stupid. If they had even a fig leaf of normality as cover, Roberts would have ok'd stuff like the census case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Slaan posted:The funny (read : not at all funny) part is that they actually do. Roberts is just smart enough not to force through things all at once without "balls and strikes" PR. He always puts things into his opinions that he can use a few years later to finally overturn things he doesn't like so that he can claim to just be following precedent. Roberts is incapable of 100% shamelessness and Gorsuch appears to be an actual libertarian, not just a politician who says he's one What they need is a combination of five Alitos and Thomases, for naked political hackery and a return to colonial Virginia jurisprudence, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Conservatives are too stupid to realize that Roberts gives them instructions on how to do their poo poo "right" when he strikes down their too hilariously awful attempts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Yeah all the people who are going "wow maybe Roberts isn't that bad after all???" are just falling for his long con. The guy has ~15 years of jurisprudence on SCOTUS that will tell you exactly how ghoulish he is. It's just that he's not the shameless ghoul that Alito is: he's the banal type of evil who thinks that when you're loving the undesirables over that it's important to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in order to keep up the illusion of institutional legitimacy. This was very clear in his abortion decision last month where he all but said "look you loving idiots I want to roll back abortion rights too, but you can't just hand us the exact same case we said no on because the conservative wing picked up another justice, it makes us look like partisan hacks." I'm sure Roberts is just as frustrated as Alito that they haven't been able to usher in conservative hellworld, but for Roberts that frustration stems from being saddled with an absolute bumfuck of a president who refuses to cover up his open malice with even the thinnest possible veneer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's a ton of internal SCOTUS leaks in here that don't typically get made public: So it's either an angry True Believer on Roberts' team or one of the other conservative justices (and/or their spouse(s))? Slaan posted:The funny (read : not at all funny) part is that they actually do. Roberts is just smart enough not to force through things all at once without "balls and strikes" PR. He always puts things into his opinions that he can use a few years later to finally overturn things he doesn't like so that he can claim to just be following precedent. He also made it extremely clear that he wanted to do so and just couldn't because of how loving stupid Trump acted. This from the guy who gutted the VRA in the most naked SCOTUS politicking for his own party's gain since Bush v. Gore. Having 5 John Roberts on the SCOTUS would result in the occasional loss for conservatives while dragging the US to the right at a fast run instead of a full sprint, and he'd do it in a way that the MSM would give him cover for unlike the batshit insanity Alito or Thomas would write. Gorsuch is a bad justice but if he sticks to his Libertarian beliefs he'll probably be the "best" conservative justice on the bench and that's terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
The informed court watchers seem to be guessing Ginny Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:The informed court watchers seem to be guessing Ginny Thomas. What, as the source?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Is it true the administration has told the Supreme Court they can pound sand in regards to their DACA decision? There's not actually a way for the court to compel them to follow the court orders in the results of that case, is there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
The SCOTUS ruling was that Trump was on paper legally allowed to end DACA, but that he had not followed the proper process to do so the first time he tried and so that ending of it was unconstitutional. So now the new WH stance appears to be "okay fine we're not ending DACA, we're just going to reject all new applicants."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
zzzzz posted:Is it true the administration has told the Supreme Court they can pound sand in regards to their DACA decision? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/daca-donald-trump-supreme-court.html "John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
zzzzz posted:Is it true the administration has told the Supreme Court they can pound sand in regards to their DACA decision? The Judiciary in the US has zero actual power. If the Executive or Legislative branches decide to ignore them there really isn't anything they can do about it. It's not like they can order someone be jailed for contempt because the DOJ could/would ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Sydin posted:The SCOTUS ruling was that Trump was on paper legally allowed to end DACA, but that he had not followed the proper process to do so the first time he tried and so that ending of it was unconstitutional. So now the new WH stance appears to be "okay fine we're not ending DACA, we're just going to reject all new applicants." And since this administration is out on their rear end in 5 months, thats fine. This was a snippy little reaction to mollify their base.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The Judiciary in the US has zero actual power. If the Executive or Legislative branches decide to ignore them there really isn't anything they can do about it. It's not like they can order someone be jailed for contempt because the DOJ could/would ignore them. US Marshals no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:US Marshals no? Actually an open question. The USMS is technically within the DoJ, but operates as the courts' enforcement arm. Only the Supreme Court has a police force that's fully within Article III (the Supreme Court Police report to the Marshal of the Supreme Court, who's answerable to the Court itself).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Actually an open question. The USMS is technically within the DoJ, but operates as the courts' enforcement arm. Only the Supreme Court has a police force that's fully within Article III (the Supreme Court Police report to the Marshal of the Supreme Court, who's answerable to the Court itself). Yeah because I do believe there was an attempt by the DOJ(?) to ignore a court order once to deport someone and the judge made them turn the plane around by threatening them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Days since thread title relevant again: Zero (O)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah because I do believe there was an attempt by the DOJ(?) to ignore a court order once to deport someone and the judge made them turn the plane around by threatening them. Some low level person in DHS is still going to be wrecked for blatantly disobeying a court order like that. The question is what happens when it starting from the top and the entire institution is ordered to do ignore something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Some low level person in DHS is still going to be wrecked for blatantly disobeying a court order like that. The question is what happens when it starting from the top and the entire institution is ordered to do ignore something. Hold every single person that knew they were telling people to lie in contempt. Fine and/or jail each. e: shame they're not in Florida because the sanctions for filing outright lies in Florida courts are split 50/50 between lawyer and client.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:And since this administration is out on their rear end in 5 months, thats fine. This was a snippy little reaction to mollify their base. When trump gets reelected, what then will be your reason it doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 12:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/barbsolish/status/1300474953620492288 lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
Yeah sure, let's get close to the octogenarian with precarious health without wearing a mask, why not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 12:06
|
|
|
I can't wait for RBG to die in November and watch McConnell and Trump fall over their dicks to confirm Justice Ben Shapiro by Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I can't wait for RBG to die in November and watch McConnell and Trump fall over their dicks to confirm Justice Ben Shapiro by Christmas. Why would they need to hurry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Why would they need to hurry? Because Trump is almost certainly going to lose, and Biden is not going to nominate a conservative justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Biden is not going to nominate a conservative justice. lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
You say this because... what, exactly? (Biden will most likely nominate either Ketanji Brown-Jackson or Leondra Kruger, both of whom would be good and only an insane person would call conservative. Hopefully Brown-Jackson, since it’d be nice to have a former public defender on the Court.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
They laugh because the last 4 years of hell world has broken a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
anything short of a socialist 25 year old law school graduate is just giving in to republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You say this because... what, exactly? Because Biden is ancient, center right and Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:anything short of a socialist 25 year old law school graduate is just giving in to republicans. yeah the GOP has poisoned our judiciary with unqualified millenial heritage foundation zealots--maybe we should return the loving favor (again lol, it would never happen)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Because Biden is ancient, center right and Except this would be terrible though? You want a judiciary that is made up of qualified people. Simply returning to the baseline competence would be sufficient to have rulings you like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:anything short of a socialist 25 year old law school graduate is just giving in to republicans. Anyone younger than 40 is automatically a bad pick by default. The judges people think Biden is most likely to pick from are pretty young while still being qualified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Because Trump is almost certainly going to lose, Lol. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:anything short of a socialist 25 year old law school graduate is just giving in to republicans. And then one midlife crisis or later they're an insane right wing zealot. Picking someone who's actually established their progressive bonafides is better than going as young as possible and hoping the person you just installed for 50+ years doesn't undergo a political shift after being young and given a ton of easily abused power. They mean before all of the vote rigging, both overt and covert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Anyone younger than 40 is automatically a bad pick by default. The judges people think Biden is most likely to pick from are pretty young while still being qualified. It seems incredibly unlikely that Republicans, if they control the senate, will let any vote happen at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Biden would probably start off with a fairly liberal SOCTUS nomination. The worry is that the GOP will still control the senate, and when they reject or even refuse flat out to vote on Joe's guy he'll default back to his "I'm a master at reaching across the isle.  " routine and do what he used to do as VP back in the day to get the GOP on board: just flat out capitulate to all the poo poo the GOP wants, and call it bi-partisanship. I don't think you'd get another Heritage foundation guy, but it's very likely the GOP would drag him right enough to replace RBG with another Kennedy swing-vote type and Joe would smile and pass it off as an example of unity and how the country is healing under his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Biden isn't going to win, so this whole discussion is moot. Trump is going to replace RBG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 10:07
|
|