|
Orange Devil posted:Biden isn't going to win, so this whole discussion is moot. Trump is going to replace RBG.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:13 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:38 |
|
It's a close contest but RBG might be my least favourite person in America for the last four years, lol
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:14 |
|
Epinephrine posted:Biden is favored to win right now. National polls don't mean anything in regards to the EC. This is known- oh my god I'm in D&D, ABORT ABORT
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:16 |
|
Republicans haven't won a popular vote since '88, and 2016 was supposed to be a bigger slam dunk than 2020
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:28 |
|
Nonexistence posted:Republicans haven't won a popular vote since '88, and 2016 was supposed to be a bigger slam dunk than 2020 2004.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:29 |
|
This thread specifically should let the future of Trump getting a second term as counting mail-in-votes are denied under a 5-4 decision that cites BUSH v GORE (2000) into its heart
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:00 |
|
'Who will win the 2020 election?' chat doesn't need to be in here. If you want to discuss potential future SC nominee or SC rulings that could influence the election, have a ball.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:13 |
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:2004. U rite, my b
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:14 |
|
As 2000 proved, all that matters to an election's outcome is SCOTUS' 5 to 4, regardless of voting. Full circle back to this thread.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:19 |
|
Biden voted to confirm Sandra Day O'Connor and Scalia, and as comittee chair blocked investigating Anita Hill's rape in favor of holding hearings, during which he prevented corroborating witnesses from joining her arranged to have her rapist speak before and after her, and of course then took the opportunity to tee off on her while the nation watched, which was a real shock considering the respect and politeness he's famous for showing women. The last name I remember him suggesting for a nominee is the anti-firebrand Merrick Garland. The last mention I remember him making on the subject was a black woman. Not a particular person, you understand, just "a black woman." But of course we all know he's not exactly steering the ship anymore, so the real question is what kind of nominee will his coalition make, if they win. I don't think there's any real info on that front. I don't expect it'll be good news for unions though.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:39 |
|
edit: nm
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 17:06 |
|
Comedy option: Biden nominates Joe Kennedy III.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 18:09 |
|
Mikl posted:Comedy option: Biden nominates Joe Kennedy III. Comedy option: Biden wins the election. Baby steps, for this thread.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 20:41 |
|
Gerund posted:This thread specifically should let the future of Trump getting a second term as counting mail-in-votes are denied under a 5-4 decision that cites BUSH v GORE (2000) into its heart
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 22:50 |
|
Gerund posted:This thread specifically should let the future of Trump getting a second term as counting mail-in-votes are denied under a 5-4 decision that cites BUSH v GORE (2000) into its heart We all know it's coming
|
# ? Sep 2, 2020 22:59 |
|
Hot take itt: Roberts will vote in favor of Biden. Why? Roberts the swing vote right now, and Trump replacing RBG would make Roberts the 6th right-winger on the court. It's in his self-interest to keep the ideological balance of the court where it is.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2020 00:20 |
|
Epinephrine posted:Hot take itt: Roberts will vote in favor of Biden. Why? Roberts the swing vote right now, and Trump replacing RBG would make Roberts the 6th right-winger on the court. It's in his self-interest to keep the ideological balance of the court where it is. Also Biden is more ideologically aligned with Roberts as a Bush republican anyway and he's not beholden to politics anymore
|
# ? Sep 3, 2020 00:35 |
|
Epinephrine posted:Hot take itt: Roberts will vote in favor of Biden. Why? Roberts the swing vote right now, and Trump replacing RBG would make Roberts the 6th right-winger on the court. It's in his self-interest to keep the ideological balance of the court where it is. Roberts would absolutely jump at the opportunity to have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS because any sense of "well what about our legacy" will take a back seat to "we have a clear majority, eat poo poo and welcome to the Theocratic States of America."
|
# ? Sep 3, 2020 03:00 |
|
but you see communism is bad because they let a handful of unaccountable secretive unelected oligarchs control all of society
|
# ? Sep 3, 2020 20:55 |
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Also Biden is more ideologically aligned with Roberts as a Bush republican anyway and he's not beholden to politics anymore I'm pretty impressed that he manages to be a secret agent SuperCommie and a secret agent turbofascist at the same time. Especially with that centrist record! Boy that man can dance!
|
# ? Sep 3, 2020 20:59 |
|
Roberts ruling against Trump on something big wouldn't be that surprising these days. Or even Kavenaugh for that matter.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2020 03:49 |
|
OpenArgs was saying in a recent episode that the Trump admin has something around a 15% win rate where traditionally you'd expect closer to 75-85%. I can't remember if that is purely for the SC or across the entire federal judiciary.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2020 04:46 |
|
Dameius posted:OpenArgs was saying in a recent episode that the Trump admin has something around a 15% win rate where traditionally you'd expect closer to 75-85%. I can't remember if that is purely for the SC or across the entire federal judiciary. It was for APA cases - where the group suing him said "You hosed up public notice and comment" or "This regulation has no rational basis" or other things that agencies have TONS of institutional knowledge on how to do right, if you didn't kick out the leaders and replace them with knuckleheads
|
# ? Sep 4, 2020 04:58 |
|
ShadowHawk posted:Roberts ruling against Trump on something big wouldn't be that surprising these days. Or even Kavenaugh for that matter. What's disturbing is if Trump hadn't filled his administration with people almost as dumb as him Roberts would've decided wrongly in some cases.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2020 13:48 |
|
Raise your hand if due to byes you didn't draft a legal roster
|
# ? Sep 6, 2020 00:00 |
|
Groovelord Neato posted:What's disturbing is if Trump hadn't filled his administration with people almost as dumb as him Roberts would've decided wrongly in some cases. And a justice he appointed wouldn't have been in a position of begging for the SCOTUS not to take up certain cases because Trump's argument was so bad even a goddamn Federalist Society excretion couldn't stomach ruling in favor of it.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2020 01:35 |
|
Rigel posted:Because Trump is almost certainly going to lose, and Biden is not going to nominate a conservative justice. Ah, glad to see someone toxx up in the home stretch.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2020 15:54 |
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Roberts would absolutely jump at the opportunity to have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS because any sense of "well what about our legacy" will take a back seat to "we have a clear majority, eat poo poo and welcome to the Theocratic States of America."
|
# ? Sep 7, 2020 16:45 |
|
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1305500032972529666Jennifer Haberkorn posted:Progressives hoping for a Democratic White House and Senate next year are already voicing worries that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who would be next in line to lead the Judiciary Committee, will not commit to pushing a future Biden administration’s judicial nominees with the same aggressive tactics used by Republicans under President Trump.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 10:30 |
|
Some Guy TT posted:But many Democrats, like Feinstein, are skeptical of the idea because the high threshold in the filibuster prevents laws from changing rapidly when power changes hands in Washington. For instance, Republicans would have been able to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2016 without it. I'm pretty sure this part of that article is very wrong. The Republicans were only prevented from repealing the ACA in 2017 because McCain voted against repeal and it was defeated 51-49. It was absolutely not saved by the filibuster.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:04 |
|
87 years old...loving retire.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:11 |
|
vyelkin posted:I'm pretty sure this part of that article is very wrong. The Republicans were only prevented from repealing the ACA in 2017 because McCain voted against repeal and it was defeated 51-49. It was absolutely not saved by the filibuster. Yeah, they burned one of the reconciliation opportunities on it, which is why they didn't immediately try again. The other one was used on the tax cut bill.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:15 |
|
vyelkin posted:I'm pretty sure this part of that article is very wrong. The Republicans were only prevented from repealing the ACA in 2017 because McCain voted against repeal and it was defeated 51-49. It was absolutely not saved by the filibuster. Sorta, the real reason was that too many Republican senators were from poor rural states whose populations depended too much on Medicaid. McCain actually voted for some of the most evil repeal-and-replace bills, which were defeated by Republicans from places like Ohio voting against them because they cut Medicaid. The bill McCain voted against at the 11th hour was skinny repeal, which was a barebones repeal without replacement that nobody wanted to see pass into law, but they felt like they needed to pass something, and the only thing they could agree to do was kick the can down the road and hope the conference committee to reconcile the bills came up with some magical better solution. McCain voted against that for reasons that the senate shouldn't be passing bills it doesn't want to see made law. As once it's passed it's out of their hands, Paul Ryan could have just passed skinny repeal through the House if he'd wanted. But yeah it wasn't the filibuster that saved ACA, it was the fact that Medicaid was too popular to cut that saved it.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:21 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Sorta, the real reason was that too many Republican senators were from poor rural states whose populations depended too much on Medicaid. It wasn't just that Paul Ryan "could" pass skinny repeal. It was very, very obvious to everyone concerned that was the actual plan: that Paul Ryan was just going to take "skinny repeal" and pass it, then Trump would sign it into law, then they would try to negotiate from the position that the entire nation's heath care system had been smashed so you might as well negotiate over what to do next.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:33 |
|
Holy poo poo just die already loving bullshit cocksucking ratfuckers (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 16:22 |
|
vyelkin posted:I'm pretty sure this part of that article is very wrong. The Republicans were only prevented from repealing the ACA in 2017 because McCain voted against repeal and it was defeated 51-49. It was absolutely not saved by the filibuster. I would also note that there were probably more votes against it if it came down to the wire, but no reason for any of those senators to stick their head out if they have cover from McCain.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 16:26 |
|
"Won't be as aggressive" could just mean "won't approve anyone with a pulse". While we want Dems to be more aggressive in making up the deficit in judicial appointments we want them to still do their constitutional duties in thoroughly vetting the qualifications of the candidates put forward. It isn't like there even exists the progressive version of the Heritage society to give Biden a list of ready to go young up and comers.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 16:45 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:"Won't be as aggressive" could just mean "won't approve anyone with a pulse". While we want Dems to be more aggressive in making up the deficit in judicial appointments we want them to still do their constitutional duties in thoroughly vetting the qualifications of the candidates put forward. It isn't like there even exists the progressive version of the Heritage society to give Biden a list of ready to go young up and comers. It's possible to be entirely diligent and responsible in your vetting and also entirely discount the input of purely obstructionist colleagues who are clearly not acting in good faith
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 17:00 |
|
We need a constitutional amendment that forces old people out of government because goddamn the dem leadership needs to be comprised of people who actually have a vested interest in the long term future. Raenir Salazar posted:"Won't be as aggressive" could just mean "won't approve anyone with a pulse". While we want Dems to be more aggressive in making up the deficit in judicial appointments we want them to still do their constitutional duties in thoroughly vetting the qualifications of the candidates put forward. It isn't like there even exists the progressive version of the Heritage society to give Biden a list of ready to go young up and comers. Blue slips are dumb bullshit centrists push and Republicans being able to block good progressive judges through it is idiotic. Dems need to stop loving compromising with Republicans like when Obama nominated a goddamn neoconfederate judge to play nice with the racist party who hated him. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 15, 2020 |
# ? Sep 15, 2020 17:22 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:38 |
|
i have thought it was very obvious feinstein was full-on senile for a while (she will say something absurdly stupid and her staff will immediately reverse it in a written statement) and my guess is this is another product of that but it's not good and she needs to resign Evil Fluffy posted:Blue slips are dumb bullshit centrists push and Republicans being able to block good progressive judges through it is idiotic. Dems need to stop loving compromising with Republicans like when Obama nominated a goddamn neoconfederate judge to play nice with the racist party who hated him. blue slips make sense for district judges but not for circuit court judges, yeah - and given that republicans have abolished it twice now after democrats adhered to them, jesus christ don't do it again
|
# ? Sep 15, 2020 17:32 |