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?

«‹›842 »

Epinephrine: Nov 7, 2008

Orange Devil posted:

Biden isn't going to win, so this whole discussion is moot. Trump is going to replace RBG.

Biden is favored to win right now.

# ? Sep 2, 2020 15:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 23:49

Harold Stassen: Jan 24, 2016

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

Harold Stassen: Jan 24, 2016

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

Nonexistence: Jan 6, 2014

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

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

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

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

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

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

'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

Nonexistence: Jan 6, 2014

Lemniscate Blue posted:

2004.

U rite, my b

# ? Sep 2, 2020 16:14

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

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

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

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

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

edit: nm

# ? Sep 2, 2020 17:06

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

Comedy option: Biden nominates Joe Kennedy III.

# ? Sep 2, 2020 18:09

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

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

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

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

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

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

Epinephrine: Nov 7, 2008

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

Deceptive Thinker: Oct 5, 2005; I'll rip out your optics!

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

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

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

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

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

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

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

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

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

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

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

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

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

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

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

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

Raise your hand if due to byes you didn't draft a legal roster

# ? Sep 6, 2020 00:00

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

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

Victory Position: Mar 16, 2004

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

Epinephrine: Nov 7, 2008

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."

He already controls the court. He could do that if he wanted to right now. Why give up being the swing vote; he can currently make rulings precisely as right-wing as he wants them to be?

# ? Sep 7, 2020 16:45

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1305500032972529666

Jennifer 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.

As Judiciary Committee chairman, Feinstein, 87, would wield significant political power if Democrats take control of the Senate. She would be responsible for reviewing and confirming the president�s Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments.

Fueling progressives� concern is Feinstein�s refusal to say whether she would give Republicans power to block appellate appointees through a Senate practice known as withholding blue slips.

While not a rule, the century-old Senate practice allows senators who represent the home state of a judicial appointee to essentially veto a White House appointment if one of the senators � whether Democrat or Republican � doesn�t return the �blue slip� to the Judiciary Committee chair.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who led the panel during the beginning of Trump�s presidency, abandoned the practice in 2017, and moved forward with Trump administration appellate court appointees over the objections of Democratic senators. He and his successor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), did so 17 times, including for four 9th Circuit judges over the objections of Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), according to a tally provided by Feinstein�s office.

Feinstein has repeatedly and forcefully objected to Republicans� decision to abandon the blue slip policy.

But when asked in a brief interview in the Capitol last week how she would address the issue if she became chairman next year, Feinstein said she wasn�t aware of a controversy over blue slips or that Republicans had confirmed judges without them.

�I have never heard a problem. No one has � in 26 years � brought me a problem on blue slips,� Feinstein said. �I�m not aware of it. If you can bring me the objection, I�d like to know what it is.�

In a statement later provided by her office, Feinstein indicated that she has made no definitive commitment on how she would handle the issue if she is Judiciary chairman.

�I�ve objected forcefully to Republicans� decision to abandon the blue slip,� Feinstein said in the statement. �As I�ve reminded them repeatedly, what�s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.�

Progressives cite Feinstein�s reluctance to embrace a similar strategy as a sign that she won�t be willing to use the hardball tactics they believe will be required to confirm judicial nominees in a Biden administration or get through increasingly contentious Supreme Court battles.

�It should be a no-brainer at this point that Democrats can�t afford to go back to giving Republicans a veto over a Democratic president�s judicial picks,� said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group that focuses on the courts.

�Dianne Feinstein has been railroaded in her home state of California these last few years by the Republicans, and the idea that she might just turn the other cheek and let Mitch McConnell [the Senate majority leader who would presumably become minority leader] block a President Biden�s judicial picks is basically disqualifying. And if she�s not willing to fight all-out for Joe Biden�s judicial nominees, then the Democrats ought to figure out who else can run that committee.�

Feinstein�s preference to keep her plans vague is not unusual. Several Democratic lawmakers have been reluctant to discuss detailed plans for 2021 until the election is over.

Progressives are signaling they plan to pressure Feinstein on blue slips and other issues.

�If you keep the blue slip, you�re tying at least one hand behind your back,� said Meagan Hatcher-Mays, director of democracy policy at Indivisible, a liberal advocacy group. �For her to waver on this arcane process � that does nothing but give power to Republicans in the minority � makes absolutely no sense.�

Because the blue slip is a Senate tradition and not a written rule, the Judiciary Committee chair has significant discretion over how to use it.

Under President Obama, Republicans began more frequently withholding their blue slips from nominees. At that time, the Judiciary chairmen wouldn�t advance a nominee without a blue slip from each U.S. senator representing the state. The result was that numerous judicial vacancies remained open at the end of Obama�s term, which gave Trump a chance to fill them.

In 2017, Grassley moved the first appellate court nominee that did not have blue slips from both home-state senators. Two years later, Graham advanced the first appellate nominees without blue slips from either senator. Republicans have not moved any district court nominees without two positive blue slips.

Feinstein is a Senate institutionalist who favors bipartisanship. For years, she has chastised Republican moves to abandon the practice and praised the bipartisanship that blue slips encourage.

�Blue slips are an effective way to ensure that home-state senators, regardless of party, have a say on the judges whose decisions will directly impact their constituents,� she said in the statement. �It�s a tradition that fosters bipartisan engagement in the nomination process and, until now, has been respected by chairs of both parties.�

The blue slips are just one area of Senate procedure in which Feinstein is likely to face pressure from progressives in 2021 if Democrats win control of the Senate.

With an expectation that Republicans will block any Biden administration policy, Democrats are actively considering whether to do away with the filibuster, or the requirement that most legislation have 60 votes to pass. Without it, legislation would only need 51 votes to be approved, with the vice president breaking a 50-50 tie.

Rank-and-file Democrats are increasingly open to the idea of changing the policy.

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 not inclined to change the filibuster,� she said. �I have not yet heard a good reason to do so. I think, in a way, it�s been a very important measure in the Senate.�

# ? Sep 15, 2020 10:30

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

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

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

87 years old...loving retire.

# ? Sep 15, 2020 15:11

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

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

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

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 :decorum:

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

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

VitalSigns posted:

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.

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

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1305500032972529666

Holy poo poo just die already loving bullshit cocksucking ratfuckers

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Sep 15, 2020 16:22

plogo: Jan 20, 2009

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

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

"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

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

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

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

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1305500032972529666

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 :decorum:

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 23:49

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1305500032972529666

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

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

«‹›842 »