|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Will they actually be able to force someone though before the election? They will replace her if they have to do it the day before Inauguration Day
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:So this is it, right? 2020 can't get any worse. Yeah it gets better after there is a 20 year old nazi on the supreme court
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:They will replace her if they have to do it the day before Inauguration Day They're going to replace her before the elections so that they can have a solid majority to support Trump in any election challenges that come up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:there is, literally, no way to stop it hypothetically donald trump could owngoal on this but mcconnell's going to sit down with him with brightly colored flashcards and a promise of three scoops of ice cream to discuss which judges aren't so raving insane that a couple senators might revolt
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Yeah it gets better after there is a 20 year old nazi on the supreme court Don't worry the Dems have *checks notes* vowed to not pack the courts. And probably still won't do it even after Trump rams through Supreme Court Justice Emperor Palpatine before November.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:They're going to replace her before the elections so that they can have a solid majority to support Trump in any election challenges that come up. Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, they have that majority already. No reason to not let it wait and try to boost turnout during the election a la the Scalia vacancy and then confirm someone in the lame duck period anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Why do it before the election when you can do it during the lame duck for one million extra gently caress you points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Why do it before the election when you can do it during the lame duck for one million extra gently caress you points. because gently caress You that's why
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Assuming they seat RBG’s replacement, 5 justices will be nominees of presidents who lost the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
She tried to hold on for so long, and through one of the worst kinds of cancer you can get. I can only imagine the hell she went through. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Assuming they seat RBG’s replacement, 5 justices will be nominees of presidents who lost the popular vote. America didn't actually want all the things that are going to happen to it, but our government was set up so stupidly that it happened anyway. God... this place...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
There isn't a WELP big enough. We are so, so hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Don't worry the Dems have *checks notes* vowed to not pack the courts. And probably still won't do it even after Trump rams through Supreme Court Justice Emperor Palpatine before November. emperor palpatine would die of old age in our lifetimes. try supreme court justice general grievous, whose robot body will never die
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
The newly implemented slow mode is now on in this thread. You may only make one post every 10 minutes; make good ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:make good ones. lol rip american jurisprudence
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Trump will want a new justice in place so that they can help him steal the election, but I imagine the GOP senators fighting for their seats would much rather wait until the lame duck session.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:They're going to replace her before the elections so that they can have a solid majority to support Trump in any election challenges that come up. This. The way some people are talking about trying to find redress within the political process is silly. There will be five SCOTUS votes to fudge the election before we even get to election day. The authoritarian attempt has become an authoritarian breakthrough. Is it because of the anxiety that this scenario provokes that people are in denial about this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Eltoasto posted:Trump will want a new justice in place so that they can help him steal the election, but I imagine the GOP senators fighting for their seats would much rather wait until the lame duck session. Refusing to actually exercise your power when you have it in order to secure future power, and instead hoping to be rewarded somehow for your scruples, is a Democrat move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
idk, I feel like confirming whatever Heritage Foundation fucker Trump nominates will help the GOP senators on the bubble sure up their credentials with the base. It would be a huge blow to Biden since one of his biggest cards was "there's almost certainly a SCOTUS nomination coming up and you don't want to hand it to Trump", and the only way Biden keeps that card if Trump rams somebody through before the election is if he comes out and says he'll expand the court and/or impeach RBG's replacement which - based on everything he's said on the issue so far - seems very unlikely. Also Trump is a toddler with zero patience so even if the GOP tells him to hold off until after the election he'll probably flip them the double bird and nominate somebody anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require? Packing the court just takes the senate votes to do it
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:They're going to replace her before the elections so that they can have a solid majority to support Trump in any election challenges that come up. They already have one though. It's going to be an election wedge issue to ensure drive turnout and stop any sort of cross-over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require? Nothing except a Senate majority. There's no constitutional requirement for there to be nine justices or any other number, it's just convention that there are nine. But the President/Senate could keep adding judges forever if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require? The Supreme Court’s size is set by legislation, so Court-packing takes the same number of votes as passing any old bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
The future gets dumber every loving day. E: Like it feels absurd to be living in this rapidly failing state right now. Just incredible. She couldn’t last six more weeks, because this is 2020. Amazing. rko fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require? It's set by law, not the constitution. Pass new law saying SCOTUS is now X size, and it is that size. That's also the only chance of fixing this. McConnell is walking around with a rock hard turtle-dick right now and they will absolutely fill that seat. Fascism wants power for the leaders in exchange for punishing the out groups for the followers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Huh I guess it really was a bad idea for the geriatric cancer patient not to retire when Obama could have put her replacement on the court afterall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I got drunk on the news and can't recall, what does scotus expansion require? It would require a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, both of which can be blocked from prevailing in the 2020 election by the new SCOTUS. It doesn't seem to have sunken in for everyone that there can be no remedy from this point onward from within the electoral process. By all means, still vote though. At least make them have to go through more hoops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Well this is going to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
RBG not retiring under Obama is going to undo literally everything that RBG got accomplished as a lawyer, judge and justice
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
There is 100% no way Joe Biden is ever going to sign off on expanding the court lmao. We're going to be hosed for a decade or more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
rko posted:The future gets dumber every loving day. If she died between November and the inauguration of a Biden admin McConnell would have absolutely slammed through Justice Ted Cruz during the lame duck
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
If Pre-Obama GOP Decided: Manchin If McConnell Decides: Some extremely crazy judge is picked. Romney, Murkowski and others rebel. This candidate is then replaced with another nominee who is a typical stodgy conservative and McConnell tells what’s left of the moderates “we did this for you, now do one for us.” If Trump Decides: Some 28 year old blogger who once tweeted in 2008 that “anime loli should be legal”. Trump will promote a conspiracy theory that RBG personally wanted this cat to succeed her so we should follow her wishes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Refusing to actually exercise your power when you have it in order to secure future power, and instead hoping to be rewarded somehow for your scruples, is a Democrat move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
El Burbo posted:Hope this works out Someone get that Things That Aged Well twitter account on the line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
She had one hell of a career. Didn't she not step down under Obama because she expecting the senate to pull the crap that they pulled anyway? I somehow don't expect them to follow precedent and wait to see what the "will of the voters is" or whatever line they tried pushing on us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The newly implemented slow mode is now on in this thread. You may only make one post every 10 minutes; make good ones. I will never make a good post and you can't make me
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
What happens in a Bush v Gore if its tied four to four?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:She had one hell of a career. Dems had control of the Senate in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:What happens in a Bush v Gore if its tied four to four? lower appellate court rulings stand in their respective circuits
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 01:45
|
|