|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Essentially you need by my count four Republican senators unwilling to put it to a vote. That's quite possible given the circumstances (they have little to lose if Trump wins the whole thing anyway, after all).
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
IT BURNS posted:The Hellworld extrapolation of this is that a nominee is confirmed before the election, Trump loses and sues claiming voter fraud or whatever he fancies, it heads to Ye Olde Supreme Courte, and for the second time in most of our lifetimes the general election is decided not by the voters, but by the courts. Bush v Gore didn’t decide Florida, it just accelerated the outcome. This has been known forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
Traveller posted:So in this hell universe, which is the most likely nominee and what big decisions go out first? (Roe vs Wade, etc) Probably just go back and take a look at that pesky 14th Amendment and just tweak it a bit (slash and burn)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Bush v Gore didn’t decide Florida, it just accelerated the outcome. This has been known forever. You mean the only Supreme Court decision explicitly say it can’t be used as precedent was just window dressing? Golly things must have been dire in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
well gently caress RIP RBG, should have retired in 2015
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:well gently caress 2009
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Danger posted:You mean the only Supreme Court decision explicitly say it can’t be used as precedent was just window dressing? Golly things must have been dire in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
One key thing to remember here: before Scalia's death, McCain came out and said he wanted Obama to put a centrist like Merrick Garland - literally name dropping the future nominee as someone he'd vote for - on the Supreme Court. McCain sat on the judiciary committee and could have put Garland through if he wanted to. A hypocritical two year old quote means less than nothing. Packing the court will be the only way out of this mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Not only do we need to expand SCOTUS, we need to do it by at least four justices. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:He means Bush did win Florida and the court case didn't change the outcome, just the number of recounts to establish that. It's true, Jeb! was going to make sure his brother won Florida no matter how many recounts it took and how many ballots he and Katherine Harris needed to throw out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Essentially you need by my count four Republican senators unwilling to put it to a vote. That's quite possible given the circumstances (they have little to lose if Trump wins the whole thing anyway, after all). they have everything to lose if trump loses, and we couldn't even get, what, two R's to defect over a giant screaming rapist who used his defense to threaten revenge from the bench
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Not only do we need to expand SCOTUS, we need to do it by at least four justices. gently caress. There are thirteen circuits, so that's actually a pretty round number.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Trump has been replaced by aliens or the CIA or FSB or something. https://twitter.com/yahoonews/status/1307127173644537857?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Not only do we need to expand SCOTUS, we need to do it by at least four justices. gently caress. Funnily enough, the old rule was one Justice per judicial circuit (back then they still rode circuit, but justices still deal with interim relief and motion practice in the circuit they're assigned to) and there's now thirteen circuit courts of appeal out there...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Trump has been replaced by aliens or the CIA or FSB or something. Guessing he has literally no idea who she was and this is his generic response.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:One key thing to remember here: before Scalia's death, McCain came out and said he wanted Obama to put a centrist like Merrick Garland - literally name dropping the future nominee as someone he'd vote for - on the Supreme Court. McCain sat on the judiciary committee and could have put Garland through if he wanted to. Oh definitely, why that tweet that includes LINDSAY loving GRAHAM is beyond my understanding. If the Caribbean wasn't going to be wiped away by the next 6 or so hurricanes I would seriously look to see if it's viable to live and work there comfortably and just ride out the rest of existence on an island.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Essentially you need by my count four Republican senators unwilling to put it to a vote. That's quite possible given the circumstances (they have little to lose if Trump wins the whole thing anyway, after all). You might get 4 who don't vote before the election to help their own reelection prospects (Collins and maybe Graham in particular) but every single Republican is going to vote to confirm Trump's pick in the lame duck. There's literally no downside for them at that point. If Trump lost and the Dems retook the Senate they'll do it as a parting gently caress You because they know the Democrats don't have the balls to stack any courts, much less the SCOTUS. The idea that Trump won't get to replace RBG is wishful insanity. Getting to stack the court 6-3 is something the Republicans have been praying for ever since the EC handed Trump the presidency in 2016. There is nothing that will stop them from doing this. The House can't threaten to shut down the government or anything because the GOP would love that as an extra layer on the election chaos poo poo sandwich. Jiro posted:Oh definitely, why that tweet that includes LINDSAY loving GRAHAM is beyond my understanding. If the Caribbean wasn't going to be wiped away by the next 6 or so hurricanes I would seriously look to see if it's viable to live and work there comfortably and just ride out the rest of existence on an island. I wish Trump was only going to do 6 hurricanes worth of damage to the country between now and January (to say nothing of the damage he'll do if he's reelected).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Anyway I'm sure Mitt will stand for his stated principles and save us https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1307129813816291329?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Obviously previous quotes won't matter but there's enough at risk Republicans currently in the middle of campaigns that they might just block the nomination. It's not likely, but it's plausible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Funnily enough, the old rule was one Justice per judicial circuit (back then they still rode circuit, but justices still deal with interim relief and motion practice in the circuit they're assigned to) and there's now thirteen circuit courts of appeal out there... this actually came up a bit ago when there was a meltdown over kavanaugh 'unilaterally' refusing an appeal or summat, because there weren't enough votes for cert and he happened to be The Guy for [circuit] but yeah there's actually a sensible reasonable fig-leaf for expanding the court to thirteen lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be a complete political disaster for the Republicans, wouldn't it? Assuming they would have any reason to fear being voted out with a 6-3 court on their side, that is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
bowser posted:If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be a complete political disaster for the Republicans, wouldn't it? Assuming they would have any reason to fear being voted out with a 6-3 court on their side, that is. They'll do it because they want to. and they won't think there will be violence if they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
bowser posted:If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be a complete political disaster for the Republicans, wouldn't it? Assuming they would have any reason to fear being voted out with a 6-3 court on their side, that is. Not necessarily. A decision overturning Roe would most likely make abortion into a state-by-state matter, which would mean no abortion in red states but not much changing in blue states. That means abortion would remain a rallying cry for Republicans in a lot of states, and the continuing presence of on-demand abortions in half the country would mean Republicans could probably still rally voters around a new crusade to spread fetal personhood nationwide and thereby ban abortion as murder even in blue states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Oh they will overturn Roe v Wade, I don't doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Not necessarily. A decision overturning Roe would most likely make abortion into a state-by-state matter, which would mean no abortion in red states but not much changing in blue states. That means abortion would remain a rallying cry for Republicans in a lot of states, and the continuing presence of on-demand abortions in half the country would mean Republicans could probably still rally voters around a new crusade to spread fetal personhood nationwide and thereby ban abortion as murder even in blue states. It would also allow them to keep quietly taking their daughters and mistresses across state lines to fix mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Anybody thinking there's going to be eleventh dimensional chess game theory about why and when this should happen to benefit this person or that person is forgetting who, exactly, is president. There is absolutely no way one Donald John Trump will pass up the chance to smear poo poo on the wall like a toddler and stand back to tell everyone "LOOK WHAT I DID, LOOK AT IT. THAT WAS ME. I DID THAT THING." RGB will be replaced at lightning speed and the Anger Mango will campaign on it to benefit himself. There is approximately zero-point-gently caress-off chance he will give anyone else the opportunity to not do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Murkowski confirmed she's out, Romney insiders say he's out, Collins said last month she's out, so one more and it's DOA. Grassley is next most likely. Collins losing this election is more or less a foregone conclusion, so voting yes could easily be her final gently caress you to the state that said gently caress off to her. And Romney is not going to be punished in Utah for putting some pro-life hack onto the Supreme Court instead of whoever Biden nominates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Not necessarily. A decision overturning Roe would most likely make abortion into a state-by-state matter, which would mean no abortion in red states but not much changing in blue states. That means abortion would remain a rallying cry for Republicans in a lot of states, and the continuing presence of on-demand abortions in half the country would mean Republicans could probably still rally voters around a new crusade to spread fetal personhood nationwide and thereby ban abortion as murder even in blue states. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1236326401676062720
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Do they even need to repeal Roe v Wade? They'll just use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to keep taking stuff away. The John Roberts Experience
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Do they even need to repeal Roe v Wade? They'll just use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to keep taking stuff away. The John Roberts Experience The SCOTUS has no checks on what it can legislate whatsoever. If they want they can say that Roe is still good law but it only applies on days that don't end in Y.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:The SCOTUS has no checks on what it can legislate whatsoever. If they want they can say that Roe is still good law but it only applies on days that don't end in Y. Justice Jackson posted:We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Do they even need to repeal Roe v Wade? They'll just use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to keep taking stuff away. The John Roberts Experience Yes, they do, or the ravenous CHUD hordes that they've been feeding bloody red meat for decades will focus on whoever they can find to be of insufficient ideological purity and they will be cast out then shunned by their own. This idea that things will be well-coordinated and planned out really needs to die a quick, public death because reality is gonna start changing pretty loving quick. Fascists don't care about poo poo like that they want to seize power so they can punish the out-groups. That's it. That's the goal. Fail at that goal and all the rage that's being targeted at the 'other' chooses a target from within to remove the impurity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
Roe v Wade won't be overturned by the first one hundred cases a new court decides, and it won't even be the most dramatic change to the norms you were used to. Power is self-justifying by its use, and demands to be used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
bowser posted:If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be a complete political disaster for the Republicans, wouldn't it? Assuming they would have any reason to fear being voted out with a 6-3 court on their side, that is. If Roe v. Wade is overturned it's going to be in such a broad and sweeping ruling that it wouldn't matter. There will be no States Rights aspect because if they overturn Roe you can be drat sure that "abortion is murder and a fetus is a person" will be stated by some if not all of the majority in their ruling. That probably won't even be the worst decision we'll get within the year. Please look forward to some 6-3 rulings about how it's ok to force evangelical beliefs on others, including if you use an elected office to do so because [insane dominionist bullshit].
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:The SCOTUS has no checks on what it can legislate whatsoever. If they want they can say that Roe is still good law but it only applies on days that don't end in Y. In theory the check on the SCOTUS is the legislative branch, who could craft legislation or amend the constitution to accommodate the ruling. SCOTUS interprets the laws but Congress makes them. In practice though, yeah pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
It kinda sounds like he knew she was gonna die and is downplaying it. Maybe they had inside info days in advance on a turn in her health or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1307173404672434177 Just in case y'all wanted to know...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
Kavros posted:You could not even design a worse flashpoint crisis for america right now if you tried. It's actually kind of amazing. Yeah it's stunning. It's an absolute shitshow for everyone on every side of the political spectrum(s), too. Dems don't have much to lose by firmly drawing lines in the sand and there are a lot of very vulnerable republican senators facing the tightest re-elections they've likely ever faced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Not necessarily. A decision overturning Roe would most likely make abortion into a state-by-state matter, which would mean no abortion in red states but not much changing in blue states. That means abortion would remain a rallying cry for Republicans in a lot of states, and the continuing presence of on-demand abortions in half the country would mean Republicans could probably still rally voters around a new crusade to spread fetal personhood nationwide and thereby ban abortion as murder even in blue states. This could also lead to a counter-movement to amend the constitution to allow abortion. That sounds kind of ridiculous pragmatically I know, but I'm actually surprised I haven't heard more progressive voices advocating this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
adoration for none posted:This could also lead to a counter-movement to amend the constitution to allow abortion. That sounds kind of ridiculous pragmatically I know, but I'm actually surprised I haven't heard more progressive voices advocating this. More could be lost in a convention or amendment process than gained
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:41
|
|
