|
It's either court packing, a constitutional amendment, or avant-garde interpretations of the good behaviour clause
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Epinephrine posted:A constitutional amendment could be avoided by rotating justices out of SCOTUS onto lower courts once their time is up. A similar idea was proposed by Sanders during one of the primary debates. That is one of the dumbest ideas Bernie had (while he was lamely trying to avoid agreeing with packing the court), and is not constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Gerund posted:*6-3
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Rigel posted:That is one of the dumbest ideas Bernie had (while he was lamely trying to avoid agreeing with packing the court), and is not constitutional. Who would find it unconstitutional in that scenario?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
at that point you're asking for a court in rome and a court in avignon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who would find it unconstitutional in that scenario? You’d just be running into the fact that like anyone else, the SCOTUS has power because people believe that it does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Besides term limits requiring an amendment and court packing not, the credible threat of a farcical future of dueling court-packs is one way to generate support for said amendment from republicans who otherwise have no reason to unilaterally disarm. So even if you love judicial term limits you should support the democrats leaving the supreme court with a healthy 11 or 13 justices after the first few months of next year, and also expanding the understaffed lower federal courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who would find it unconstitutional in that scenario? The supreme court themselves, and they would not be wrong. Even if they somehow decided that it is perfectly ok for us to tell them "no, you only get to be supreme court justices for a few years, then we demote you" without an amendment, it is also strategically stupid because at any time the congress could change its mind and go "yoink, never mind, the current justices now stay where they are at", say after the liberal justices were banished and replaced by conservatives. Assuming a constitutional amendment is not possible anytime soon (it is not), then the only solution is to pack the court, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:Roberts sides with the minority in Erik Prince v Most Dangerous Game to protect his legacy. Trying to imagine why these two parties would be opposed... not paying out a golden parachute perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's either court packing, a constitutional amendment, or avant-garde interpretations of the good behaviour clause Impeachment is also an option; cases could be made against Thomas and Kavenaugh based on false testimony during confirmation hearings. Has the advantage of not requiring the President to lift a finger during the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
It takes 67 votes in the senate though, so it's not an option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:Impeachment is also an option; cases could be made against Thomas and Kavenaugh based on false testimony during confirmation hearings. Has the advantage of not requiring the President to lift a finger during the process. Do you even need to impeach? Perjury is a pretty bog standard crime. Any US attorney ought to be able to file charges. This isn't the president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court themselves, and they would not be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Do you even need to impeach? Perjury is a pretty bog standard crime. Any US attorney ought to be able to file charges. This isn't the president. They'd keep the position then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Who thought cycling SCOTUS Justices back to lower courts as even an option? Who the gently caress would ever agree to that? That would be like someone being President for 8 years and then going back to something rinkydink like a Governor or Mayor instead of just retiring? edit - As for term limits in general: as any appointed-for-life dictator shows, why retire when you can literally spend the rest of your as one of the most powerful people in the world with the absolute best healthcare outside of like maybe billionaires*? * Unless you have no morals and are a-okay retiring so you can have your team appoint a super young beer bro that is while also enjoying being rich/republican/great healthcare. jeeves fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They'd keep the position then. Ah. Serving from a cell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They'd keep the position then. That's fine. Just toss them in gen pop so they get to properly experience privatized prison life and maybe they'll change their views on the legal system in the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
we might just turn minor offender supreme court justices into hardened originalists
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:Impeachment is also an option; cases could be made against Thomas and Kavenaugh based on false testimony during confirmation hearings. Has the advantage of not requiring the President to lift a finger during the process. 67 votes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:67 votes. Guns can coerce more votes, global revolution now 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:67 votes. Still easier than amending the Constitution. And it'd be 68/104, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court themselves, and they would not be wrong. I don’t think you really thought through how rotating off all the real judges and installing puppets would work, I’m quite sure they would all rule it perfectly constitutional once they were the Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don’t think you really thought through how rotating off all the real judges and installing puppets would work, I’m quite sure they would all rule it perfectly constitutional once they were the Supreme Court oh im sure that abiding by the very logical and scientific schools of jurisprudence would lead to an apolitical, precedent-respecting ruling on this cut and dry legal matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1307195377842618373 Supreme court will be hearing arguments November 10th, so Republicans are finally going to get their white whale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
Which ruling stands from circuit splits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Which ruling stands from circuit splits? Neither, the split remains.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Which ruling stands from circuit splits? U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit from December 2019. The ruling was the individual mandate was unconstitutional because it doesn't produce at least some revenue (props to republicans, that provision in the tax cut was smart if this is your goal). They sent it back down to a lower court to decide what could remain, but then California sued to defend the ACA and it went to the SC. So, basically SC decides is the individual mandate constitutional? If not, is it severable from the ACA? If not, the ACA is dead, if yes then some court (SC? lower trial?) decides what gets cut from it. That's my understanding at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1307195377842618373 Just in time, if the Dems take the senate, to have a reason to replace it with a proper single payer system in 1Q 2021.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:Just in time, if the Dems take the senate, to have a reason to replace it with a proper single payer system in 1Q 2021. I don't see why Dems don't use that as a threat or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Why are we talking like the dems taking the senate is even a remote possibility? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Why are we talking like the dems taking the senate is even a remote possibility? it's bordering on likely at the moment? Jones will lose in Bama, but then there are 4 GOP seats that are polling with Dem leads. Iowa is also too close for comfort for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
538 has a pretty decent chance that the Dems get at least 50 seats, even up to 54. Even with 50, Harris could tie-break when needed. Of course, that was before RBG died and the uncoming rush of chuds wanting another seat so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Shouldn't the title be updated to one day?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
-1 day?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Just delete the “zero days since” part
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2020: Ruthlessness
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:SCOTUS 2020: Ruthlessness
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Slaan posted:538 has a pretty decent chance that the Dems get at least 50 seats, even up to 54. Even with 50, Harris could tie-break when needed. This is why I'm starting wonder if the actual vote will be after the election. Sure McConnell could try to rush confirmation ASAP as a big gently caress You to Democrats, but having it drag out over the election lets people like Graham say "look if you don't vote for me, Biden gets to fill that seat and that means [insert right wing boogeyman about Dems here] while Collins will go in to overdrive about how she's making Trump wait and not making the same mistakes she did with Kavanaugh...etc. Then after the election, even if a Blue Tsunami gave Biden 400 EVs and the Dems 54 Senate seats, the GOP can give a final gently caress You by filling the seat with another right wing crank who will sit the bench for 40+ years while daring Biden to expand the SCOTUS (which needs to happen for the entire judiciary). McConnell and the GOP know they are going to fill that vacancy so they're going to do so in the way that benefits the GOP to its fullest extent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Good news, guys! Hillary has got this covered: She starts out strong with that first step and reall nails the ending with "Yeah, we're probably screwed."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Good news, guys! Hillary has got this covered: "We should at least try but not lose sight of the fact we're hosed" is pretty much the right way to look at judicial vacancies as long as Trump is in the WH with a GOP-lead Senate. If anything, I hope McConnell and Trump are as petty as possible with this so that they piss off everyone not already a goose stepping redhat and get Dems the bump they need to take the Senate races in Iowa and South Carolina, while building up some safety buffer in close battleground races for the extensive vote-fuckery that is already underway by Trump and others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 04:42
|
|