|
Groovelord Neato posted:I know McConnell is fine with losing the Senate for it but I figure a senator would want to keep his seat. Gardner, specifically, probably knows he's sunk anyway and can either 1) cash out with a cushy private sector gig if he just figures Colorado is lost to the GOP for the foreseeable future; or 2) give it another shot two years from now against Bennett and hope that the typical anti-incumbency midterm effect works in his favor
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Or the next 3 months if the Dems take the Senate and WH because at this rate it'd be political suicide (even by the standards of DNC stupidity) to not pack the SCOTUS .. Nobody is packing the SC. This is a line fed to liberals to placate them long enough for their anger to subside. I doubt even a majority of Democratic Senators would be on board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:So does Gardner WANT to lose his seat lmao There are three possibilities as I see it. The man is such an ideologue that he's willing to proudly and loudly lose his seat on principle. (least likely) He believes the election is over and he is doomed, so gently caress it. May as well do whatever he wants, and if he can do something to spite the people voting him out, thats better. He knows he is losing and hasn't given up yet, but he's decided that his only chance, slim though it may be, is to go hard into his base for maximum CHUD turnout and pray that the polls are all wrong and its somehow going to be enough. (most likely)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:So does Gardner WANT to lose his seat lmao He's going to lose no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Roberts' views are irrelevant if Dems take the WH and Senate and we get 4 more liberal/progressive justices. Another 4 justices around Sotomayor or even to her left would be a thing of beauty. Bonus points if Breyer decides to bow out and let a 5th progressive take his spot since that means the justice in the 'center' of the SCOTUS political spectrum would be Kagan. The problem is the Democrats seem to be dysfunctional compared to the Republicans. They went 'nuclear' before with the Filibuster with Reid and it looked like that backfired. Adding more SCOTUS seats may be great but what is to stop the Republicans from doing it again when they inevitably win the senate again? Turning PR and DC into states does seem to be legitimate cemented ideas that will last throughout time because they will lean D. e: Now that I think about it, I guess the idea is that you do this and add PR and DC as states and then the Repubbies can't add more seats because they will never win the senate. Right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:40
|
|
is dead.
|
It didn't backfire - if Reid hadn't done it Trump would've had even MORE vacant seat to fill in the circuit courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Now that I think about it, I guess the idea is that you do this and add PR and DC as states and then the Repubbies can't add more seats because they will never win the senate. Right? No, the idea is that the GOP may not be able to win the white house again anytime soon, so we may not really have to fear the GOP flipping it around, especially if the Dems pass HR1. Trump was a thread the needle miracle against the most unpopular candidate the Dems had run in a long time, and ever since then the GOP has continued to literally die out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It didn't backfire - if Reid hadn't done it Trump would've had even MORE vacant seat to fill in the circuit courts. Yeah, this. Reid went nuclear because McConnell was using the filibuster to leave open every seat they possibly could in hopes of a future Republican president getting to fill all of them at once. Reid may not have gone nuclear on the Supreme Court but he almost certainly would have if there had been an opening before 2014, given how things were going with confirmations to other positions at the time. Enigma89 posted:The problem is the Democrats seem to be dysfunctional compared to the Republicans. They went 'nuclear' before with the Filibuster with Reid and it looked like that backfired. Adding more SCOTUS seats may be great but what is to stop the Republicans from doing it again when they inevitably win the senate again? At this point thinking long-term like that is kind of a fool's errand if the Democrats are unwilling to use power when they have it. McConnell has proven how effective it is to say "we have the majority right now so gently caress you, we do what we want", because that means you have advantages in future fights. The fact that McConnell used his temporary power to deny Obama a Supreme Court nominee in 2016 means that the Supreme Court in 2020 has a Republican majority, which is very important not just for cases like the impending one on the ACA but also for any litigation of the upcoming election. The Democrats should go nuclear, pack the court, admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, and more, not because it will guarantee a permanent Senate majority (it won't!) but because those are immediate victories that they can do with a Democratic White House, House, and Senate, which will expand their power and give them an advantage over their current position in future fights. If the Democrats refuse to use power when they have it, then it's just a constant cycle of McConnell et al getting structural advantages like Supreme Court majorities when they're in power, and then the Democrats not doing anything to remedy that when they're in power, and so on, which is a bad cycle to be in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1308441074655014914
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:The problem is the Democrats seem to be dysfunctional compared to the Republicans. They went 'nuclear' before with the Filibuster with Reid and it looked like that backfired. Adding more SCOTUS seats may be great but what is to stop the Republicans from doing it again when they inevitably win the senate again? Even without DC and PR, the Dems passing comprehensive reform for elections, including defining and outlawing Gerrymandering, and reforming the judiciary with +4 SCOTUS seats as part of it means the current GOP can only win the Senate if it's lucky and only the WH and House if Dems gently caress up catastrophically. And even if that happens, we'll have had a liberal majority on the SCOTUS until then. Don't expand the SCOTUS and a Biden WH with Dem House+Senate is irrelevant because there will be 5-4 or 6-3 rulings against any sort of climate change, healthcare, or other legislation that doesn't directly benefit white Conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even without DC and PR, the Dems passing comprehensive reform for elections, including defining and outlawing Gerrymandering, and reforming the judiciary with +4 SCOTUS seats as part of it means the current GOP can only win the Senate if it's lucky and only the WH and House if Dems gently caress up catastrophically. What red states are you counting as only voting Republican because of voter suppression?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Has Article 14 ever been enforced, where if you do voter suppression your population is considered to be lower and you start losing Representatives?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:What red states are you counting as only voting Republican because of voter suppression? Georgia and Mississippi are both in this category, at a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Nobody is packing the SC. This is a line fed to liberals to placate them long enough for their anger to subside. I doubt even a majority of Democratic Senators would be on board. Nobody is feeding this line to liberals specifically because liberals are too hung up on the sanctity of institutions for it to resonate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Nobody is packing the SC. This is a line fed to liberals to placate them long enough for their anger to subside. I doubt even a majority of Democratic Senators would be on board. Having a conservative Supreme Court is great for Pelosi/Schumer Dems. "Sorry liberal base, we're trying but the conservative court will just knock it down! Why can't you just be satisfied with [incremental social justice victory that has no consequence to the fortunes of the plutocrats] and just get out and vote D!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:Having a conservative Supreme Court is great for Pelosi/Schumer Dems. "Sorry liberal base, we're trying but the conservative court will just knock it down! Why can't you just be satisfied with [incremental social justice victory that has no consequence to the fortunes of the plutocrats] and just get out and vote D!" nah you want a liberal court for that, or at least a conservative court with a swing vote on crucial liberal issues a conservative court fucks them over because they'll overturn Obamacare, proving that incrementalism is a total failure
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Georgia and Mississippi are both in this category, at a minimum. Right. Without gerrymandering Atlanta would turn Georgia from red to slightly red. Stacey abrams would have won in 2018 without the blatant election fraud and suppression going on by Kemp, for instance North Carolina is also in a similar boat; without voter suppression and gerrymandering it would be much farther along the path to blueness that Virginia took in the 2000s Slaan fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
What is the possibility of Thomas and Gorusch not aligning with the crazy right and instead protecting Roe vs Wade and all this is just manufactured meat for the base
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Romney backs vote on Supreme Court nominee, clearing way for Trump https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Gatts posted:What is the possibility of Thomas and Gorusch not aligning with the crazy right and instead protecting Roe vs Wade and all this is just manufactured meat for the base Thomas is a 0% and Gorusch is kinda of a wildcard but i'd have the chances at sub 50% but certainly not 0
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Thomas is a 0% and Gorusch is kinda of a wildcard but i'd have the chances at sub 50% but certainly not 0 I'd die of laughter if someone convinces Gorsuch to save abortion with some "rules don't say the dog can't play basketball" poo poo. Hopefully planned parenthood has a standing committee of lawyers dedicated to figuring out what semantic arguments will work for Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
MasqueradeOverture posted:Romney backs vote on Supreme Court nominee, clearing way for Trump He’s such a coward quote:My liberal friends have over many decades gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal court, but that's not written in the stars,” the Utah Republican told reporters after this decision. He called it “appropriate for a nation that is … center-right to have a court which reflects center-right points of view. Trump didn’t win the popular vote, the center-right and far right are not the majority in this country. Apathy is the majority in this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Adding more SCOTUS seats may be great but what is to stop the Republicans from doing it again when they inevitably win the senate again? In the immediate short term the point is to staunch the bleeding and stop the next 40 years of un-elected legislation with unstoppable veto power from the judicial branch. Long term, that is exactly the point. Force Republicans to counter-pack the courts in exactly the same tit-for-tat manner until the point of absurdity and everyone accepts the reality of what the SCOTUS has been made in to by Republicans; a blatantly partisan extension of party politics being used as a power grab that has been de-legitimized as an institution and needs reformed. It's not a great plan, but it's the only long shot left to move back towards being a functional country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'd die of laughter if someone convinces Gorsuch to save abortion with some "rules don't say the dog can't play basketball" poo poo. Andrew Torres on Opening Arguments made the point that the rightward shift of the court is exactly this: Once upon a time the tactic for lawyers representing liberal causes was to write a well argued legal case that might convince Anthony Kennedy. Then the game became to so clearly spell out legal precedent and partisanship that you might shame John Roberts into voting for you. Now those liberal lawyers are trying to write lolbertarian textualist arguments that they hope push the right buttons on the Gorsuch machine that it spits out a vote for them. In terms of what the law is when it gets to to Supreme Court (and what lawyers interested in constitutional law will learn and teach) the US has rapidly made the transition to where strict textualism is becoming the law of the land and stare decisis is an academic concept that is interesting in law journals but no real lawyer is going to waste their time with. Ironically leading to the US slowly moving away from a common law system and originalists essentially coming to hold a radically different legal system to the one the people writing those laws would recognise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
MasqueradeOverture posted:Romney backs vote on Supreme Court nominee, clearing way for Trump All Republicans Are Bastards
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:Having a conservative Supreme Court is great for Pelosi/Schumer Dems. "Sorry liberal base, we're trying but the conservative court will just knock it down! Why can't you just be satisfied with [incremental social justice victory that has no consequence to the fortunes of the plutocrats] and just get out and vote D!" This.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Ok, so how do we get 5 GOP Senators to comedically end up in a box shipped to Siberia and then not manage to return until after the new senate and Pres are minted. Could we dangle a shiny object and distract them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Glumwheels posted:He’s such a coward Honestly would be great if half the justices just didn’t vote on any given issue to reflect the voting habits of the population
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:What red states are you counting as only voting Republican because of voter suppression? In Georgia, Kemp won the governorship by a fraction of the number of people he purged in the months leading up to the election, to say nothing of the damage he did during his entire tenure, including the fun "oh those records you needed that might've shown election fraud? We deleted the servers and their backups, so sorry" incident. The state is overall red still but vote-wise it's much redder than the demographics because of massive disenfranchisement. Florida as well. If the GOP hadn't instituted their poll tax and had it upheld by a Trump judge that'd be several percentage points worth of people who could vote who now can't because the state by design is making it as hard as possible to even find out what fines those people owe. North Carolina is slowly going Blue but the NCGOP hold extremely outsized power because they not only gerrymandered the gently caress out of the state but openly stated they were targeting Democrats with their suppression efforts. Wisconsin is similarly hosed because its legislature is obscenely Gerrymandered which allows the GOP and the current State Supreme Court's conservative majority to render the governor almost powerless. Michigan has had similar issues. And this is all excluding that pretty much every GOP-held state consistently reduces resources in minority and Dem-heavy areas that make it harder and harder to vote. "Oh you wanted to vote? Show us your DL. You didn't get a DL? Well you don't get to vote because you couldn't be bothered to travel an hour or more to the closest DMV that's open one day a week for a few hours and when it closes anyone in line is SOL. Maybe you'll care more next time.  "
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Sounds like we need a new Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
If the SCOTUS goes hard conservative does that mean the only route out is to have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and have it I such proportion to add abortion to the constitution and ram amendments through? Aim for that goal. EDIT: is DC technically not US jurisdiction and it’s own thing? Would it or Native American reservations be bound by rejecting Roe vs Wade? Gatts fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If the SCOTUS goes hard conservative does that mean the only route out is to have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and have it I such proportion to add abortion to the constitution and ram amendments through? Aim for that goal. The Supreme Court isn't going to make abortion illegal, it is just going to decide that laws that do make it illegal are not forbidden by the constitution. The federal government could still pass legislation making it legal nationwide while overriding any state laws. The House and Senate can also expand the Supreme Court and confirm liberal judges until it decides that it is indeed unconstitutional to prevent women from getting abortions. You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment for any of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:The federal government could still pass legislation making it legal nationwide while overriding any state laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
Trapick posted:How do you figure? If Alabama makes abortion illegal in all cases, you think a federal law can override that? Yes federal laws supercede state laws. It's stated in the Supremacy Clause: quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Trapick posted:How do you figure? If Alabama makes abortion illegal in all cases, you think a federal law can override that? Yes, unless you believe in nullification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Look at the enumerated powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) and then the 10th amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - I don't think you've got a good argument for the federal government having that power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Trapick posted:How do you figure? If Alabama makes abortion illegal in all cases, you think a federal law can override that? There's this thing called the Supremacy Clause. Federal law takes precedence over state law. Article VI posted:This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Yeah the SC is going to ensure women in red states give birth in the case of rape, incest, severe genetic/physical/neurological abnormalities etc. Trump’s top judge pick believes in that 100% but doesn’t believe in providing healthcare or anything else to support those babies and their families.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Look at the enumerated powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) and then the 10th amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - I don't think you've got a good argument for the federal government having that power. There's no argument here - I told you that the Supremacy Clause exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
It's worth noting that basically every other democracy decided on abortion rights by making it a political issue and passing regular laws. Some were very delayed holdouts (like Ireland), and no doubt some US states would be as well. I'm pretty sure this would probably help pro-choice politicians get elected, as the issue hasn't been salient to those voters for quite some time due to the Supreme Court making it something that didn't require any active legislating. Anti-abortion voters, meanwhile, are already voting that way and have little room to do it more so
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 01:05
|
|
