|
Declan MacManus posted:i posted about this in c spam but it’s relevant here too: depending on how many senators have to quarantine for the coronavirus, they might not be able to have a hearing on a.c.b until the middle of october at the absolute earliest and they may not even have enough votes for a majority even if they try to get it done before the election Okay, so. This sounds good but there are two issues with it. First, Judiciary has allowed Senators to appear remotely at hearings and there’s no reason to think that’ll be different here. Second, Judiciary doesn’t matter. There are 22 Senators on Judiciary (12/10.). Quorum is majority of committee. But hearings don’t require a quorum, they just require the physical presence of a single member which means remote participation wouldn’t be an issue. It’s only for a vote on reporting that you need a majority with two members of the minority present. So there’s no reason to think this will block the hearing. So it’s only the vote to report out that could be blocked, where you need a majority of the committee actually present and two members of the minority have to be there. But even if we say that Tillis and Lee are sick enough not to be able to return to DC, or that they can’t force 2 Dems into the room to get to a Judiciary quorum for transacting business, that’s not enough. (Yes, Senators can be arrested and physically brought into the Senate to create quorums if they’re hiding.) McConnell could file a discharge petition to force the nomination out of committee. He’d likely claim “we had hearings and it’s too important to have a SCOTUS justice to allow COVID to block us from considering this nominee.” Right now this type of petition is filibusterable, but that could be changed via a nuclear option maneuver. Then it’s a majority vote on the nominee in the full Senate. Quorum in the full Senate is 51, but suggesting the absence of a quorum means there’d need to be at least one Dem there, so you only actually need 50 Rs present. (And if you wanted to bet Collins wouldn’t show up to allow a quorum to form so she could cast a symbolic no vote, I’d take your money.). So you maybe have Murkowski, at best, refusing to show up, then whoever physically can’t due to COVID. Which means you need at least 3 R senators to be physically incapable of being there to block Barrett. (And again, if you think they won’t show up even if it breaks quarantine if they’re physically capable, I will take your money.) I’m not hopeful.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
I would quite like to see McConnell forced into blowing up every rule roadblock on the argument that having an empty Scotus seat is too important after leaving one open for 10 months 4 years ago. Not because I don't think he would but because you'd see a pretty loving clear argument for court packing even more moderate democrats could put forward and believe in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the analysis Kalman, that's a great post.MrNemo posted:I would quite like to see McConnell forced into blowing up every rule roadblock on the argument that having an empty Scotus seat is too important after leaving one open for 10 months 4 years ago. Not because I don't think he would but because you'd see a pretty loving clear argument for court packing even more moderate democrats could put forward and believe in. Yeah, I mean, let's dance. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Thanks for the analysis Kalman, that's a great post. Having to use the nuclear option a few times I think definitely adds a lot of uncertainty to proceedings, I think its possible the Republicans in difficult races aren't willing to be put through that wringer multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Having to use the nuclear option a few times I think definitely adds a lot of uncertainty to proceedings, I think its possible the Republicans in difficult races aren't willing to be put through that wringer multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
There are voters out there who still don't really accept the reality of republicans being entirely captured by the extreme evangelicals and QAnon groups. They still think that republicans are basically voting for low taxes and nothing that will change the status quo. Being confronted with the republicans being willing to blow the system up to entrench themselves could be enough to unseat a few vulnerable senators.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Trapick posted:The supreme court is the best bet conservatives have of ensuring their policies and beliefs continue to have power as the population turns more and more liberal. Why wouldn't Conservative voters support Senators who ensure they own the court by any means necessary? Because they're selfish randians who pursue their own power and narrow parochial interests over the interests of their perception of the greater good is anathema to their worldview? Additionally the Republican senators in more purple races got there by possibly either by hook or crook appearing to be more moderate, so there's a chance some of them don't care enough about the issues in question and only use culture war wedge issues as political props for their own pursuit of power. Not wanting to lose their seats and its power is a perfectly plausible and simple reason as to why they don't want to go full President Clark on things. Some of them might have genuine pangs of concerns about institutionalism to not want to burn the lamp oil on this, and most importantly might not want to give Democrats an excuse to turn around and pack the courts and ram through popular progressive legislation and end up permanently in the minority or find themselves cast aside if the party changes as a result of a realignment. There's dozens, hundreds of possible variables to consider. Republicans aren't orcs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also, reminder that if for whatever reason she does not receive her presidential appointment before the next president takes office, there is no reason that the new president has to actually appoint her. Even with the COVID infections, I don't see any way how this stops them from voting in a new justice before the end of January, no way they could stop it for over 3 months. We're gettin that new judge whether we want it or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Having to use the nuclear option a few times I think definitely adds a lot of uncertainty to proceedings, I think its possible the Republicans in difficult races aren't willing to be put through that wringer multiple times. It’d only require a single one and honestly it would be a nuclear option that isn’t even that indefensible - if a nominee has made it through hearings and the majority of the Senate is ready and willing to vote on them, being procedurally bottled up in committee (*especially* if due to COVID) really shouldn’t be a block to a vote. I suspect that the net differential for a vulnerable R between voting for Barrett and voting to nuke a weird procedural hurdle to get her to a vote isn’t that big. (All of this makes me want to pull out my old copy of Senate Procedure and Practice to remind myself what the state of the art in procedural fuckery was when it was part of my job to know about procedure instead of just a topic of interest.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
i’m just hopeful that the nomination process does not go smoothly and quickly, and that maybe the farce of procedure in the senate is finally given the coup de grace it deserves and maybe we don’t end up with a chud on the court i’m not expecting a miracle, because although it would be funny to see the conservative legal project (the blessed child labored over for 60 years carefully nursed and kept alive through setbacks and incompetent nominating by sheer force of will and aggressive recruitment and indoctrination) suddenly eat a huge loving L by way of donald trump’s own goal (and believe me i’d love to see it i could use a laugh 2020’s been hard), i would expect they’d find some way to force barrett onto the court in the lame duck session. i can only hope the democrats take a hard fought loss and maybe find their own soulless turtle gently caress to lead them kicking and screaming into 2022
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Even with the COVID infections, I don't see any way how this stops them from voting in a new justice before the end of January, no way they could stop it for over 3 months. We're gettin that new judge whether we want it or not. I know but who doesn't want to cite marbury vs madison when they get a chance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:i’m just hopeful that the nomination process does not go smoothly and quickly, and that maybe the farce of procedure in the senate is finally given the coup de grace it deserves and maybe we don’t end up with a chud on the court Keeping her off the court until after trump makes his play to have SCOTUS decide the election would be a win even if it couldn’t be held out until January. but the speculation is pointless because they can’t, McConnell of all people gives not a single poo poo about  or the appearance of impropriety, if necessary he would just overturn whatever rules or gavel through whatever objections he needed to in order to get her on the court. He would personally give himself covid and then passionately French kiss every republican in the senate if that’s what it took.Rules lawyering is pointless with someone who doesn’t care about playing by the rules. McConnell is 100% results oriented and doesn’t care at all about how we get there or how it “looks” (libs should take notes). He’s spent 10 years engineering this outcome, they’ve finally flipped the court, he’s not going to let it go to waste because a few Republican senators might die. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Oct 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:i posted about this in c spam but it’s relevant here too: depending on how many senators have to quarantine for the coronavirus, they might not be able to have a hearing on a.c.b until the middle of october at the absolute earliest This is now what's happening. She's still getting confirmed no matter what, because even if Trump dies then the rallying cry would be "honor Trump's final wishes and appoint the religious extremist to the bench!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
Edit: wrong thread
Piell fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Oct 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This is now what's happening. Okay, so here is a question: what happens if the president dies? Does the nomination get rescinded automatically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Okay, so here is a question: what happens if the president dies? Does the nomination get rescinded automatically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Ambiguous but I think when it has come up the replacement has just re-upped everything to be sure. Pence would surely have no trouble with ACB. Pence does have strange issues with women
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Keeping her off the court until after trump makes his play to have SCOTUS decide the election would be a win even if it couldn’t be held out until January. but the speculation is pointless because they can’t, McConnell of all people gives not a single poo poo about You're not wrong that McConnell will do anything to get ACB into the Court, but as much as he'd like to pretend otherwise, he can't actually do that all by himself. He still needs to get the other Republican Senators to vote. He's been really good at doing that so far, but this is an unprecedented situation, and I don't think we can say for sure that every last GOP Senator is willing to literally risk death to get this done, if that's what it comes down to. I mean, it's still very likely that ACB will get pushed through one way or another. But it's not a foregone conclusion any more, no matter how determined Yertle is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Pence does have strange issues with women
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:You're not wrong that McConnell will do anything to get ACB into the Court, but as much as he'd like to pretend otherwise, he can't actually do that all by himself. He still needs to get the other Republican Senators to vote. He's been really good at doing that so far, but this is an unprecedented situation, and I don't think we can say for sure that every last GOP Senator is willing to literally risk death to get this done, if that's what it comes down to. Just lol if McConnell gives us zoom voting when Pelosi's been fighting it for months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Just lol if McConnell gives us zoom voting when Pelosi's been fighting it for months. I don't know why Pelosi's fighting it but given how lovely a person she is it's not surprising if she's against it. Even though bringing Congress in to the 21st century means members of Congress would rarely have to leave their home districts and I'm sure most people in Congress would love to not worry about needing to have a second home in a market as expensive as DC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
The thread title is... not quite accurate anymore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
Pick posted:The thread title is... not quite accurate anymore? Oh, it’s 100% accurate, we never have to worry about her health again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
McConnell is, fwiw, actually a pretty lovely whip. His strength is solely in his shamelessness, not in his ability to get R votes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Pick posted:The thread title is... not quite accurate anymore? What, did they ressurrect her somehow
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:What, did they ressurrect her somehow
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Presumably Ginsberg's reserves of Pathos, Corpus and Willpower could become exhausted before she has blighted the entire Republican leadership from beyond the Shroud. This is the weirdest place to make a 90s tabletop RPG reference, :GB2TradGames:
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
E: misunderstood
Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Oh, it’s 100% accurate, we never have to worry about her health again. there's currently a health scare caused by RBG. the tables, have turned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Pick posted:there's currently a health scare caused by RBG. the tables, have turned. By that logic, considering how and where this current slow-motion trainwreck got started, wouldn't this be more properly an ACB health scare?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1313112412393005057 Would you loving look at that. Everyone, pretend to be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
BRB, driving to DC to kick them in the dick
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:15
|
|
|
I guess that is one way to give Democrats the impetus to pack the courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
“If the states had been allowed to address this issue, they could have accommodated religious liberty”. loving lol. 
Stickman fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
The sheer intensity of Thomas' steadfast support of so-called "states' rights" has never and will never fail to astound me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Overturning Obergefell while keeping Windsor would be a uniquely poo poo scenario where federally-recognized marriages have their recognition by states lost on a state-by-state basis as you ride a train across the country. That sort of contradiction will not hold so I'd expect a drumbeat to de-recognize marriages by law or ruling and clog up family courts for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:The sheer intensity of Thomas' steadfast support of so-called "states' rights" has never and will never fail to astound me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Mikl posted:https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1313112412393005057  Why can't we legally discriminate and hide behind religion??
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Dameius posted:I guess that is one way to give Democrats the impetus to pack the courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do you actually have faith they would? I don't. Yeah there's no way the Democrats would pack the courts. I'd wager you wouldn't even see over 50% support for it under ANY circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 19:11
|
|
