|
NaanViolence posted:Yeah that podcast is nigh-unbearable. Please summarize. in a 5-4 decision I barely decided not to give you a (comedy? ??) probation for this
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in a 5-4 decision I barely decided not to give you a (comedy? ??) probation for this Wait a couple years, mods'll start writing papers in QQCS about overturning this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in a 5-4 decision I barely decided not to give you a (comedy? ??) probation for this Is this decision precedential, or just dicta?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:the assumption there is that free exercise arguments are made in good faith and aren’t intended to trample over others’ rights, which they are not and they explicitly do Or they could summon the courage neccesary to say to hell with precedent and overturn bad decisions
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Or they could summon the courage neccesary to say to hell with precedent and overturn bad decisions the liberal justices want to preserve the legitimacy of the court as a nonpartisan institution which is why things have sucked butts since earl warren died
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:the liberal justices want to preserve the legitimacy of the court as a nonpartisan institution which is why things have sucked butts since earl warren died I think that will be dead as soon as Roe gets overturned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Biden said he'd do this re:abortion at least in last night's town hall. A...a legislative solution to the abortion issue? At this time of congressional dysfunction, at this part of a centrist campaign, localized entirely behind a president who spent the last several decades undermining abortion rights? ... May I see the clip?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:A...a legislative solution to the abortion issue? At this time of congressional dysfunction, at this part of a centrist campaign, localized entirely behind a president who spent the last several decades undermining abortion rights? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndgJ1tqyP7Q&t=37s
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:the liberal justices want to preserve the legitimacy of the court as a nonpartisan institution which is why things have sucked butts since earl warren died Oh, i realize its not gonna happen, its just nice to dream sometimes
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1314541053274451969
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:never shall there be peace between alabhism and the 5-4-ites the only good law podcast ever was Mic Dicta RIP Mic Dicta
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:the only good law podcast ever was Mic Dicta Isn’t alab just mic dicta with a different woman?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
5-4 is cool and good and everyone should listen
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Isn’t alab just mic dicta with a different woman? I have no idea. I just enjoyed Mic Dicta. I followed one of the hosts, Christina, to her new podcast, Puck Bunnies, which is about which NHL players she and her cohost would and/or would not like to gently caress. It also is better than any law podcast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Isn’t alab just mic dicta with a different woman? ALAB is just the fellas. Slaan posted:5-4 is cool and good and everyone should listen Also terribly depressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
I get that it's important to call out the hypocrisy of all of this, but in the end none of this matters and she's going to get confirmed no matter what, short of like 5+ GOP Senators being hospitalized simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Every additional bit of straw will help to break the camel's back eventually. It is easier to gin up support for packing the court if you build a case for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Every additional bit of straw will help to break the camel's back eventually. I think we should brace for a 6-3 white supremacist SCOTUS for the foreseeable future, only until more conservative justices die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
I like how we're still on the Biden's going to fix everything line of thought and not the maybe the Democrats could take advantage of the Republican caucus being sick to force delays line of thought. I mean they're equally as likely to actually happen but the first one at least lets you delude yourself into thinking voting actually matters for a few months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I like how we're still on the Biden's going to fix everything line of thought and not the maybe the Democrats could take advantage of the Republican caucus being sick to force delays line of thought. I mean they're equally as likely to actually happen but the first one at least lets you delude yourself into thinking voting actually matters for a few months. How exactly can Democrats force delays?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
More accurately, how can Democrats force four months of delays? There aren't going to be four GOP senators simultaneously incapable of attending for that entire span and no way to derail the nomination that couldn't be undone as soon as the majority is back to full strength.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
Call for lots of in-person meetings. Or just pay for another nomination party?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
poo poo man forget four months of delays, four weeks of delays might convince people that they're at least making an effort. But the Democrats aren't even willing to go that far, and Biden's straight up refusing to threaten them with court packing if he wins so there isn't even a pretense of a disincentive at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:poo poo man forget four months of delays, four weeks of delays might convince people that they're at least making an effort. But the Democrats aren't even willing to go that far, and Biden's straight up refusing to threaten them with court packing if he wins so there isn't even a pretense of a disincentive at this point. The Democrats absolutely will force the very brief and very limited amount of delay they can, and asserting they won't is just silly. Threatening court packing would be both ineffective and extremely idiotic. The GOP has been desperately sounding the alarm and trying to get the voters attention on this threat to no avail, and you actually want to elevate it to a campaign issue? Do you want to just throw away the potential Senate majority right beforte the election? Thats loving nuts. At BEST, itll distract the voters from Trump's idiocy. Court packing is not something to run on, its something to just very quickly do and then hope the passage of time makes it irrelevant before the next election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
I cannot grasp the level of cognitive dissonance you're operating on that you simultaneously believe that nominating Barrett is a crime against the republic yet also believe that calling any attention to this whatsoever is a losing campaign issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:26
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I cannot grasp the level of cognitive dissonance you're operating on that you simultaneously believe that nominating Barrett is a crime against the republic yet also believe that calling any attention to this whatsoever is a losing campaign issue. Your thinking is just bizarre. Polls have consistently shown that voters dont like the idea of court packing and say it shouldn't be done. They are stupid and wrong on this issue, and the Dems should do it anyway, but yes, this is not an issue we can run on, we just loving do it, and in a couple years it wont be the big issue voters care about because something else will have come along. There's a very obvious reason why the GOP is screaming about court packing, and the Dems are changing the subject to Trump or COVID, why do you think you are right and all of them are wrong?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:poo poo man forget four months of delays, four weeks of delays might convince people that they're at least making an effort. But the Democrats aren't even willing to go that far, and Biden's straight up refusing to threaten them with court packing if he wins so there isn't even a pretense of a disincentive at this point. How exactly do you think they can force four weeks of delays? What’s the procedural mechanism to do so?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:How exactly do you think they can force four weeks of delays? What’s the procedural mechanism to do so? Just keep pulling the fire alarm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:How exactly do you think they can force four weeks of delays? What’s the procedural mechanism to do so?  There's even precedent in the Senate for it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 08:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Your thinking is just bizarre. Polls have consistently shown that voters dont like the idea of court packing and say it shouldn't be done. According to this recent poll that's not the case at all. Only 47% of respondents outright oppose Supreme Court packing, but 53% is already the realistic ceiling on how many votes Biden is going to get. This of course ignores the extent to which the statements our political figures offer support for alters public reception. Given that the Democrats act ashamed and evasive any time court packing comes up it's hardly surprising that the numbers are so weak. Why you're assuming the Democrats want to do court packing at all is unclear to me. How do you know they're lying about secretly wanting it to try and trick conservative voters as opposed to secretly opposing it to try and trick liberal voters? The second explanation strikes me as far more likely, given that Democrats tend to really on Democratic votes to win elections, not Republican ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:Yeah that podcast is nigh-unbearable. Please summarize.  From the (then) most recent episode, on ACB: quote:Andrew: Roe is gone. Roe v. Wade is absolutely, 100% gone with an Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. She is—her public statements evidence an outward hostility to abortion that is—we have her words, in print, criticizing Mario Cuomo for saying you can be a Catholic and still enforce the legal right to an abortion. There is zero doubt what she is going to do with the next abortion case that comes before the Supreme Court. And from their immediate reaction episode on Ginsburg's death: quote:Andrew: Let's go back to abortion rights. I told you that what I thought a Roberts-led court would do is—and I think there's every reason to believe this—is preserve at the margins, but essentially gut, real protections, by defining narrowly what counts as an "undue burden". And we saw that even in the decisions that were hailed as a victory for abortion rights. Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt, we broke that down on this show, that it sort of paved the way for the analysis to be "oh, you don't have to show that the benefits of the law outweigh the burden, you just have to show that the burden is not undue". And what counts as "undue"? What Clarence Thomas thinks is undue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 11:10
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:According to this recent poll that's not the case at all. Only 47% of respondents outright oppose Supreme Court packing, but 53% is already the realistic ceiling on how many votes Biden is going to get. This of course ignores the extent to which the statements our political figures offer support for alters public reception. Given that the Democrats act ashamed and evasive any time court packing comes up it's hardly surprising that the numbers are so weak. Your interpretation of that (lovely) poll is facile and motivated by your conflation of strength rhetoric with political efficacy.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Dems shoulda been banging the drum of court packing since the seat was stolen. They seem unable to understand that you can shape public opinion. Unless it's for something like Medicare For All of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Dems shoulda been banging the drum of court packing since the seat was stolen. They seem unable to understand that you can shape public opinion. Unless it's for something like Medicare For All of course. It's actually good to not make that an issue because it is necessarily divisive. Biden was correct at the debate when he refused to answer the question because his answer then becomes news and what people need to do is just go vote out Trump. They should absolutely not be shouting about doing it right before a close election when that would just toss Trump a shitton of red meat to campaign on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Dems shoulda been banging the drum of court packing since the seat was stolen. They seem unable to understand that you can shape public opinion. Unless it's for something like Medicare For All of course. The mistake here is treating Dems as a monolith. The reason this is a conversation is because it has been brought up, just not by Biden or Pelosi or whoever. I know a lot of people assume (maybe correctly, I can't claim any special insight) that if those people aren't publically on board then nothing will happen, but they are perfectly capable of pushing the idea out there by getting someone else to say it first and then letting public opinion decide when the time comes to actually do something. Basically, don't show your hand, just call and see what comes up on the flop
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:More accurately, how can Democrats force four months of delays? There aren't going to be four GOP senators simultaneously incapable of attending for that entire span and no way to derail the nomination that couldn't be undone as soon as the majority is back to full strength. No legal process gives them that ability as the minority party in the Senate, no. If the capitol building burned down McConnell would still demand they hold hearings among the ashes. The reason Graham has gone silent on his COVID testing is because he likely caught it and if he confirmed he has COVID he'd be all but forced to delay hearings and that means ACAB wouldn't get her vote for the SCOTUS until after the election and Trump wants her in place ASAP because he wants another Bush v. Gore minion on the court to back him when he makes whatever dumb bullshit legal arguments he can if he loses to Biden. Let alone her willingness to kill rights Roe protect, or the ACA. Some Guy TT posted:poo poo man forget four months of delays, four weeks of delays might convince people that they're at least making an effort. But the Democrats aren't even willing to go that far, and Biden's straight up refusing to threaten them with court packing if he wins so there isn't even a pretense of a disincentive at this point. Biden refusing to make the threat and Biden vetoing a comprehensive judicial expansion plan (that includes more seats at every level not just SCOTUS) is two very different things. Especially if there's a 6 rear end in a top hat majority making noise about how they're going to strike down anything he wants to pass that is to the left of "execute the poors and give everything to the rich." Would Biden veto a bill that passes both the House and Senate to restructure the Judiciary and expand it since the US popular is much larger than when the current structure was created? No, because if it passed both chambers he's been ok with it and there's no loving way the current 5 conservatives + ACAB would be able to hold back from striking down valid laws the Dems pass simply because "gently caress you this isn't what the GOP wants."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1315354576283934730?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Your interpretation of that (lovely) poll is facile and motivated by your conflation of strength rhetoric with political efficacy.  Honestly, the disappointing part is that Democratic leadership should have been working to sell Democratic voters on the idea of court rebalancing (not just SCOTUS) since McConnell’s unprecedented court packing at the beginning of the Trump administration. The fact that they’ve all but ceded the ability to pass essential policy in favor of maintaining the illusion that these governmental structures are not clearly broken beyond patching is absolutely a failure of leadership that’s going to cause massive suffering in the decades to come. Like most of their current policies, term limits is a bullshit half-assed solution that’s slightly better but does nothing to address the devastating long-term problems. It’s fair to be disappointed that the only sane political party can’t be assed to even acknowledge the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Your interpretation of that (lovely) poll is facile and motivated by your conflation of strength rhetoric with political efficacy. YouGov is a lovely pollster now? I mean if you have another one that shows court packing is an untouchable third rail of America politics I'd be happy to read it. I'd be very surprised if you could find one that has a majority actually opposing it simply because so many people don't even know what court packing is. Evil Fluffy posted:Would Biden veto a bill that passes both the House and Senate to restructure the Judiciary and expand it since the US popular is much larger than when the current structure was created? No, because if it passed both chambers he's been ok with it and there's no loving way the current 5 conservatives + ACAB would be able to hold back from striking down valid laws the Dems pass simply because "gently caress you this isn't what the GOP wants." Now you're just passing the buck from Biden to the Senate Democrats. Why you'd think they'd be any more likely to go for judicial restructuring than Biden is unclear to me, given that they're just as evasive on the issue as Biden is and there's enough centrists in the party who are completely cool with a conservative court that they will almost certainly sabotage any effort at reform just for the love of inertia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
haveblue posted:More accurately, how can Democrats force four months of delays? There aren't going to be four GOP senators simultaneously incapable of attending for that entire span and no way to derail the nomination that couldn't be undone as soon as the majority is back to full strength. While, four months would be nice, delaying until after the election is important given the chance of vote suppressing fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 01:53
|
|