|
I guess the upside is that you see even people like Coons talking about court packing - which should've been talked about after Gorsuch - with how extreme they've gone.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Please just give me AG Preet Bharara and then balance the courts (via a massive expansion that is long overdue, including 4 SCOTUS seats) so that we don't get a bunch of 6-3 rulings that overturn him nailing Trump and the GOP to the wall for all of their bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please just give me AG Preet Bharara and then balance the courts (via a massive expansion that is long overdue, including 4 SCOTUS seats) so that we don't get a bunch of 6-3 rulings that overturn him nailing Trump and the GOP to the wall for all of their bullshit. if you’re waiting for the democrats to take revenge on your political enemies make sure you aren’t holding your breath
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
Biden says if elected he will form bipartisan commission to recommend changes to Supreme Court LOL we're doomed
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
We all knew it was inevitable.......but gently caress Please have the balls to pack the court Biden
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
Hopefully it's 4-d chess to say, "Republicans won't help us with reform, so we have no choice but to proceed on our own."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1320883524954660867 This is insane and makes me worry SCOTUS is going to toss thousands of votes to throw the election to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
the greatest democracy the world has ever seen that said if the election is coming down to mere thousands of votes then biden is doing wayyyy worse than predicted
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Look, you just have to take this from an originalist perspective. The Framers knew that rural farmers of their era were going to be getting election night results from their TVs and smartphones, and so everything about our election system must be focused on having those uncertified, preliminary, and known-incomplete election night results count as the final results. This is much more important than counting every vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
I hope if the SCOTUS says a winner has to be declared on the 3rd that numerous states openly tell them to get hosed. (e: and I include Wisconsin in this case because gently caress that ruling. Ignore it.) Ideally, Trump loses significantly on election day and the mail in votes just drive up the margins for him but if the SCOTUS try to put their thumb on the scale (again) to help their party steal an election I don't think it'll be taken as calmly as Bush v Gore was. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1320883524954660867 lol the Supreme Court is basically gonna coup the country
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. e: I was one of those people that said it sounded like a thing dictators do as well but after keeping up with USPOL etc it's quite clear to me that the entire republican party needs to burn down into ashes and nothing they do is in good faith. Problem is I can't convey 3+ years of this realization in 1 discussion. e2: The friends I'm thinking of are going to support Biden no matter what but now that they've done it I'm sure court packing is going to come up in the news a lot more and if we ever talk about it again I'd like to be able to say something other than "because gently caress republicans." Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. There are thirteen judicial circuits and the court has justices corresponding only to nine of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1307442829933903872 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1051893818071629826 It's not going to lead to escalation, because they'll do it first if the court ever swings back anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Yeah the best way to explain court packing is to point out all the ways Republicans have been doing it for years. Merrick Garland, but there are also lots of examples of federal judiciary positions that McConnell held open for years to keep Obama from filling them. Refusing to fill seats until your guys are in office is functionally the same as creating extra seats for your guys to fill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. Well it is absolutely the sort of thing dictators do, so, y'know. Appeal to their sense of fairness. You have to lean on that Republicans have corrupted the system by blocking Merrick Garland and hypocritically rushing through ABC. Point out that a majority of Supreme Court justices are now appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Point out the Arizona SC packing. Point out the generally fuckedness of the judiciary from Republican sabotage. Say that its not really something anyone wants to do but unilateral disarmament doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. Those friends have probably spent four years saying Trump is the next Hitler, so just say court expansion is denazification. If he’s as illegitimate as they have spent years saying he is, then he doesn’t get to keep a whole branch of government forever. Alternatively you could tell them they should actually vote for what they believe in and be willing to fight for it. FAUXTON posted:There are thirteen judicial circuits and the court has justices corresponding only to nine of them Also the ninth has needed a split for a long time so let’s just make it a clean five while we’re at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
You could always point out that Republicans have won the popular vote for president once in the last 32 years, and yet 16 out of the last 20 Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republicans. This isn't some new thing--hell, Jimmy Carter appointed zero Supreme Court justices because Nixon and Ford appointed five right before him, and then Reagan appointed four right after him. They've been gaming the system (packing the court) to appoint lifetime judges who make publicly unpopular regressive decisions because it's a way to prop up minority rule, and expanding the court is a way to mitigate that by appointing justices who are more likely to rule in line with the way the American electorate actually thinks about issues like climate change or wealth redistribution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. 1. It corrects the ideological balance of the court, which was deliberately and unfairly manipulated by a Republican senate. Under Obama, the Republican Senate simply refused to do their constitutionally required job of providing, or rejecting, "advice and consent" about Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. This was a nakedly political move by Mitch McConnell, and we're seeing the results now. Adding justices to the Court rebalances this and is an explicitly Constitutional remedy. 2. It expands the court, putting it back in line with historical norms. The US is divided into 94 federal court districts, and 13 circuits (12 appellate courts and the federal circuit). Each of them has an associated appellate workload that's traditionally handled by a single SCOTUS justice. But... we've got 9 Supreme Court judges and 13 circuits, which means that Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor have to double up (and Roberts actually gets three!). Realistically, federal courts are overloaded, the circuits are massively out of balance from a population standpoint (the Ninth Circuit's current borders date back to when California was significantly less populous), and what should actually happen is a wholesale expansion of the federal judiciary. Part of that should be re-establishing a single justice per circuit. That means at least 13 SCOTUS justices. 3. gently caress Republicans. Seriously, gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Yeah the best way to explain court packing is to point out all the ways Republicans have been doing it for years. Merrick Garland, but there are also lots of examples of federal judiciary positions that McConnell held open for years to keep Obama from filling them. Refusing to fill seats until your guys are in office is functionally the same as creating extra seats for your guys to fill. You could easily argue that it's worse as well. Maybe not from a standpoint of precedent, but definitely in relative terms. Keeping 1 out of 10 seats open for years so you can elect your guy onto that seat affects 10% of that judiciary. Adding an 11th seat creates a seat with a 9% impact on the judiciary. Court withholding is a worse crime than court packing, change my mind*. *don't actually
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Is court packing illegal? Morality is subjective, but from an objective point of view, does court packing violate any kind of law? I would love to see more checks and balances against the Supreme Court, but I can't envision a world where court packing becomes an illegal practice. What is the solution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Is court packing illegal? No, court packing is straightforward. It takes approval by the House and Senate, and a signature from the President. Once you've got those three there's no barrier. The courts themselves have no say in it. If Congress wants to restructure the courts, they have the power to do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
I always found the concept of lifetime appointment interesting. Should there be term limits for Supreme Court justices? Surely that would address the concern of court packing. Are there any other countries who handle it better than we do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type)  "I didn't vote for my preferred candidate in the primaries" is some self-defeating dark comedy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I always found the concept of lifetime appointment interesting. In 1977 Australia passed a constitutional amendment that mandated a retirement age of 70 years for Federal judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_referendum_(Retirement_of_Judges) To pass, it required a majority of voters in a majority of States, and passed quite easily. See in particular: "In October 1976 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended a retiring age for all federal judges. This recommendation was based on a perceived need 'to maintain vigorous and dynamic courts' a need to open up avenues for 'able legal practitioners' to achieve judicial positions a growing community belief in a compulsory retiring age for judges avoiding 'the unfortunate necessity' of removing a judge made unfit for office by declining health." So yes, other countries probably took one look at the US and said "screw that, mandatory retirement age here we come."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
I don't see how mandatory retirement ages would fix the distribution issue. You'd still get a bunch of heritage foundation toddlers sitting on the court for 35 years. Term limits with staggered, timed appointments would at least make the court reflect the past X years of presidential elections (an avoid the need for unqualified babies) IF - we nixed or adjusted the Senate confirmation process so that a hostile Senate could steal appointments. I'm not sure what the process would be here, because you'd still want to allow terrible appointments to be shut down. - retirements or deaths are filled with temporary appointees only until the following election. Of course that's all moot because it would require a constitutional amendment that is still extremely unlikely to happen until conservatives get tired of winning. That or you somehow convince the existing SCOTUS justices to agree that aging justices out as "non-voting members" would be constitutional (lol).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1320883524954660867 Golly gee, it’s a good thing those state legislatures (and state courts) aren’t limited in what they “may” do by state constitutions or we’d have to pretend people calling themselves Federalists believed in the principles of federalism. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
I like how "state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws" here, but they can absolutely fix gerrymandering if they want to, unlike federal courts. Probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 07:56
|
|
|
I love how Beerman quotes some random professor making unsubstantiated hypotheses with zero evidence like that's some authority, and yet they're absolutely loving allergic to data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 08:13
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I always found the concept of lifetime appointment interesting. Germany does use term limits. Each chosen justice serves a single, non-repeatable term of 12 years. Additionally, there's mandatory retirement age of 68. One half of the court is chosen by the Bundesrat (equivalent to the US Senate), the other half by the Bundestag (equivalent to Parliament), each requiring a 2/3rds majority to elect a candidate. The actual appointment to the position is then done by the president, though in practice this is essentially a formality. The court is also overall larger, with two senates (split by areas of responsibility) of 8 justices each. On the whole it seems to work pretty alright? The lineup and election of the justices is not nearly as politicized as in the US, it generally just kinda happens as part of business as usual. The requirement of a 2/3rds majority means any one candidate needs fairly wide support, generally from at least three or more parties, and there's less room for any one party to completely stonewall things. Though of course it does help that we do have more than two parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The requirement of a 2/3rds majority means any one candidate needs fairly wide support, generally from at least three or more parties, and there's less room for any one party to completely stonewall things. Though of course it does help that we do have more than two parties. If this was how things worked here the court would be filled with Merrick Garland clones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I don't see how mandatory retirement ages would fix the distribution issue. You'd still get a bunch of heritage foundation toddlers sitting on the court for 35 years. That's not a bug, it's a feature. It's on the Democrats that every time some wealthy textualist fossil dies on their watch that they don't find a proud black woman who once relied on food stamps. (Not to say that's a negative background in any way, but it's the total opposite of someone the Republicans would pick.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I love how Beerman quotes some random professor making unsubstantiated hypotheses with zero evidence like that's some authority, and yet they're absolutely loving allergic to data. He’s probably just reusing stuff from his work on bush v gore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 11:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:He’s probably just reusing stuff from his work on bush v gore. The hilarious part is the court said Bush v Gore was a special one-off case that should absolutely not be considered or used as precedent and now twenty years later the son of a bitch who helped make it happen is citing it. Kavanaugh was their successful Bork.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
Oracle posted:The hilarious part is the court said Bush v Gore was a special one-off case that should absolutely not be considered or used as precedent and now twenty years later the son of a bitch who helped make it happen is citing it. Kavanaugh was their successful Bork. Roberts and Barrett were on the Bush legal team as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864?s=20 Guess all that tiger moming didn't work as well as Amy Chua wanted it to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 13:49
|
|
|
I wonder how Sandra Day O'connor is feeling about signing her name to that opinion now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
Is capitalizing State and not state legislature a thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
This is still so loving funny. https://twitter.com/SChuaRubenfeld/status/1017805423750066177?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Dameius posted:I wonder how Sandra Day O'connor is feeling about signing her name to that opinion now. She signed it so that she could retire (she wouldn't have had Gore been elected), so gently caress her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 14:03
|
|