|
Charlz Guybon posted:If this was how things worked here the court would be filled with Merrick Garland clones. This would be a marked improvement over what the court is right now.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Sarcastro posted:She signed it so that she could retire (she wouldn't have had Gore been elected), so gently caress her. If I remember right, she later said she regretted it so I'm just hoping she is even more miserable now than then because yeah, gently caress her for enabling this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Pretty sure she has Alzheimer’s now
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Pretty sure she has Alzheimer’s now
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:That just means she wouldn't be beholden to precedent scorching
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
She doesn't regret it, stop falling for Republican PR They always do this after doing something egregious "oh gee now that we've benefited we feel just awful about it all, and I hope when you're in power you've learned the lesson that nobody must ever do something like this ever again"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, she retired in order to take care of her dying husband, but he went downhill way faster than was expected so she didn’t get much time with him anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Yeah she regretted retiring and giving up her power in hindsight, even though it was obviously understandable at the time to want to spend time with her husband. Ginsberg cited that regret when she explained her own decision not to retire when Dems held the senate, lol owned by Sandy O'Connor two decades after she became irrelevant, loving masterful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
I regret it too since she was replaced by the dumbest justice of all time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I regret it too since she was replaced by the dumbest justice of all time. Well...until Kavanaugh
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Well...until Kavanaugh And now ACB. This particular court makeup has to have the highest percentage of hacks on it in the court's history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
lol Clarence Thomas, the oldest republican justice, is only 72. They’re so much better at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:lol Clarence Thomas, the oldest republican justice, is only 72. They’re so much better at this. He was appointed before Breyer and he's ten years younger than Breyer. At their time of confirmation Ginsburg was 60, Breyer was 55, Sotomayor was 55, Kagan was 50. For comparison, Alito was 55, Kavanaugh was 53, Roberts was 50, Gorsuch was 49, ACB is 48, and Thomas was 43 years old. The Democrats had better be scouting out some like 39-year-old legal prodigies at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Michelle is only 56!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He was appointed before Breyer and he's ten years younger than Breyer. AOC is 31, Omar is 38, Tlaib is 44, and Pressley is 46. It’d also give you a 7-6 female to male ratio and an ethnic mix much closer to the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He was appointed before Breyer and he's ten years younger than Breyer. No the Democrats should be doing no such thing. They should be finding someone who is 30 years old, doesn't give a gently caress about the law, or this country, and hates republicans, conservatives and white people with a seething passion and sit them on the court. I hope they choose someone who doesn't even have a loving college degree. loving delegitimize this thing I don't give a flying gently caress. I hope the person they choose literally takes a dump on paperwork presented to them by the conservative states who are arguing their position and passes it back to them. gently caress decorum and gently caress the court and justice system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
potlord69420 posted:No the Democrats should be doing no such thing. They should be finding someone who is 30 years old, doesn't give a gently caress about the law, or this country, and hates republicans, conservatives and white people with a seething passion and sit them on the court. How old is Briahna? edit: hell, she's even more qualified than Barrett and only 35
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:lol Clarence Thomas, the oldest republican justice, is only 72. They’re so much better at this. He was also at that Trump event celebrating Barrett's nomination so who knows he might get Covid
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Cardi B seems like a natural choice. E: might be a little too old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
potlord69420 posted:No the Democrats should be doing no such thing. They should be finding someone who is 30 years old, doesn't give a gently caress about the law, or this country, and hates republicans, conservatives and white people with a seething passion and sit them on the court. I don't want to live in a dysfunctional society because my opponents are better at politics than I am, but at the same I have to wonder why the Republicans have the Federalist and the Democrats who have known about it's existence for over 30 years have ?????? Do the wealthy lawyers for the Democrats not know how the Supremes work
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't want to live in a dysfunctional society because my opponents are better at politics than I am, but at the same I have to wonder why the Republicans have the Federalist and the Democrats who have known about it's existence for over 30 years have ??????  And we have the Center for American Progress  I don't know what you're complaining about!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
So, if Trump loses, do you think that the rest of the conservatives on the court will step down during the lame duck and get replaced?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So, if Trump loses, do you think that the rest of the conservatives on the court will step down during the lame duck and get replaced? Oh, absolutely. That's an important tradition. All justices of the Supreme Court resign after every election so that they new President can appoint people he likes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Who said anything about the new president. I was just wondering if Trump and McConnell would want to get the rest of the conservatives replaced with youngins before they're out of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted: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. Right up until one of them fixes Gerrymandering and it hurts Republicans. Mr. Nice! posted:Roberts and Barrett were on the Bush legal team as well. So was ACAB. Nobody, not even the GOP, actually bought the "this isn't precedent" bullshit from Rehnquist. Nitrousoxide posted:So, if Trump loses, do you think that the rest of the conservatives on the court will step down during the lame duck and get replaced? The only way he or any other conservative steps down for another GenX Federalist Society shitlord is if they bribe him. Considering Kennedy's retirement that's not unlikely I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Who said anything about the new president. I was just wondering if Trump and McConnell would want to get the rest of the conservatives replaced with youngins before they're out of power. They could want that, but it wouldn't really have an effect on the future. If the Dems actually make an effective counterplay, the expiration dates of the seated justices are irrelevant. If they don't, the GOP will just regain appointment power sooner rather than later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Who said anything about the new president. I was just wondering if Trump and McConnell would want to get the rest of the conservatives replaced with youngins before they're out of power. Ok, a more serious answer. All the conservatives are relatively young and are likely to still be around the next time there's a conservative president. There would not likely be anything to gain with that scenario. All it would do is strengthen the Democrats' case for court packing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas is the oldest Republican and he's only leaving the court in a pine box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Why does it have to be pine, why not cardboard, as appropriate
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Clarence Thomas is the oldest Republican and he's only leaving the court in a pine box. He'll die during oral arguments and no one will notice for two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 22:42
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't want to live in a dysfunctional society because my opponents are better at politics than I am, but at the same I have to wonder why the Republicans have the Federalist and the Democrats who have known about it's existence for over 30 years have ?????? American Constitution Society.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:American Constitution Society. Seems fairly ineffective given the current status of the court. Do they have a list of potential nominees a la the Federalist Society? e: I see we are coming around to what I was saying in May, if I recall I got a lot of pushback for this post: Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:RBG should have retired over a decade ago and no later than 6 years ago. Complete mishandling of the situation. Next democrat to win should demand the resignation of every justice they can pressure to resign and replace them with 25 year old leftist law school graduates. Hurt Whitey Maybe fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't want to live in a dysfunctional society because my opponents are better at politics than I am, but at the same I have to wonder why the Republicans have the Federalist and the Democrats who have known about it's existence for over 30 years have ?????? Democrats don't seem to need it, they don't have a history of their judges swinging right the way say Souter or Kennedy "betrayed" Republicans. That's not to say Ginsburg or Breyer haven't made some crap decisions but like, they all voted to uphold Obamacare, they all voted for gay marriage, they all voted for LGBT protections to fall under Title IX, they all struck down Texas' absurd abortion laws, etc. They were lovely in the way liberals can be lovely but your average liberal Democrat didn't feel betrayed the way Republicans did on every single one of those cases I named where at least one conservative justice sided with the liberals. Democrats' problem hasn't been with ideological conformity. It's more been structural issues. Losing 3 presidential elections in a row right after a 1-term Democrat who didn't appoint any judges, leading to essentially 34 years of Republican picks, bad luck in timing like Thurgood Marshall retiring because of declining health under George Bush just a year before Clinton was elected, Republicans using their control of the court to steal 2000, McConnell stealing Scalia's seat, the younger average age of Republican justices making it easier for them to time retirements, and of course Ginsburg refusing to retire. The last one is about the only thing a Democratic Federalist Society could do anything about, by I guess ensuring any Democratic pick would be committed to ensuring their seat remains Democratic regardless of their personal ambitions, the way Republican justices do. Democrats could also control the court more by nominating younger judges but you don't need a Federalist Society for that, you just need Democratic leaders who understand difficult concepts like "lifetime appointment", "human life expectancy" and "elementary arithmetic" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Maybe one side was just more motivated after having been burned by Brown and Roe and Casey and Miranda and Loving and Gideon One side was organizing and funding while the other side was comfortable that the arc of justice bent toward justice...by magic I guess because there werent any left leaders not murdered or sent into hiding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 02:31
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Seems fairly ineffective given the current status of the court. Do they have a list of potential nominees a la the Federalist Society? Federalist was around longer and has much more established networks and funding. That said, these entities are "effective" entirely based on which party has the government control to actually perform appointments. That's been the Republicans, for reasons already discussed.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Seems fairly ineffective given the current status of the court. Do they have a list of potential nominees a la the Federalist Society? ACS looks like the law school part of the Federalist Society - lots of events and workshops and stuff like that. They're good at that. There's a second portion of FedSoc which started out a little innocuous and has gone downhill. That's the part that's dedicated to creating a pipeline for conservative law students to clerk for conservative judges, intermediated by conservative professors. There aren't a ton of conservative law students, and conservative profs are still a minority (though less so than they used to be), so having that connection is helpful to them, and it helps the judges find like-minded apprentices. Of course, it's also become a pipeline for training up new conservative judges. ACS doesn't really do that, but it's also not a critical need since there's not the same issue with connecting liberal students to profs to judges, that's just the default path. But there's also another portion of FedSoc — Leonard Leo and the dark money wings which have a lot of money behind them and active participation in politics. ACS doesn't do that, nor do they have the same resources. And turns out those are the parts that get judges confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
Oh, as a followup to my last post on the Australian High Court, we've just had two new Justices appointed to replace those who have reached mandatory retirement age. This is the first I even knew it was coming up! https://www.smh.com.au/national/federal-court-judges-elevated-to-high-court-as-new-appointments-revealed-20201021-p567cj.html Of course, there would have been plenty of discussion in legal circles, but in terms of national regular news, the first thing I read was this afternoon when they were announced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Re: the Federalists, part of the asymmetry in the parties’ judicial selections is Democrats don’t have to mirror the Justice Taney fan club of the right because they just need to nominate people who are reasonable and not hacks and they historically get reasonable non-hack decisions. Whereas Republicans from Nixon through Bush I hoped for conservatives but until they had a foolproof ideological assembly line sometimes ended up with moderates who even moved further away from Republican nonsense over time. It became necessary for the right to create its own safe space legal ecosystem to sustain their judicial project. Where the Democrats really go wrong is if they don’t pass judicial reform when we know what the Republicans would do in this situation. And Clinton in particular really appointed people who were too old. When everyone wants to sit for thirty-plus years, you gotta look at the actuarial tables. tl; dr of course Republicans need a cult following to enact their will. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
The way I see it the Democrats have no choice but to pack the courts (if they win next week). Just by talking about it, if the Republicans regain (or god forbid: keep) power they will do it themselves, as punishment. I also don't know if Chuck Schumer and like fuckin Dianne Feinstein have the will to do it
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
myron cope posted:The way I see it the Democrats have no choice but to pack the courts (if they win next week). Just by talking about it, if the Republicans regain (or god forbid: keep) power they will do it themselves, as punishment. That's the good thing about this entire ACB shitshow. Without what just happened over the past month+, conservatives still had a 5-4 majority and there was zero chance Dems would seriously consider court packing. McConnell just galvanized a bunch of people so there is at least a *chance* that Dems consider it, he's left them no choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 07:11
|
|