|
I wonder how Mike Davis felt about ACB not being able to name all the components of the First Amendment. I wonder if he would say that if you're a Circuit Court judge being nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court and you can't name all the protections in the First Amendment, you shouldn't (1) get promoted; or (2) stay in your current job.
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Grassley's chief nomination counsel, the guy who helped screen judicial nominees for the GOP and worked to push Gorsuch and Kavanaugh through the Judiciary Committee, is not necessarily a great source on whether a judge is suitable. No but he is a great source on how and why Republicans are planning to discredit Biden's nominees. I dropped the tweet without context so people could see the video and maybe comment on whether his interpretation is right or wrong, since I personally have no idea how elementary of a question that really was. Ironically, in providing some context, I incorrectly gave the impression I agreed with him, which was not my original intent and in fact something I had tried to avoid doing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
This was posted in the USPOL thread but since this thread's scope is widened a bit it's worth reposting here. The NRA tried to move itself to Texas and declare bankruptcy there but a judge denied this as they were blatantly doing it to avoid NY regulatory action rather than for financial reasons. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/us/nra-bankruptcy.html quote:The National Rifle Association’s attempt to evade a legal challenge from New York regulators was tossed out by a federal bankruptcy judge on Tuesday, in a ruling that cast further doubt on whether the group’s embattled chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, would remain at the helm after three decades in power.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
Gonna need a new title: The US Legal System: No, not "justice" I'll see you in Court! SCOTUS and Friends
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I can understand someone not being able to spout of a specific standard of review, but they should know what rational basis review means. I'm assuming what what said was fine and dude is misquoting her.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
My understanding of “rational basis test”, from nothing other than osmosis through this thread and other lay sources, is that if the government can come up with any reason at all for doing a thing, they get to do the thing. Like, the rational basis test was used in the case of the Muslim Ban (that officially wasn’t a Muslim ban, but that officials had been quoted in referring to as a Muslim ban). I suspect that Boardman is not yet more ignorant than I in this matter. Her answer is perhaps better explained by an overabundance of caution. She did not want to give an inexact definition and have her words picked apart, but in doing so she blundered into providing a worse soundbite. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 13:58 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:My understanding of “rational basis test”, from nothing other than osmosis through this thread and other lay sources, is that if the government can come up with any reason at all for doing a thing, they get to do the thing. Like, the rational basis test was used in the case of the Muslim Ban (that officially wasn’t a Muslim ban, but that officials had been quoted in referring to as a Muslim ban). You've got it exactly. Judges (hi, former admin law judge here) have to know about a very broad scope of law and tend to prepare for specific cases in advance and take time following the case to conduct research before issuing their opinion. So she didn't specifically have every single legal term from all of history ready to go, but her answer was not bad as far as it went. The tricky part is not the test itself but knowing when to apply it vs when to apply a higher level of scrutiny. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:06 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm assuming what what said was fine and dude is misquoting her. Yeah that seems like a very safe assumption.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Yeah actually listening to the clip now, this sounds like it. For context, this is her background: quote:Boardman began her career as a law clerk for Judge James C. Cacheris of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2000 to 2001. From 2001 to 2008, she worked as an associate at Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells) in Washington, D.C. where she was selected to serve as the senior associate in the firm's pro bono department. From 2008 to 2019, she served at the Federal Public Defender's Office for the District of Maryland, including four years as the first assistant federal public defender.[3] Anyone who's done eleven years as a federal public defender is qualified to be a federal judge.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Cool! https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1392835040111955969?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Did it work or was it a waste of time?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Going by how Kavanaugh has been ruling lately he seems more like a Kennedy retread than anyone was expecting. So I'm going to go with yes.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
What's cool about it? What do you think of it?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What's cool about it? What do you think of it? If it may please the court, "Beer Whisperer" is a way cooler title than "Associate Justice"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What's cool about it? What do you think of it? [looks at Kavanaugh's decisions since he got on the court] It looks like Justice Kagan made a very good decision to love bomb the rapist who helped steal an election. Also I had no idea she hired him to teach at Harvard Law when she was the dean after he'd tried to railroad Clinton and steal an election. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 16:13 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
You know Main Paineframe if you really want to bully us into commenting on news stories you could change the thread title so we're reminded every time we click on it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Anyone who's done eleven years as a federal public defender is qualified to be a federal judge. I want a SCOTUS comprised entirely of former public defenders. Less ivy league types would be nice as well but as long as they actually have PD experience and aren't boot licking fascists or religious zealots I'd take it. People need to never stop calling him a rapist to his face and I hope he dies mad.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I can understand someone not being able to spout of a specific standard of review, but they should know what rational basis review means. She knew what it was and said so in the clip - first level of review for a question of constitutional law. She probably could have fired off something pretty close, but I dont think shooting from the hip is looked on favorably during the judicial nomination process. Some Guy TT posted:You know Main Paineframe if you really want to bully us into commenting on news stories you could change the thread title so we're reminded every time we click on it. lol ahhh! Stop bullying me!! Lol Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2021: AWO Posting Will Result In Bullying
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Interesting, shame and attempts to avoid it can motivate a lot of things https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1392826078390063104 Not surprised these two don't get along given their personalities. https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1392838077102632961 Lol https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1392871383907160064
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
It's wild how the thousand years of conservative Supreme Court darkness appear to be on hold because the three Trump appointees come from completely different wings of the party and don't really like each other very much.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 08:03
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:It's wild how the thousand years of conservative Supreme Court darkness appear to be on hold because the three Trump appointees come from completely different wings of the party and don't really like each other very much. Also Kagan harnessing the power of Brunch and Liberal Elite Society Snobs for good so Justice Rapist would not carry through on his plan to take revenge on all Democrats. That sure wasn't on my Fall Of America Bingo Card. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1392766797862957056
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
I just want to know what drugs Gruender was on.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
Mississippi's supreme court would like to remind everyone that they also can do whatever the gently caress they want and nobody will stop them. https://twitter.com/FowlerSarah/status/1393282145074954249
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Burn the ballot initiative process just so
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Also worth nothing the MS court only mentioned this ballot initiative and not all of them. One of the previous initiatives passed in the same way was a Voter ID requirement so I hope someone sues to get that thrown out even though the MS courts will be more than happy to let that one stand for whatever bullshit excuse they feel like giving.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
For anyone who didn't click through, the crux of the matter is that the part of the Mississippi constitution that allows for ballot initiatives is worded in a way that means it only works if Mississippi has five (or more, I guess) congressional districts, and it currently has only four.quote:(3) The people reserve unto themselves the power to propose and The way that article is worded means that even if you get the desired number of signatures on your petition, only 80% of them count since no congressional district can count for more than 1/5 of the total and there are only four congressional districts. Apparently there have been efforts to amend this part of the constitution legislatively so that it makes sense, but none of those efforts has yet succeeded. Functionally speaking, the MS supreme court just ruled that no amendment initiative can be constitutional and so the entire system is moot. The transparently partisan part of it arrives at this point of the AP article: quote:People are gathering signatures for several other proposed initiatives, including one to authorize widespread early voting and another to expand Medicaid. Kendra James, spokeswoman for Secretary of State Michael Watson, said Watson’s staff is reviewing the Supreme Court ruling to see how it will affect other initiatives. Conveniently, they decide that something the right doesn't like (wider marijuana access) is invalid, and whoops wouldn't you know it that means the whole system is invalid just in time to rule out the possibility of people voting their way to popular initiatives that the right also doesn't like, such as early voting and expanding healthcare. I can only hope that somebody is preparing a lawsuit to invalidate the voter ID one as we speak, but I'm sure that if they want to they could find some workaround like "oh well, this one's already been in place for ten years without incident so clearly it wasn't a big deal that it was invalid when passed in the halcyon days of 2011."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Mississippi's supreme court would like to remind everyone that they also can do whatever the gently caress they want and nobody will stop them. how many gun laws have they struck down lol
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:how many gun laws have they struck down lol I have no answer for you beyond the question “how many gun laws is the Mississippi legislature passing in the first place” since that seems to be a requirement for them to get struck down
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:how many gun laws have they struck down lol None, but they are pre-emptively strangling a potential upcoming initiative that would add a path for record expungement and firearm ownership for non-violent felons (tied to a recreational marijuana initiative). Mostly they are interested in killing the upcoming medicaid expansion initiative. This would actually kill the state's voter ID requirement and eminent domain transfer prohibition (which both passed in 2011). Presumably we'll get to see some interesting pretzels when they save voter ID.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
Stickman posted:None, but they are pre-emptively strangling a potential upcoming initiative that would add a path for record expungement and firearm ownership for non-violent felons (tied to a recreational marijuana initiative). Mostly they are interested in killing the upcoming medicaid expansion initiative. This can be appealed to the Supreme Court right? Sounds like something Gorsuch would strike down because of the letter of the law.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
It's worth noting that, without the initiative process, Mississippi can't really be described a democracy by any reasonable definition of the term https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1393617317364330496 Charlz Guybon posted:This can be appealed to the Supreme Court right? Sounds like something Gorsuch would strike down because of the letter of the law. It's blatantly obvious what's actually going on here, and it has very little to do with law, representation, or majoritarianism
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1394284425224114176?s=21 E: scotusblog says that cert was granted to the question of "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional" aware of dog fucked around with this message at 14:37 on May 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Well gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Well, guess women's rights were fun while they lasted.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
So how do we get out of it this time. Or will there be unexpected in a 5-4 decision.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Congress could always pass legislati— PFFFFFFFT, no, we’re boned. Was nice being people for a while. See you next year with my new Missouri-certified title of “Incubator” until I hit menopause.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So how do we get out of it this time. Or will there be unexpected in a 5-4 decision. Personally I'm a fan of Congress ordaining the current court as an inferior court and establishes a new supreme court that has a veneer of legitimacy. They don't even need to worry about the filibuster! One little trick that Breyer hates.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Personally I'm a fan of Congress ordaining the current court as an inferior court and establishes a new supreme court that has a veneer of legitimacy. Can the court be stacked before they vote on it? Or is this a 2022 vote for Dems so we can stack the court vs vote for Repubs so the libs are owned election extravaganza thing
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:36
|
|