|
haveblue posted:After WW2 it fell out of fashion for a while, we started doing it again after 9/11 and haven't stopped yet Mass demonstrations of nationalism fell out of favor? I wonder why
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
If she was too old to understand the question how could she be fit to serve as a Justice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Remember when she officiated a wedding at the height of the pandemic and the bride thought it was a good idea to tweet it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Age limits for holding office need to have a maximum, not just a minimum, and the maximum limit should apply to all positions including appointments. We don't let children hold higher office and we shouldn't let the elderly do so for similar (and in some cases, identical) reasons. I'd also say that mental wellness needs to be a requirement but that'd absolutely get abused and used to blacklist political opponents so even though people like Grassley and Feinstein have issues, we'd have to let them remain unless they hit the age limit and Feinstein would be well over it. RBG would've been over it too and so in the case of appointments you'd need to include a "if the Senate doesn't act within X days the appointment is auto-confirmed" clause or something to deal with people like McConnell. e: Of course this is all moot because the people who'd pass these laws include a lot of old people who'd immediately lose their political power so they'd vote against it even with a gun to their head. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"if the Senate doesn't act within X days the appointment is auto-confirmed" clause or something to deal with people like McConnell. Well then you have the problem that the Senate majority leader can just step back and entirely transfer the appointment power to the executive. Maybe it should be a discharge-petition-like mechanism where the Senate as a whole can compel that an issue be raised and put to a vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
quote:“It's an institution that's fallible, though over time it has served this country pretty well,” Breyer told CNN in an interview on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
*stares in Dred Scott, Korematsu, Citizens United, Shelby County et al*
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Maybe it should be a discharge-petition-like mechanism where the Senate as a whole can compel that an issue be raised and put to a vote That’s essentially what a cloture motion is, so unsurprisingly it all comes back to filibuster reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Maybe it should be a discharge-petition-like mechanism where the Senate as a whole can compel that an issue be raised and put to a vote They already can do this, the reason the appointment wasn't voted on was because the Republican senate majority didn't want to seat Garland but didn't want to be seen voting against him on partisan grounds, so they hid behind Mitch McConnel. If a senate majority wanted to vote on Garland there are any number of ways they could have forced it. Same thing we're seeing now with the filibuster, the parliamentarian, etc. A bare senate majority can do anything it wants, aside from a few specific actions noted in the consitution as having supermajority requirements (veto overrides, constitutional amendments). When the majority wrings their hands and says they can't do something because of 'the rules', then unless they're talking about one of those narrow supermajority thresholds like overriding a veto, then what they really mean is they're acting in bad faith and pretending they can't do something when really they just don't want to and are hiding behind the rules (rules which they keep around for this very purpose) At most maybe you could create a rule that a minority can force the whole senate to vote on something, then Republicans would have had to give Garland an up-or-down vote, but of course they could always just have chosen to vote him down with some other excuse. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Age limits for holding office need to have a maximum, not just a minimum, and the maximum limit should apply to all positions including appointments. We don't let children hold higher office and we shouldn't let the elderly do so for similar (and in some cases, identical) reasons. I'd also say that mental wellness needs to be a requirement but that'd absolutely get abused and used to blacklist political opponents so even though people like Grassley and Feinstein have issues, we'd have to let them remain unless they hit the age limit and Feinstein would be well over it. RBG would've been over it too and so in the case of appointments you'd need to include a "if the Senate doesn't act within X days the appointment is auto-confirmed" clause or something to deal with people like McConnell. Lifetime appointed officials, however, have no such check on their ability, so an age limit is much more important, because it's the only way short of impeachment to remove them. It also serves an institutional purpose because fresh eyes and perspectives are important even if the old person who has been in the position for a quarter century is still competent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
Surprised there have been no posts about the draft version of the commission's report on court expansion: https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1448762944075018251?s=20 Truth is...game was rigged from the start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Surprised there have been no posts about the draft version of the commission's report on court expansion: The charitable reading of this would be that it's a message to the court: "The only reason we aren't packing the court is because a few unengaged idiots think that you're still non-partisan, so kindly stop acting like you're partisans" I personally think the court has gone way past that point, but the White House has stopped taking my calls lately
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Looking forward to dems appointing a conservative justice in the next decade to just to show how nonpartisan the courts are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
moths posted:Looking forward to dems appointing a conservative justice in the next decade to just to show how nonpartisan the courts are. This actually happens in the West Wing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Goddamnit Sorken. Now it's going to come true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
moths posted:Goddamnit Sorken. Now it's going to come true. Leaded gasoline vs Aaron Sorkin : which did more damage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
moths posted:Goddamnit Sorken. Now it's going to come true. They get a chance to put two justices on the court so he picks a liberal and a Scalia-like archconservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:They get a chance to put two justices on the court so he picks a liberal and a Scalia-like archconservative. But just like in real life, the liberal is chums with the Scalia stand-in, because class solidarity is stronger than politics
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Leaded gasoline vs Aaron Sorkin : which did more damage? Leaded gas did good for 50+ years. It doesn't make up for the harm, but it's a greater contribution than Sorkin's made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-abortion-ban-upheld-federal-appeals-court/story?id=80592827 "The court's order did not detail its reasoning behind the ruling, which is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court." Yet another good example of why the Executive needs to just outright refuse to abide by any court ruling that the judges can't be bothered to explain (because the judges know they can't form a good defense, just gently caress You And gently caress Abortion Rights). Right wing judges and the SCOTUS in particular is only going to get worse about this as they continue to make more extreme rulings based on their personal beliefs and not actual legal rationale. Peaceful Anarchy posted:Age limits for elected office and age limits for lifetime appointments are two very different things and shouldn't be conflated. Elected officials have to face the public for approval, and if the public wants a senile 90 year old or an illiterate 4 year old to represent them, then that's on them (or on a hosed up voting system). If the public wants a tween Senator they should be able to elect one too then. Or... you put an age limit on elected offices too because elderly entrenched politicians have a ton of pull and replacing a senile out-of-touch person like Feinstein is borderline impossible because even if other leadership want her gone they won't do it because they know it weakens their own ability to remain in office until they die. Anyone who thinks "the people will replace them" is naive to put it lightly. Groovelord Neato posted:Surprised there have been no posts about the draft version of the commission's report on court expansion: Biden's commission that was built with the goal of saying the status quo is good said the status quo is good? This is my surprised face.  I know I'm stating the obvious, but if the court was 6-3 with a liberal majority and there was a Republican POTUS with both chambers of Congress the very first thing they'd have passed is a bill expanding the courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
Devor posted:The charitable reading of this would be that it's a message to the court: "The only reason we aren't packing the court is because a few unengaged idiots think that you're still non-partisan, so kindly stop acting like you're partisans" That excerpt is a response to proposals that would explicitly guarantee a certain number of seats to each party, to enforce a permanently balanced Court. This is why getting your info from screenshots of chunks of articles with tweet commentary is generally a bad move. If you read past the first tweet, you'll see that this report is in fact generally skeptical of expanding the court. https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1448859222331043850 https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1448859564229734431 That said, the "expanding the court" section alone is forty-six pages long, so those tweets shouldn't be taken as a sum-up of the entire thing either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That excerpt is a response to proposals that would explicitly guarantee a certain number of seats to each party, to enforce a permanently balanced Court. That would require a 3 seat expansion as things are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Having an even number of justices is such a profoundly stupid idea that anyone who suggests it should never have their opinion taken on anything ever again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:They get a chance to put two justices on the court so he picks a liberal and a Scalia-like archconservative. Its worth noting that there's more to the plot than this. One seat opens due to an unexpected death, a seat which had been held by an arch-conservative. The current make-up of the Senate is such that the White House feels the only Justice they can get through nomination is a gormless centrist with no real legal talent or scholarship to his name but is friends with all the right people. The SCOTUS Chief Justice, who himself is in his 80s and dealing with the early stages of some kind of mental disease, probably dementia, is disgusted with Bartlett for being a coward and not pushing for a Judge who actually has chops and ability rather than popularity. Bartlett has been trying to get him to agree to step down so they can be certain a Democrat will get to appoint the next Chief Justice, since its not certain what way the next Presidential Election will go. The Chief Justice basically says that if this is the best Bartlett can do for a new Associate Justice, he's not going to gamble the court's future on Bartlett being able to do better than another braindead empty suit with his seat. Not with all the critical constitutional questions the court is going to be facing in next ten years. The deal Bartlett strikes with the Senate is for the Chief Justice to retire and get to hand pick his successor, a young progressive woman who he considers to be a towering legal intellect, in exchange for filling the old Arch-Conservative's seat with a young Arch-Conservative who is also considered to be a towering legal intellect. He is inspired to make the deal instead of just going with his gormless centrist and keeping the old Chief Justice in his place when he sees the two of them sharing a waiting room in the White House an engaging in a spirited debate. It's still a fairy tale that roots itself in the notion that the Court is a non-partisan entity where Smart People call balls and strikes based on nothing but what The Law demands. For example, the Arch-Conservative justice takes a moment out to present Charlie with a legal argument for why affirmative action is good, just to demonstrate that he's swayable on any issue if the argument fits his legal ideology, regardless of his political feelings. But its not quite the story that people on this forum tend to portray, ie that Lib Brain compelled Sorkin to tell a story whereby the POTUS endorses that The Truth Is Always In The Middle by giving away a SCOTUS seat to the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:But its not quite the story that people on this forum tend to portray, ie that Lib Brain compelled Sorkin to tell a story whereby the POTUS endorses that The Truth Is Always In The Middle by giving away a SCOTUS seat to the Republicans. After reading that summary, I'm confident that leaded gas is also to blame for Sorkin. I really can't say which is worse anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
The West Wing is such a laffo masturbatory fantasy that it’s like looking into a goodie-two shoes mirror universe when in fact we’re living in the evil universe that has Spock with a goatee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
What a load of horseshit https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1450045795454046212
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1450094122841395202 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1450095642794209286
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Congrats to cops I guess (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Congrats to cops I guess Congratulations to Brutality for winning the War on Police Brutality This joke brought to you by "Congrats to Drugs for winning the War on Drugs" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
I'm sorry there are no Supreme Court decisions that directly reference a San Antonio police officer named John B. Quincy committing that specific tort against a woman in a blue Kia at 5:43 pm. Since there's no legal precedent for their case, Quincy's claim of legal immunity is denied. America's Politburo seems to be fully embracing the sovereign citizen movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
It's too bad the SCOTUS justices have never faced or will ever face the consequences of their decisions. Like, if one of them were pulled over by the cops and beaten and then dealt with this qualified immunity in their own case, I'm sure they'd magically develop empathy about this issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
WTF, not even Sotomayor dissented?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:WTF, not even Sotomayor dissented? The hero of Sotomayor's branch of the SCOTUS explicitly supported murdering civilians when opposed by the horrific, barbaric act of not standing for a song, so why are you surprised?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Glad to see the SCOTUS never waste the opportunity to further reinforce the notion that law enforcement should be held to impossibly high and outright contradictory standards. Abolish this farce of a SCOTUS and make appointment of ivy leaguers and anyone who hasn't worked as a public defender illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Yes and they are not dissenting in death penalty cases other than occasionally Breyer, and even he doesn’t do it with all of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
I know that no level of government will ever reject the SCOTUS as an illegitimate body, even though they've unquestionably been in such a state since Bush v. Gore at the least, but it'd be nice to see someone at some level of power stop kicking the can down the road on this poo poo. Though that's probably even less likely than Dems finding the spine to fix the courts, since the Dem leadership bends over backwards to make excuses to keep the status quo intact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:WTF, not even Sotomayor dissented? Lol come on. The guy who nominated her handpicked the author of the crime bill to be VP then president. I get hoping that Obama's picks wouldn't be insanely pro-cop in 2010, but have you been in a coma since then
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:WTF, not even Sotomayor dissented? Do you think she should have? Do you think that the court wrongly upheld qualified immunity in these cases, and that the cops were indeed guilty of excessive force that they should have known was clearly unconstitutional? Or do you think that the court should have just overturned qualified immunity altogether and abolished it? Skimming through the ruling, it doesn't really seem that qualified immunity is being used to protect anything particularly shocking here. Neither case is particularly egregious, and the Supreme Court highlighted some pretty major differences between the cases at issue and the cases that had been cited as precedent. Cortesluna in particular seems pretty reasonable on both counts, about as reasonable as can be expected from American cops. The Tenth Circuit ruled that a cop placing his knee on a guy's back for "no more than eight seconds" to remove a knife from the guy's pocket during a domestic assault call was excessive force, referencing LaLonde, which also involved a cop's knee on someone's back. But LaLonde involved cops showing up for a noise complaint, being refused entry by the unarmed homeowner, getting mad and illegally invading his apartment to attack the guy, with the officers continuing to inflict pain on him long after he'd surrendered and been handcuffed. It was so bad that qualified immunity was been overturned in LaLonde even without any particular case to point to as precedent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Do you think she should have? Do you think that the court wrongly upheld qualified immunity in these cases, and that the cops were indeed guilty of excessive force that they should have known was clearly unconstitutional? Or do you think that the court should have just overturned qualified immunity altogether and abolished it? For fucks sake, yes. The entire idea of QI and people having literally no legal recourse against severe and blatant abuse of power and violence by the state is extremely unconstitutional. Someone raising a hammer and coming at a cop and getting shot for it is still almost certain to go in the state's favor even if some cop(s) at the scene felt a taser would've sufficed when others opted for lethal force but there are no shortage of cases where cops clearly abuse their power if not break the law entirely and nothing happens because of QI. That QI was created by a 39 year old SCOTUS decision doesn't mean it needs to be constantly doubled-down on at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:58
|
|