|
PeterCat posted:The ruling about national Guard retirement for federal technicians is going to upset a lot of people that I know. I'm one of those people and it's loving bullshit. According to SCOTUSBlog: "The ruling won’t likely have sweeping impacts, as the government told the justices it would only apply to certain dual status technicians hired between 1968 and 1984." Medium Chungus fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 14, 2022 |
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 00:52
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It'd be really handy to have a POTUS who was actually a leader because maybe we'd actually see the court punished for its abuses and illegitimacy. What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court".
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court". Just mentioning that the court is a pack of undemocratic ghouls slowly killing the nation would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
The power of a president to set an agenda is largely about rhetoric and cheerleading things, which may not sound like much, but look what Trump did just by telling people that they were free to be their true selves. A president acting as organizer-in-chief by speaking directly about things he really believes and encouraging people to do things he really thinks they should do (encouraging wildcat strikes or telling blm protestors that they’re right to take to the streets and joining them) isn’t nothing. Telling people loudly and often that the court is illegitimate and undemocratic is one important step to fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:The power of a president to set an agenda is largely about rhetoric and cheerleading things, which may not sound like much, but look what Trump did just by telling people that they were free to be their true selves. A president acting as organizer-in-chief by speaking directly about things he really believes and encouraging people to do things he really thinks they should do (encouraging wildcat strikes or telling blm protestors that they’re right to take to the streets and joining them) isn’t nothing. Telling people loudly and often that the court is illegitimate and undemocratic is one important step to fixing it. Loudly promoting expanding the judiciary (and SCOTUS specifically) is another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court". Convert the Supreme Court building into affordable housing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Remove all COVID precautions, resume in-person arguments, prepare list of nominees
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Medium Chungus posted:According to SCOTUSBlog: Right. After 1984 the dual status technicians should be on the new federal retirement system and paying into social security on the civilian side, so the reduction wouldn’t apply,
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:He needs to tell them to gently caress off and refuse to comply with the ruling. Because the alternative is we let the SC run the country. That would be great, but businesses can do the same to OSHA Glimm fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Glimm posted:That would be great, but businesses can do the same to OHSA The difference is the courts have no enforcement power. The POTUS (and OSHA if by extension in this case) has Federal lawenforcement and other agents under their control and who can make a company's life exceedingly difficult. A court's power begins and ends with the other branches agreeing to abide by their decision as a legitimate body. The current SCOUT has no legitimacy and the main reason the Dems willingly if not eagerly go along with nakedly political rulings is because the Dem leadership ultimately doesn't care (and most of them know they'll be dead before the problems they're enabling fully come to a head).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The difference is the courts have no enforcement power. The POTUS (and OSHA if by extension in this case) has Federal lawenforcement and other agents under their control and who can make a company's life exceedingly difficult. Right, which is why I wonder what would happen if Biden simply said, "The SCOTUS can pound sand; the mandates stay". He won't, but I wish he would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Right, which is why I wonder what would happen if Biden simply said, "The SCOTUS can pound sand; the mandates stay". He won't, but I wish he would. States have already basically been selectively ignoring federal things for a while now. It would just push the growing divides into overdrive as republican-controlled state governments would use it as an excuse to keep doing what they were doing anyway or as an excuse to get really aggressive and do way more of it, saying they have no choice because of the tyrant Biden. Democrats would say "they can learn to code and move to the bay area if they want rights."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
We’re already arguably in a constitutional crisis right now so none of our options are good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
BALKANIZATION AHOY!!!! Yeah, we need a constitutional convention to get poo poo cleaned up but like if that was ever going to happen. Hell, I would be willing to set up term limits for congress members and federal judges and/or voter id (along with national registration and free national ids) if it meant that we could correct so much of this poo poo. Too many states realize that the current system greatly benefits them more than others and that is enough to keep it below 75% ratification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Ignoring the courts is functionally identical to declaring martial law and is equally idiotic, mostly because it wouldn't work, nobody would follow Biden and agree to do it. He'd just get sued a lot over it and look like an idiot. The real answer is Biden needs to 1) start taking dramatic action via executive order, within the limits of what is allowed for eo's 2) proposing court reorganization bills like rotating randokization of Supreme Court seats among the whole judiciary and mandatory retirement ages (you're still a judge you're just on retirement status) etc 3) active hardball use of the investigatory state. Like, have the doj investigate Manchins daughter for those epi pen price hikes. That kind of thing. The root issue though is that the democrats are restrained by the rule of law and Republicans aren't. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Right, which is why I wonder what would happen if Biden simply said, "The SCOTUS can pound sand; the mandates stay". He won't, but I wish he would. one or both of a) the administrative state says "no, that's illegal" and refuses to obey the president under a rotating cast of political appointees a la Trump b) congress initiates impeachment, and maybe succeeds, but probably doesn't, a la Trump with a healthy dose of noncompliance (same as if it'd been upheld) in reality regardless im fondly reminded of someone discussing a trip to the 80s soviet union during an interview, to the effect of "this country is bizarre! there are so many rules, and nobody follows any of them!", which is an accurate description of the modern united states
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
"So many laws and nobody follows any of them" is very accurate for the US. I remember there was discussion about limiting the SCOTUS' ability to hear major cases such as the one for vaccine mandates, to force it to preside over circuit disputes. Is this something that Biden could do by executive order?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:"So many laws and nobody follows any of them" is very accurate for the US. No, but it's something Congress could do via a law. So it's about as likely to happen as Congress passing any other sensible yet unprecedented reform
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court". "Will no one rid me of this troublesome court"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
would stripping SCOTUS of the ability to handle appeals of decisions from the court of appeals unless there's a difference between district rulings make any sense? i guess it'd increase costs since you'd need to shop around circuits to try and create a dispute, but the circuits aren't perfect either, and i wouldn't expect it to deter stuff like this. is it likely that there are cases every circuit rules the same but scotus still overturns?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
 Opinion! COVID! This is the one (OSHA) where the mandate lost. You all know this but putting the Reader’s Digest in the threadNFIB v. OSHA TLDR: The OSHA requirements that anyone with 100+ employees vaccinate them does not go into effect.. Holding / Majority Opinion (Per Curiam) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly 84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday. OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country. The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule. Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970…As its name suggests, OSHA is tasked with ensuring occupational safety— that is, “safe and healthful working conditions.” It does so by enforcing occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary [of Labor]. Such standards must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.” They must also be developed using a rigorous process that includes notice, comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing. The Act contains an exception to those ordinary notice-and-comment procedures for “emergency temporary standards.” Such standards may “take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register.” They are permissible, however, only in the narrowest of circumstances: the Secretary must show (1) “that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards,” and (2) that the “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.” Ibid. Prior to the emergence of COVID–19, the Secretary had used this power just nine times before (and never to issue a rule as broad as this one). Of those nine emergency rules, six were challenged in court, and only one of those was upheld in full. [Mandate issues, everyone sues, case reaches the Supreme Court on an application for a stay] Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures. Confirming the point, the Act’s provisions typically speak to hazards that employees face at work. And no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA’s sphere of expertise. The dissent protests that we are imposing “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” Not so. It is the text of the agency’s Organic Act that repeatedly makes clear that OSHA is charged with regulating “occupational” hazards and the safety and health of “employees.” The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization. The dissent contends that OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency. But a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed. A vaccination, after all, “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.” Contrary to the dissent’s contention, imposing a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans in response to a worldwide pandemic is simply not “part of what the agency was built for.” That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus. So too could OSHA regulate risks associated with working in particularly crowded or cramped environments. But the danger present in such workplaces differs in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID–19 that all face. OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction— between occupational risk and risk more generally—and accordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an “occupational safety or health standard.” … It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace. This “lack of historical precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority that the Secretary now claims, is a “telling indication” that the mandate extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach. … Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category. The applications for stays presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court are granted. OSHA’s COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402, is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and disposition of the applicants’ petitions for writs of certiorari, if such writs are timely sought. Should the petitions for writs of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. It is so ordered. Lineup: Per Curiam. Concurrence by Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito. Dissent by Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan Concurrence (Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito) The central question we face today is: Who decides? No one doubts that the COVID–19 pandemic has posed challenges for every American. Or that our state, local, and national governments all have roles to play in combating the disease. The only question is whether an administrative agency in Washington, one charged with overseeing workplace safety, may mandate the vaccination or regular testing of 84 million people. Or whether, as 27 States before us submit, that work belongs to state and local governments across the country and the people’s elected representatives in Congress. This Court is not a public health authority. But it is charged with resolving disputes about which authorities possess the power to make the laws that govern us under the Constitution and the laws of the land. … “We expect Congress to speak clearly” if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions “of vast economic and political significance.” We sometimes call this the major questions doctrine. OSHA’s mandate fails that doctrine’s test…Approximately two years have passed since this pandemic began; vaccines have been available for more than a year. Over that span, Congress has adopted several major pieces of legislation aimed at combating COVID–19. But Congress has chosen not to afford OSHA—or any federal agency—the authority to issue a vaccine mandate. Indeed, a majority of the Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation. … As the agency itself explained to a federal court less than two years ago, the statute [allowing emergency regulations for grave exposure to workers] does “not authorize OSHA to issue sweeping health standards” that affect workers’ lives outside the workplace. Yet that is precisely what the agency seeks to do now—regulate not just what happens inside the workplace but induce individuals to undertake a medical procedure that affects their lives outside the workplace. … Why does the major questions doctrine matter? It ensures that the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people’s elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans, the doctrine says, they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress. … The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests C with the States and Congress, not OSHA. In saying this much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little. Dissent (Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan)Every day, COVID–19 poses grave dangers to the citizens of this country—and particularly, to its workers. The disease has by now killed almost 1 million Americans and hospitalized almost 4 million. It spreads by person-to-person contact in confined indoor spaces, so causes harm in nearly all workplace environments. And in those environments, more than any others, individuals have little control, and therefore little capacity to mitigate risk. COVID–19, in short, is a menace in work settings. The proof is all around us: Since the disease’s onset, most Americans have seen their workplaces transformed. So the administrative agency charged with ensuring health and safety in workplaces did what Congress commanded it to: It took action to address COVID–19’s continuing threat in those spaces. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an emergency temporary standard (Standard), requiring either vaccination or masking and testing, to protect American workers. The Standard falls within the core of the agency’s mission: to “protect employees” from “grave danger” that comes from “new hazards” or exposure to harmful agents. OSHA estimates—and there is no ground for disputing—that the Standard will save over 6,500 lives and prevent over 250,000 hospitalizations in six months’ time. Yet today the Court issues a stay that prevents the Standard from taking effect. In our view, the Court’s order seriously misapplies the applicable legal standards. And in so doing, it stymies the Federal Government’s ability to counter the unparalleled threat that COVID–19 poses to our Nation’s workers. Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies. We respectfully dissent. … The applicants are not “likely to prevail” under any proper view of the law. OSHA’s rule perfectly fits the language of the applicable statutory provision. Once again, that provision commands—not just enables, but commands—OSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard whenever it determines “(A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.” Each and every part of that provision demands that, in the circumstances here, OSHA act to prevent workplace harm. The virus that causes COVID–19 is a “new hazard” as well as a “physically harmful” “agent.” The virus also poses a “grave danger” to millions of employees. As of the time OSHA promulgated its rule, more than 725,000 Americans had died of COVID–19 and millions more had been hospitalized. … Finally, the Standard is “necessary” to address the danger of COVID–19. OSHA based its rule, requiring either testing and masking or vaccination, on a host of studies and government reports showing why those measures were of unparalleled use in limiting the threat of COVID–19 in most workplaces. … OSHA’s determinations are “conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.”...Given the extensive evidence in the record supporting OSHA’s determinations about the risk of COVID–19 and the efficacy of masking, testing, and vaccination, a court could not conclude that the Standard fails substantial-evidence review. The Court does not dispute that the statutory terms just discussed, read in the ordinary way, authorize this Standard. In other words, the majority does not contest that COVID–19 is a “new hazard” and “physically harmful agent”; that it poses a “grave danger” to employees; or that a testing and masking or vaccination policy is “necessary” to prevent those harms. Instead, the majority claims that the Act does not “plainly authorize[]” the Standard because it gives OSHA the power to “set workplace safety standards” and COVID–19 exists both inside and outside the workplace. In other words, the Court argues that OSHA cannot keep workplaces safe from COVID–19 because the agency (as it readily acknowledges) has no power to address the disease outside the work setting. But nothing in the Act’s text supports the majority’s limitation on OSHA’s regulatory authority. Of course, the majority is correct that OSHA is not a roving public health regulator: It has power only to protect employees from workplace hazards. But as just explained, that is exactly what the Standard does. And the Act requires nothing more: Contra the majority, it is indifferent to whether a hazard in the workplace is also found elsewhere. … Consistent with Congress’s directives, OSHA has long regulated risks that arise both inside and outside of the workplace. For example, OSHA has issued, and applied to nearly all workplaces, rules combating risks of fire, faulty electrical installations, and inadequate emergency exits— even though the dangers prevented by those rules arise not only in workplaces but in many physical facilities (e.g., stadiums, schools, hotels, even homes). … The result of [the Court’s] ruling is squarely at odds with the statutory scheme. As shown earlier, the Act’s explicit terms authorize the Standard. Once again, OSHA must issue an emergency standard in response to new hazards in the workplace that expose employees to “grave danger.” The entire point of that provision is to enable OSHA to deal with emergencies—to put into effect the new measures needed to cope with new workplace conditions. The enacting Congress of course did not tell the agency to issue this Standard in response to this COVID–19 pandemic—because that Congress could not predict the future. But that Congress did indeed want OSHA to have the tools needed to confront emerging dangers (including contagious diseases) in the workplace. We know that, first and foremost, from the breadth of the authority Congress granted to OSHA. And we know that because of how OSHA has used that authority from the statute’s beginnings—in ways not dissimilar to the action here. OSHA has often issued rules applying to all or nearly all workplaces in the Nation, affecting at once many tens of millions of employees. It has previously regulated infectious disease, including by facilitating vaccinations. And it has in other contexts required medical examinations and face coverings for employees. … If OSHA’s Standard is far-reaching—applying to many millions of American workers—it no more than reflects the scope of the crisis. … Even if the merits were a close question—which they are not—the Court would badly err by issuing this stay. That is because a court may not issue a stay unless the balance of harms and the public interest support the action. … Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID–19? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, acting as Congress and the President authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes? Here, an agency charged by Congress with safeguarding employees from workplace dangers has decided that action is needed. The agency has thoroughly evaluated the risks that the disease poses to workers across all sectors of the economy. It has considered the extent to which various policies will mitigate those risks, and the costs those policies will entail. It has landed on an approach that encourages vaccination, but allows employers to use masking and testing instead. It has meticulously explained why it has reached its conclusions. And in doing all this, it has acted within the four corners of its statutory authorization—or actually here, its statutory mandate. OSHA, that is, has responded in the way necessary to alleviate the “grave danger” that workplace exposure to the “new hazard[]” of COVID–19 poses to employees across the Nation. The agency’s Standard is informed by a half century of experience and expertise in handling workplace health and safety issues. The Standard also has the virtue of political accountability, for OSHA is responsible to the President, and the President is responsible to—and can be held to account by—the American public. And then, there is this Court. Its Members are elected by, and accountable to, no one. And we “lack[] the background, competence, and expertise to assess” workplace health and safety issues. South Bay United Pentecostal Church, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (slip op., at 2). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
haveblue posted:No, but it's something Congress could do via a law. So it's about as likely to happen as Congress passing any other sensible yet unprecedented reform And when the SCOTUS ignores that law and issues a ruling anyways (while maybe saying jurisdiction stripping is invalid because we say so), everyone will go along with the SCOTUS ruling. Nobody resisted Bush v. Gore, Shelby County, or a slew of other rulings. There's no reason to believe anyone would resist a ruling from the SCOTUS to invalidate laws that curtail their authority. Hell, QI exists because they invented it themselves right after Congress considered if such a thing should exist and decided it shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Gotta love a 6-3 that they're all too chickenshit to put their name on.
Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jan 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Gotta love a chickenshit 6-3 that they're all too chickenshit to put their name on. Well, only Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito put their names on the concurrence, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:would stripping SCOTUS of the ability to handle appeals of decisions from the court of appeals unless there's a difference between district rulings make any sense? i guess it'd increase costs since you'd need to shop around circuits to try and create a dispute, but the circuits aren't perfect either, and i wouldn't expect it to deter stuff like this. is it likely that there are cases every circuit rules the same but scotus still overturns? Any time they wanted a circuit split they'd just file another case in the 5th circuit which is even more chuddy than SCOTUS thanks to Obama and Reid stupidly respecting the blue slip tradition and not appointing any judges that Ted Cruz objected to, leaving seats for Trump and McConnell to fill as they dispensed with blue slips immediately
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Well, only Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito put their names on the concurrence, after all. That is true. So only three cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:start taking dramatic action via executive order, within the limits of what is allowed for eo's the issue is that the limits of eos are basically calvinball at this point
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Yeah, we need a constitutional convention to get poo poo cleaned up but like if that was ever going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Good news! Soon Republicans will control enough state legislatures to call one unilaterally. It's been a goal of a few think tanks and conservative groups since the early 90s. A balanced budget amendment is the big goal they usually talk about, but the sky's really the limit given how things have fallen apart since then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Good news! Soon Republicans will control enough state legislatures to call one unilaterally. But those would entirely opened ended Conventions. Anything would be on the table and not just a single amendment. I could see those turning into entire clusterfuck that gets nothing done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:But those would entirely opened ended Conventions. Anything would be on the table and not just a single amendment. Think of it like letting a chimpanzee loose in your kitchen. Sure, he's probably not going to actually cook anything, but he will definitely make a huge mess and is also pretty likely to burn your house down
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:the issue is that the limits of eos are basically calvinball at this point NAh there are things that are very clearly not within the scope of EO's (e.g., changing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, etc -- things constitutionally established as requiring the legislature).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:But those would entirely opened ended Conventions. Anything would be on the table and not just a single amendment. Corporate groups like ALEC would ram through the version of the Constitution they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:But those would entirely opened ended Conventions. Anything would be on the table and not just a single amendment. It'd be a clusterfuck and the GOP would get a core number of things, such as wholesale abortion bans, balanced budget amendment, insanely restrictive voting access, and a few other pet goals of the billionaires who control the party. The only people who want a constitutional convention at this point are Talibangelical conservatives and people who don't know what they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:But those would entirely opened ended Conventions. Anything would be on the table and not just a single amendment. There’s no mechanism for limiting a convention; if one was called for a single amendment, it could literally overturn the entirety of the existing Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There’s no mechanism for limiting a convention; if one was called for a single amendment, it could literally overturn the entirety of the existing Constitution. As evidence, this is more or less where our current constitution came from in the first place. The founders were originally tasked with making minor updates to the Articles of Confederation, and when they decided to throw them out entirely and create a brand new government there was no reason they couldn't and no one stopping them
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
A convention at this point is more likely to end in civil war than a functional governing document.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
An ALEC authored Constitution brought to you by Subway Eat Fresh® would be ratified easily because every Republican state would vote for it and you'd only have to bribe a few Democratic legislators in divided state governments to join them. The price of a steak dinner would be a more than adequate bribe so they could probably get it ratified by 38 states at a total cost of like $850
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 20:50
|
|