|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/truthout/status/1493707944180940803?t=n4AiPqrsE3jsxD5n4cRq6A&s=19 Did you not get the difference between “before a midterm” and “before a presidential”?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/truthout/status/1493707944180940803?t=n4AiPqrsE3jsxD5n4cRq6A&s=19 Meh. I think there’s enough to get worked up over that’s not a hypothetical scenario
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
It's still a stupid loving thing to say after the GOP speedran Barrett's nomination and confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
It's largely irrelevant because the Dems aren't going to have control over the Senate in 2024 and no Biden nominee is going to get the time of day unless he's nominating a right winger that the GOP told him to nominate for "bipartisanship".
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
 Opinion! The froth has died down a bit, and I’m mildly less depressed today, so going to go ahead and post a summary of the Alabama VRA case. This isn’t an “Opinion of the Court”, but an “Opinion Relating to an Order”, because it is all tied to the stay.JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. 21A375 (21–1086) v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. TLDR: The Voting Rights Act is dead. Slightly more technically, the district court’s ruling finding Alabama’s new Congressional maps to be illegal and ordering Alabama not to use them is stayed until the Supreme Court says otherwise (i.e., hears the full case, which is a strong signal that they’ll find the maps acceptable). Holding / Majority Opinion (Per Curiam) [T]he petition [for a writ of certiorari before judgment, i.e. for the Supreme Court to hear the case] is granted. The district court’s January 24, 2022 preliminary injunctions in No. 2:21–cv–1530 and No. 2:21–cv–1536 are stayed pending further order of the Court. Lineup: Per Curiam, but a review of the concurrence and dissents shows it was Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barret. Concurrence (Kavanaugh, joined by Alito) [T]he principal dissent is wrong to claim that the Court’s stay order makes any new law regarding the Voting Rights Act. The stay order does not make or signal any change to voting rights law. The stay order is not a ruling on the merits, but instead simply stays the District Court’s injunction pending a ruling on the merits. The stay order follows this Court’s election-law precedents, which establish (i) that federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election, and (ii) that federal appellate courts should stay injunctions when, as here, lower federal courts contravene that principle. The principal dissent’s catchy but worn-out rhetoric about the “shadow docket” is similarly off target. The stay will allow this Court to decide the merits in an orderly fashion—after full briefing, oral argument, and our usual extensive internal deliberations—and ensure that we do not have to decide the merits on the emergency docket. To reiterate: The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits. … Under our precedents, a party asking this Court for a stay of a lower court’s judgment pending appeal or certiorari ordinarily must show (i) a reasonable probability that this Court would eventually grant review and a fair prospect that the Court would reverse, and (ii) that the applicant would likely suffer irreparable harm absent the stay. In deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal or certiorari, the Court also considers the equities (including the likely harm to both parties) and the public interest. As the Court has often indicated, however, that traditional test for a stay does not apply (at least not in the same way) in election cases when a lower court has issued an injunction of a state’s election law in the period close to an election. This Court has repeatedly stated that federal courts ordinarily should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election, and this Court in turn has often stayed lower federal court injunctions that contravened that principle. That principle—known as the Purcell principle—reflects a bedrock tenet of election law: When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled. Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others. It is one thing for a State on its own to toy with its election laws close to a State’s elections. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a State’s election laws in the period close to an election. … Although the Court has not yet had occasion to fully spell out all of its contours, I would think that the Purcell principle…might be overcome even with respect to an injunction issued close to an election if a plaintiff establishes at least the following: (i) the underlying merits are entirely clearcut in favor of the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (iii) the plaintiff has not unduly delayed bringing the complaint to court; and (iv) the changes in question are at least feasible before the election without significant cost, confusion, or hardship. Here, however, even such a relaxed version of the Purcell principle would not permit the District Court’s late-breaking injunction. That is because the plaintiffs could not satisfy at least two of those four prerequisites—namely, that the merits be clearcut in favor of the plaintiff, and that the changes be feasible without significant cost, confusion, or hardship. As to the merits, the underlying question here is whether a second majority-minority congressional district (out of seven total districts in Alabama) is required by the Voting Rights Act and not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court’s case law in this area is notoriously unclear and confusing. … At this preliminary juncture, the underlying merits appear to be close and, at a minimum, not clearcut in favor of the plaintiffs. And in any event, the plaintiffs have not established that the changes are feasible without significant cost, confusion, or hardship. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot overcome even a more relaxed version of the Purcell principle. In short, the Purcell principle requires that we stay the District Court’s injunction with respect to the 2022 elections. … The principal dissent disagrees and emphasizes the thoroughness of the District Court’s opinion. But if careful District Court consideration sufficed for an appellate court to deny a stay, then appellate courts could usually end the stay inquiry right there. That is not how stay analysis works. Contrary to the dissent’s implication, the fact that the District Court here issued a lengthy opinion after considering a substantial record is the starting point, not the ending point, for our analysis of whether to grant a stay. To sum up: In light of this Court’s many precedents applying the Purcell principle and staying lower court injunctions of state election laws in the period close to an election, I concur in the Court’s order granting a stay of the District Court’s injunction here. Contrary to the dissent’s mistaken rhetoric, I take no position at this time on the ultimate merits of the parties’ underlying legal dispute. And I need not do so until the Court receives full briefing, holds oral argument, and engages in our usual extensive internal deliberations. Dissent (Roberts) I respectfully dissent from the stays granted in these cases because, in my view, the District Court properly applied existing law [Thornburg v. Ginbles] in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction. … But while the District Court cannot be faulted for its application of Gingles, it is fair to say that Gingles and its progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim. … In order to resolve the wide range of uncertainties arising under Gingles, I would note probable jurisdiction in Milligan and grant certiorari before judgment in Caster, setting the cases for argument next Term. But I would not grant a stay. As noted, the analysis below seems correct as Gingles is presently applied, and in my view the District Court’s analysis should therefore control the upcoming election. The practical effect of this approach would be that the 2022 election would take place in accord with the judgment of the District Court, but subsequent elections would be governed by this Court’s decision on review. Dissent (Kagan, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor) After considering a massive factual record, developed over seven days of testimony, and reviewing more than 1,000 pages of briefing, a three-judge District Court held that Alabama’s redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The District Court (including two judges from the State) found that the plan unlawfully diluted the votes of the State’s Black population, and ordered the State to devise a new plan for the 2022 elections. Alabama now seeks a stay of that ruling. Usually, when a litigant applies to this Court for a stay, it argues that the lower court erred under current law. But Alabama’s application cannot be understood in that way. Accepting Alabama’s contentions would rewrite decades of this Court’s precedent about Section 2 of the VRA. For that reason, this Court goes badly wrong in granting a stay. There may—or may not— be a basis for revising our VRA precedent in light of the modern districting technology that Alabama’s application highlights. But such a change can properly happen only after full briefing and argument—not based on the scanty review this Court gives matters on its shadow docket. The District Court here did everything right under the law existing today. Staying its decision forces Black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear vote dilution. With respect, I again dissent from a ruling that “undermines Section 2 and the right it provides.” Following the 2020 census, the plaintiffs here challenged Alabama’s newly enacted redistricting plan under Section 2. Alabama’s population is 27% Black, but under the plan, Black voters have the power to elect their preferred candidate in only one of the State’s seven congressional districts. That alone does not demonstrate vote dilution. What raises the prospect of a Section 2 claim is that Alabama’s Black population is heavily “concentrated” in the urban population centers and an area of the State known as the Black Belt, “named for the region’s fertile black soil,” where many enslaved people were taken during the antebellum period. Because “Black voters in Alabama are relatively geographically compact,” the plaintiffs argued that the State could have drawn a second congressional district, meeting traditional districting criteria, in which Black Alabamians would constitute a majority. But the State had instead “pack[ed]” much of the Black population into a single district, and “crack[ed]” the remainder over three others.That action, the plaintiffs contended, diluted their voting power. The Court’s longstanding precedent imposes strict requirements for proving a vote-dilution claim. To start, plaintiffs must satisfy three conditions, often referred to as the Gingles conditions. Those conditions are: (1) that the “minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority” in a district, (2) that the minority group “is politically cohesive,” and (3) that the “white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” If plaintiffs satisfy those conditions, they must then show that a Section 2 “violation has occurred based on the totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances include the history of race-based discrimination in the State (especially as to voting rights), the extent to which voting is racially polarized, and the extent to which minority candidates have struggled to get elected to public office. Under our precedent, plaintiffs have long satisfied the first Gingles condition—the only condition at issue in Alabama’s stay application—by showing that another “reasonably compact” majority-minority district can be drawn, consistent with “traditional districting principles.” … The District Court also found that the plaintiffs made the required showings on the other Gingles conditions and the totality of the circumstances. The court stated that “there is no serious dispute that Black voters [in Alabama] are ‘politically cohesive,’ nor that the challenged districts’ white majority votes ‘sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat [Black voters’] preferred candidate[s].’” Too, the court found that the vast majority of factors considered in the totality-ofcircumstances inquiry favored the plaintiffs, including the “extent to which voting . . . is racially polarized” (very), the “extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office” (rarely), and the history of votingrights discrimination in the State (significant). The court noted that recent political campaigns in Alabama had included “obvious and overt appeals to race.” … In light of that “extremely robust body of evidence,” the District Court held that the record “compels” the conclusion that Alabama’s redistricting plan “substantially likely violates Section Two.” … Alabama insists that the District Court’s decision is wrong, even though the State does not contest any of the findings outlined above. Alabama does not argue, for example, that its enacted plan performs better than the plaintiffs’ proposed plans when measured against traditional districting criteria like compactness. Rather, Alabama argues that the proposed plans do not satisfy the first Gingles condition because the plaintiffs’ experts did not draw them with race wholly out of mind—“using only race-neutral criteria.” The State would essentially require the plaintiffs to demonstrate that modern map-drawing software, designed to give no attention at all to race, would produce maps with two majority-Black districts. But in making that claim, the State seeks to graft onto the VRA a new requirement, lacking any foundation in our precedent. … To make matters worse, the record gives Alabama no basis for arguing that this case would come out differently under its race-blind computer-simulation approach. .. As to the equities, Alabama does not—because it cannot—contend that redrawing its map in advance of this year’s elections would be impossible. The State’s legislature enacted its current plan in less than a week. … Today’s decision is one more in a disconcertingly long line of cases in which this Court uses its shadow docket to signal or make changes in the law, without anything approaching full briefing and argument. Here, the District Court applied established legal principles to an extensive evidentiary record. Its reasoning was careful—indeed, exhaustive—and justified in every respect. To reverse that decision requires upsetting the way Section 2 plaintiffs have for decades—and in line with our caselaw—proved vote-dilution claims. That is a serious matter, which cannot properly occur without thorough consideration. Yet today the Court skips that step, staying the District Court’s order based on the untested and unexplained view that the law needs to change. That decision does a disservice to our own appellate processes, which serve both to constrain and to legitimate the Court’s authority. It does a disservice to the District Court, which meticulously applied this Court’s longstanding voting-rights precedent. And most of all, it does a disservice to Black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished—in violation of a law this Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1401_m6io.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Can't wait to watch Biden roll over for the death of the VRA just like Obama did because they're worthless cowards who would rather watch the country slide into fascism than call attention to the ever-growing constitutional crisis we're in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Can't wait to watch Biden roll over for the death of the VRA just like Obama did because they're worthless cowards who would rather watch the country slide into fascism than call attention to the ever-growing constitutional crisis we're in. What exactly are you asking for the President to do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly are you asking for the President to do? Nothing. We need the Republican Party to be strong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly are you asking for the President to do? I'd prefer proposing a follow-up law to fix things--the way the last VRA ruling said Congress could--over just doing nothing. I'm under no illusion it would actually pass, but consistent signalling of dedication to the cause is part of how Republicans took back Congress after Obama's election. The public does a better job figuring out that lack of change isn't for lack of trying if they can see a zillion ACA repeal bills fail versus actually having to understand the political process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'd prefer proposing a follow-up law to fix things--the way the last VRA ruling said Congress could--over just doing nothing. I'm under no illusion it would actually pass, but consistent signalling of dedication to the cause is part of how Republicans took back Congress after Obama's election. The public does a better job figuring out that lack of change isn't for lack of trying if they can see a zillion ACA repeal bills fail versus actually having to understand the political process. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/11/remarks-by-president-biden-on-protecting-the-right-to-vote/ Biden has been talking up the bill that does exactly that for some time now- a factor has been that it's likely dead in the water, so the press don't cover the messaging. If you find yourself asking "why isn't X talking about Y", check to see if the politician or- well, let’s be real, it’s usually the democrats that get blamed for this- the democrats are actually talking about it, and it’s just not getting covered. And understand that “well they should talk about it more” usually means they get to do, or even just talk about, other things less…and you’re not the only person with the only priorities that they need to reach. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2022: Rejoice, All SCOTUS News Is Bad News
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly are you asking for the President to do? Abdicate
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly are you asking for the President to do? Anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Anything at all. ^This 1000% There was a time when a president could put political pressure on things to be done But recently our democratic presidents have chosen to sit on the sidelines even though the opposite side will dig in its heels to stop and if possible reverse anything remotely progressive. Obama's failings, which Biden completely commiserates with are with the fact that they somehow believed that the GOP would be good actors and that his own party would work in lockstep enough to get change done. The political landscape is such now: while we have the presidency and ANY chambers (both help), we have to attempt to do as many big progressive agenda items as we can and put in protections to our most core rights as a nation. At the very least if not to making undoing them a much more difficult task for the GOP - they've moved lightning fast when they have power and since the Court will be skewed in their favor for the next generation, the window is almost closed to having them as a tool in the toolkit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
you never know, maybe ol' clarence will choke on a public hair left in his coke and biden will get another supreme court pick to squander on a centrist in a quixotic attempt to gain republican votes and appear "nonpartisan"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:There was a time when a president could put political pressure on things to be done What tools and techniques did they use to do that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What tools and techniques did they use to do that? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What tools and techniques did they use to do that? How does this question come up every time people mention that it would be great if Biden did things. He's only the president of the United States, not like he's got any influence or power. If only he were a also Republican he might actually be able to accomplish things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What tools and techniques did they use to do that? Was the presidency this powerless under Trump?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
While it is frustrating for us right now that the presidency is a powerless office that can accomplish nothing even in combination with single-party control of congress, it is a great relief to know that it will be no problem even if Republicans win full power in 22 and 24 because they will not be able to do anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Was the presidency this powerless under Trump? The liberal perspective on presidential power is that if something will be challenged in court and lose, it’s not worth doing. Trump did many maniac things that were challenged and undone, but some were not and all made his creep voters and howling atavisms in the legislature feel like he was serving their interests. Basically, people like it if it appears that you’re trying to do something they want, even if it fails. In fact, failing can fire people up because it names an enemy they can start putting to the fire. Biden is not especially interested in using the office to agitate for anything, because he’d rather just sign the bills that are passed and maybe complain about votes not going in a way that would let him do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While it is frustrating for us right now that the presidency is a powerless office that can accomplish nothing even in combination with single-party control of congress, it is a great relief to know that it will be no problem even if Republicans win full power in 22 and 24 because they will not be able to do anything The presidency is uniquely positioned to allow republicans to accomplish a lot of what they want, because they want all of our systems to fail in spectacular fashion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:The presidency is uniquely positioned to allow republicans to accomplish a lot of what they want, because they want all of our systems to fail in spectacular fashion. I'm sure it helps but it's not essential, after all our institutions are failing spectacularly right now and the president is a Democrat
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly are you asking for the President to do? Literally anything other than sit back and allow the SCOTUS to continue to assert itself as unquestionable philosopher kings who can issue rulings that ignore their constitutional limitations or that such rulings should be followed simply because the SCOTUS deemed it so. The SCOTUS issues rulings that everyone knows are purely political and in some cases outside of their authority and the Democrats do... nothing. Obama sat back and watched Roberts and co gut the VRA, knowing their authority to override Congress was questionable at best and that it was a nakedly political power grab and he simply did not care because he's at best a feckless coward and at worst gives no fucks because he knows he'll have the wealth and power to be unaffected by it. I'm not saying Clinton should've arrested the SCOTUS for their ruling in Bush v. Gore, even though it was effectively a judicial-lead coup, but Obama would have been absolutely correct to respond to Shelby County with "while the SCOTUS has made its opinion known, Congress has ultimate authority in these matters and decided on near-unanimously reauthorizing the VRA just recently and so the DoJ will continue to enforce it in full" or something to that effect. Would it have caused a shitload of strife? Yes. Would it have been less than what the country is building up to? Absolutely. Biden's just especially noteworthy in his worthlessness because he also doesn't even pretend to want to fulfill campaign promises he could unilaterally act on and instead uses Congress as his excuse for those as well as everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Literally anything other than sit back and allow the SCOTUS to continue to assert itself as unquestionable philosopher kings who can issue rulings that ignore their constitutional limitations or that such rulings should be followed simply because the SCOTUS deemed it so. The SCOTUS issues rulings that everyone knows are purely political and in some cases outside of their authority and the Democrats do... nothing. Obama sat back and watched Roberts and co gut the VRA, knowing their authority to override Congress was questionable at best and that it was a nakedly political power grab and he simply did not care because he's at best a feckless coward and at worst gives no fucks because he knows he'll have the wealth and power to be unaffected by it. Agree with this completely - whatever happened to "do(ing) the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too"? And yes, I understand that rhetoric and practice are more misaligned than aligned but there can't be the attitude of "oh well can't get it done" by an office in which its powers have not yet proven to have limits. Trump's presidency was an exercise in "let them stop me from doing it" and only because he's completely incompetent, were the other thin veneers of checks and balances able to keep him from completely dismantling what we have left. What he did do though was set into motion the stage for complete neutering of progressive agendas for decades, and made it so we have to fight for rights we ALREADY have and need to protect in the face of needing some very important changes in our lives. It is completely unclear about what the President CAN'T do at this point, honestly. He commands the military and all federal functions - Congress is so ineffective that even in the face of blatant impeachable and honestly criminal conduct, the apparatuses we have been unable to act - mostly because they might just not have the ability to curtail that office's power. With that said though, Biden certainly has a ton of ability to outright instruct the federal apparatuses how he chooses but he has chosen not to - for example, there's no reason why he hasn't wiped away federal student debt. He's just chosen not to, and the same can be said for being more forceful about protecting the VRA. And as Evil Fluffy said, if people get up and arms about it and there's strife related to it, then so be it, but we can't stop doing good things because it will be difficult or that a section of the public will have an issue with it. If that was the case we would have never had made the progress in civil rights that we have - that had to come kicking and screaming and continues to be dragged kicking and screaming. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm not saying Clinton should've arrested the SCOTUS for their ruling in Bush v. Gore, even though it was effectively a judicial-lead coup, but Obama would have been absolutely correct to respond to Shelby County with "while the SCOTUS has made its opinion known, Congress has ultimate authority in these matters and decided on near-unanimously reauthorizing the VRA just recently and so the DoJ will continue to enforce it in full" or something to that effect. Would it have caused a shitload of strife? Yes. Would it have been less than what the country is building up to? Absolutely. What are the mechanisms that the DOJ uses to enforce the parts of the VRA that Shelby blew up? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely asking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1494470428496216068?s=20&t=gOy9uh2azqpGWWYN1UistQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What are the mechanisms that the DOJ uses to enforce the parts of the VRA that Shelby blew up? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely asking. As far as I know, mostly court orders. So it’s not something where you can tell the Supreme Court to gently caress off and do it anyways. UNLESS you can convince lower federal courts not to follow them, which is a hell of a lift but maybe possible if Biden appoints for that
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And why, exactly, do you think Manchin - who has voted for every single judicial nominee Biden has put forward - wouldn’t vote for a SCOTUS nominee before the midterm when he’s said he would do so? Chuds don't know about or care about the lower court nominees to a point Fox will make a big stink about a SCOTUS nominee no matter what, and that will suddenly make it Manchin's problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Chuds don't know about or care about the lower court nominees to a point Fox screaming and shouting worked out great for getting Manchin to vote against convicting Trump both times, didn’t it? And that would have been a costless vote in many ways - it wouldn’t have torpedoed a conviction, the way a no vote would probably torpedo a nominee, because conviction wasn’t happening. And that was a more politically costly vote in terms of pissing off Fox viewers than confirming a SCOTUS nominee will be - especially since Manchin can easily point to voting for Kavanaugh as a “I vote for qualified nominees even if I don’t agree with them” marker. People gotta get worked up about something I guess, but this ain’t it. Breyer’s replacement is getting confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
I've stopped trying to predict Manchin's future actions since he's a walking dice roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I've stopped trying to predict Manchin's future actions since he's a walking dice roll. it's snake eyes because he's a snake
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Gee I dunno if Manchin will make himself a notable part of this very media heavy and important SCOTUS nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I've stopped trying to predict Manchin's future actions since he's a walking dice roll. This, basically. Not to mention that he's still more than notionally accountable to WV internal politics. He voted for the covid money printer the morning after the governor went on TV and told him to do it in no uncertain terms. Not that this has any bearing on a SCOTUS appointment, I'm just saying that his priorities are a pretty tall hierarchy with his personal coal industry investments at the top and national wellbeing strictly at the bottom; everything from his family's financial liabilities to his donors' liabilities to WV politics to bluedog optics lie in an inscrutable and I think sometimes-random mush in the middle. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NYTmag/status/1496123131806851081?s=20&t=WZ3Y0QR4cBRefellYXvKSQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1497205785729847302
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
pros https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson/index.htmlCNN posted:Jackson clerked for Breyer and served as a federal public defender in Washington – an experience that her backers say is fitting, given Biden’s commitment to putting more public defenders on the federal bench. She was also a commissioner on the US Sentencing Commission and served on the federal district court in DC, as an appointee of President Barack Obama, before Biden elevated her to the DC Circuit last year. ... Conservatives have already previewed how they will scrutinize her record defending Guantanamo Bay detainees as a public defender. https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabamas-first-black-federal-judge-195238609.html cons Business Insider via Yahoo News posted:Alabama's first Black federal judge asks Biden not to tap Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court galenanorth fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
tired: RBG health scares wired: KBJ health scares
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a very safe choice. Give the three finalists, this is very clearly the right one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
galenanorth posted:cons In response to that cons: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/11/guest-post-by-adam-schulman-on-kbjs-opinion-in-ross-v-lockheed-martin/ Link is to a guest post from some lawyer at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, going through why that case was decided correctly and pointing out that Clemon is a partner at the plaintiff's firm and that decision cost them $6m.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:50
|
|
