|
Groovelord Neato posted:That's way easier than how we amend ours. We'd certainly have way more amendments if ours worked the same way. They've had 44 such referenda and only eight have succeeded, so I wouldn't necessarily say it's easier. LionArcher posted:Love posters thinking protesting is a bridge too far. I don't really see a problem with protesting a decision (such as the draft Dobbs decision) that is clearly not actually based on any reasonable interpretation of the law. However, there are pretty clearly some people in this thread who think that it should be super easy to influence any and every court decision by harassing the judges/justices making it, and as I said before, nobody who does or supports that is standing up for justice.
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:They've had 44 such referenda and only eight have succeeded, so I wouldn't necessarily say it's easier. Neither are the justices. They’re not legitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Neither are the justices. They’re not legitimate. Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable. Gorsuch's seat being stolen from Obama makes it pretty clear to me that the current 5-4 majority is illegitimate. Arguably, because Gorsuch, Kavvanugh and Barnett lied under oath about their opinion on Roe and mislead the senate about overturning it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Gorsuch's seat being stolen from Obama makes it pretty clear to me that the current 5-4 majority is illegitimate. This. It’s also not arguably, they straight up lied.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable. Do you think the way the court was composed (or is ever composed) is legitimate in what is supposedly a democracy? There's a reason Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society have carried out this project for decades.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
'Originalism' is nonsense justification that literally anything is "as the founders wished it" and therefore cannot be contested by mere ethics or legal precedent. Unless of course someone "discovers" that the founders actually wanted something else. Which isn't hard, because not only were there tons of different perspectives in the Constitutional Convention, but the amendments were also formed by people with diverse beliefs. The idea that there was a single intention behind any particular clause, or that we have any real insight into how the authors would apply that intention to a modern issue, is totally absurd. It's weird and culty reasoning that is more akin to religion than law. Actually basing law on such nonsense would immediately disrupt the entire government, because fundamental principles like judicial review, federal commerce oversight, a standing military, voter enfranchisement, etc., were actively opposed by many of the founders. But the Republicans aren't concerned about that because what they mean by 'Originalism' is that they have a direct line to "The Founding Fathers" and everybody else needs to kneel at the pulpit.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Do you think the way the court was composed (or is ever composed) is legitimate in what is supposedly a democracy? Are you seriously arguing that the Supreme Court has never been legitimate? What, other than rendering decisions you disagree with, makes it inherently illegitimate? Can you articulate any rule its composition has violated, prior to the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland for appointment? Monaghan posted:Gorsuch's seat being stolen from Obama makes it pretty clear to me that the current 5-4 majority is illegitimate. Does that mean that every decision that comes out of the court is illegitimate? Just the ones you disagree with? Just the ones that are 5-4 with one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett making the difference?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Are you seriously arguing that the court has never been legitimate? What, other than rendering decisions you disagreed with, makes it inherently illegitimate? Can you articulate any rule its composition has violated, prior to the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland for appointment? Why the gently caress are you being a debate Andy about this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable. Legitimacy in a democracy comes from legal precedent and popular support. The court has neither. The members are appointed by a representative minority, they hold lifelong titles that are incompatible with a republic, and they issue bizarre decrees in spite of decades of law and order. The court should be disbanded and replaced because the entire concept of secretive unelected lifelong oligarchs who countermand representatives and are accountable to no one is antithetical to good democratic government.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Are you seriously arguing that the Supreme Court has never been legitimate? What, other than rendering decisions you disagree with, makes it inherently illegitimate? Can you articulate any rule its composition has violated, prior to the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland for appointment? Easy, any one that wins because of a 5-4 decision with Gorsuch being one of the votes of the majority should be considered illegitimate. He was the stolen seat and if he's a deciding factor in the vote, it's illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Are you seriously arguing that the Supreme Court has never been legitimate? It's pretty funny to react to a statement that's akin to "the sun rises in the east" with incredulity. In all its history there's only been a very short time period where the court was not a reactionary institution. There's a reason FDR threatened to pack the Court.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Does that mean that every decision that comes out of the court is illegitimate? Just the ones you disagree with? Just the ones that are 5-4 with one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett making the difference? It was never a precedent to withhold a Supreme Court appointment of a popularly elected official until McConnell came along and did it. The GOP is actively trying to pack the courts with partisan hacks who represent the views of only a small minority in this country.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Gentlemen. You can't debate in here. This is the D&D forum!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:01
|
|
Monaghan posted:Gorsuch's seat being stolen from Obama makes it pretty clear to me that the current 5-4 majority is illegitimate. It's not Obama's seat. He can nominate a judge but needs the consent of the Senate for the nomination to go through. He did not have a majority, so he couldn't succesfully nominate a judge. Please cite where they mislead the senate about their position on Roe v Wade, considering that at that point they did not have the power to overturn it so phrases like "it's the law of the land" are not lies but simply stating the facts.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Easy, any one that wins because of a 5-4 decision with Gorsuch being one of the votes of the majority should be considered illegitimate. He was the stolen seat and if he's a deciding factor in the vote, it's illegitimate. Even McGirt?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Legitimacy in a democracy comes from legal precedent and popular support. The court has neither. The members are appointed by a representative minority, they hold lifelong titles that are incompatible with a republic, and they issue bizarre decrees in spite of decades of law and order. The court should be disbanded and replaced because the entire concept of secretive unelected lifelong oligarchs who countermand representatives and are accountable to no one is antithetical to good democratic government. If we're looking to disband and replace the Supreme Court, what do we do about the Constitution's insistence that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour?" Groovelord Neato posted:It's pretty funny to react to a statement that's akin to "the sun rises in the east" with incredulity. Yes, it is, and I don't know why you did so.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
I didn't. That's why I said that in response to something you posted. Do try to keep up.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's not Obama's seat. He can nominate a judge but needs the consent of the Senate for the nomination to go through. He did not have a majority, so he couldn't succesfully nominate a judge. This is disingenuous. The only two nominees in the past five decades to be thwarted by Senate action were Bork and Garland. Groovelord Neato posted:I didn't. That's why I said that in response to something you posted. You said that in response to something you wish I had posted, not realizing you said something akin to claiming the sun rises in the south. Groovelord Neato posted:Do try to keep up. Don't worry, I'm way ahead of you here! tagesschau fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:If we're looking to disband and replace the Supreme Court, what do we do about the Constitution's insistence that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour?" There are two possibilities here: -Amend that clause out, which the Constitution says we can do -Explicitly define "good behavior" as something even slightly resembling the lay common-sense meaning of the term, which would immediately disqualify the bulk of the conservative wing
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's not Obama's seat. He can nominate a judge but needs the consent of the Senate for the nomination to go through. He did not have a majority, so he couldn't succesfully nominate a judge. Oh come on. They didn't even have a hearing. They just refused to even consider any of his nominations. There was clearly unwritten norms that require the process to work being destroyed. Now it's not inconceivable that a republican controlled senate can withhold a supreme court seat indefinitely by not holding any hearings to consider the nomination and just wait until a republican gets to be president. The legitimacy of the court, already shaky at best ,was completely ruined by Mitch. The X-man cometh posted:Even McGirt? This is surprising decision and they're likely going to heavily curtail it this year. Principally, I would have to say yes, though a more democratic judge would more than likely rule the same way as Gorsuch did. I would say that any subsequent legitimate court should be allowed to rethink the decision.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
haveblue posted:There are two possibilities here: Now we're getting somewhere. Amending that clause out may not be worth the effort, and may not be possible with the current compositions of the House, Senate, and state legislatures. So what happens if you explicitly define "good behavior"? Who's the arbiter of what that definition actually means? How do you get an answer that doesn't point straight back to "the impugned justices get to decide their own fate"?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. Ahahaha no they haven't most Americans don't even know who Sam Alito is There's plenty of studies showing the US is a corporate oligarchy and not a democracy, the opinions of the American people don't have much effect on policy unless you're talking about the richest 0.1% But if we're assuming that the US is a functional democracy then the current Democratic trifecta was democratically elected as well, therefore anything they do was chosen and approved by the American people through their congress and president, and is therefore inherently legitimate and cannot be strongman rule and whether you think it is or not or is right or wrong doesn't really matter. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. Roe was a privacy ruling, not an abortion ruling. quote:His legal theory is in itself sound It is not. It's based in nothing and nonsense. quote:The fact that a constitution is difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. That's why constitutional rights are better protect than regular law, because it takes more than a majority to create/remove them. Using the SCOTUS as this one weird trick to get around that cuts both ways. Not really. It's functionally impossible to change and with a nakedly partisan court, it's pretending that that there exists a recourse when there is not actually one there. You're not engaging with reality you're simply repeating talking pionts here. If you want to argue that the legal theory in Alito's position is sound, then do that. Don't just restate your premise. Explain, legally, why it is sound instead of appealing to authority, which is what this is: GaussianCopula posted:whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. I don't care if the Living Tribunal descended from the cosmos and anointed him a mutant with the superpower to judge things correct. You swinging from his judicial nuts isn't logic, it's actually a fallacy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:If we're looking to disband and replace the Supreme Court, what do we do about the Constitution's insistence that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour?" There's a lot of possibilities, including simply assigning a congressional ethics sub-committee or indeed any other group the responsibility to recognize what is not good behavior. It's not defined who judges that, and that does not mean that only the justices themselves are able to. Other possibilities include moving, changing, expanding, reducing, or altering the offices while still allowing them to be "held". Many of the less confrontational suggestions have been along these lines, such as reassigning a justice to work in a superior court after a term limit. Another option would be to replace the court itself, or simply the responsibilities of the court, which would leave the judges sitting on a vestigial court. While the simplest solution would simply be to ignore the legitimacy issues and stack the court, then push through court reforms.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:His legal theory is in itself sound
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I swear none of these people understand the irony of their statements, and I want someone to loving yell at them about the harassment that people go through trying to get healthcare. Remember in 2004 when the Court rejected a buffer zone outside abortion clinics to keep protestors from interfering with people coming in and out under McCullen v Coakley? And Madsen v Women's Health Center in 1994 when they ruled that similar buffer zones around staff's private residences were a violation of the 1st Amendment as a prior restraint on speech? gently caress them, they can deal with a little First Amendment Approved hassling. PerniciousKnid posted:How do you base constitutional interpretation on 200-year-old founders' intent when the founders had varied intentions and some of them thought the constitution should be updated regularly if not outright replaced generationally? Basing your judicial philosophy on originalism is about as realistic as basing your military strategy on Captain America. Kinda telling when they talk about 'intent' and it's always the slaveholders they're quoting and not, say, Thomas Paine. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
realistically was there anything different obama could have done after scalia died?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:realistically was there anything different obama could have done after scalia died? Recess appontment.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:realistically was there anything different obama could have done after scalia died? (1) nominated a justice that someone, anyone might care or get excited about, rather than the cowardly move of nominating the guy Republicans told him to nominate only to be told "no" anyway, maybe that would have got Hillary over the edge (2) endorsed Bernie, Who Would Have Won (3) at least not continued to shove a thump in the Midwest's eye as hard as possible by continuing to push for TPP to finish off the region that had been decimated by NAFTA, also may have got Hillary over the edge (4) non-  but technically legal answer, took advantage of the brief literal minutes that Democrats had a senate majority after the outgoing senate class's term expired but before they swore in the incoming senate class to quickly confirm Garland because gently caress-you what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it(5) non- but more questionably legal answer, declare refusal to vote as implied consent, order Garland to take his seat, if Republicans sue 5-4 liberal majority bitch they say it's legal (liberal majority would never do this for the same reason liberals would never have pulled what McConnell did in the Senate: they're allergic to wielding power and have a childlike belief in norms and fair play even when the other side doesn't)You can quibble about how well any or all of these might have worked (4 at least is a sure thing if Dems had the balls), but we know what happened when he tried nothing, and that sure didn't work VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:31 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:realistically was there anything different obama could have done after scalia died? Thrown a big loving party and appointed a judge after announcing the Senate has neglected to provide input. Call it a recess appointment and use the momentum of the moment to make it stick.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
That they didn't hold a hearing was a failure on the Senate's part. Garland could have reported for work because his nomination was never rejected. Rather than force the Republicans to address their pocket constitutional crisis, the Dems defaulted to defeat and now nobody can have abortions.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Recess appontment. Pretty much this. It would have caused the Senate to whine, but would have been a better result than letting Mitch McConnell become the sole arbiter of who got to be on the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can quibble about how well any or all of these might have worked (4 at least is a sure thing if Dems had the balls), but we know what happened when he tried nothing, and that sure didn't work 4 wouldn’t have worked, even if Dems wanted to try for it. McConnell remained majority leader at that time, no new election of a majority leader having been held, meaning he controlled the floor and would simply not have recognized the vote. By the time Dems could try to force through that, plus cloture, the brief majority would have been long since over. Also presentation of credentials and swearing in of Senators is a privileged motion and would take precedence over a vote. Finally, though I’m not aware of the option ever being taken, you can actually move for reconsideration of a confirmed nomination under the Senate Rules. Which McConnell would have done! (None of the other options would have worked any better. You think Republican judges would have listened to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision if Garland was never actually confirmed?)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
Option 5 would have been the best way to go there, though it's still questionable simply because of the word consent. Silence isn't consent. I think the Senate should have given him consideration and voted, but that would still have had the same end result. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:4 wouldn’t have worked, even if Dems wanted to try for it. McConnell remained majority leader at that time, no new election of a majority leader having been held, meaning he controlled the floor and would simply not have recognized the vote. By the time Dems could try to force through that, plus cloture, the brief majority would have been long since over. Kalman posted:(None of the other options would have worked any better. You think Republican judges would have listened to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision if Garland was never actually confirmed?) who cares their consent isn't required, but we'd be in constitutional crisis territory if Trump had won anyway and ordered the national guard to arrest Garland or somesuch, although refusing to confirm justices is arguably already constitutional crisis territory (as was stealing it in Bush v Gore), it's just Dems caved rather than fight which I'm more and more convinced wasn't better
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Thrown a big loving party and appointed a judge after announcing the Senate has neglected to provide input. Call it a recess appointment and use the momentum of the moment to make it stick. This seems like the simplest way. If the white House, SCOTUS and half of Congress behave as if the appointment is legitimate, what would the Senate do? If the relevant parties viewed SCOTUS as an existential necessity the way abortion/privacy advocates do, this seems realistic. tagesschau posted:Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable. 6 of 9 SCOTUS judges were appointed by the party that got the most votes in 1 of the last 9 national elections. Doesn't seem very legitimate, even if you assume that the government in general is legitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Pretty much this. It would have caused the Senate to whine, but would have been a better result than letting Mitch McConnell become the sole arbiter of who got to be on the SCOTUS. What recess? McConnell was keeping the Senate in session, and the intersession recess can’t be used for recess appointments if the Senate isn’t out for at least ten days (Noel Canning). Even if he had made the appointment, it terminates at the end of the next *session* of Congress, not the next term, so they could simply have met for a day, ended the session, then reconvened.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What recess? McConnell was keeping the Senate in session, and the intersession recess can’t be used for recess appointments if the Senate isn’t out for at least ten days (Noel Canning). In a 5-4 ruling the majority opinion written by Garland says tough nuts, citing priestly law from the Middle Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also now that I think about it even if they got past your points, there weren't 51 Democrats so enough Republicans could have simply walked out before the vote to deny quorum, so I guess that one doesn't work Quorums actually defined as majority of those duly chosen and sworn (Senate Rules VI), so for that brief period between terms the quorum requirement is only 34. I think the key is that everything McConnell has done has been legal, if not legitimate. The proposals for getting Garland on are the opposite - legitimate, but not legal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:14
|
|