SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Zeron posted:

Yeah I'm not studied on law but it seems like the big portion of this decision is that schools cannot ban religious activity just because they "fear" that it is against the law/constitution. Even if this particular circumstance was completely on the level, this opens schools up to being sued for literally anything that prevents students/teachers from doing religious activities. And then courts can use this as precedent to force them to allow it. So to avoid being sued, schools would be very afraid to disallow any actions even if they were beyond the pale/illegal. Also in general it seems like they've massively narrowed what can be counted as going against separation of church and state. A lot of knock on effects.

The distinction is one of personal expression versus endorsement or establishment.

You can't stop a teacher from wearing a hijab or engaging in midday prayers during their lunch break You for the most part can't stop a teacher from discussing an experience rooted in going to church. This is good and this is right. The Establishment Clause means you cannot pressure students to believe in a specific faith or mandate them in prayer.

The coach was essentially skirting this by taking part in prayers that were technically not part of practice or the games and technically not part of being on the team. A comparison would be if a Math teacher was also a pastor at their local church. Not allowing them to be a pastor would obviously be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

The difference is that these were official extensions of team activities in everything but name, and the nature of school sports made students feel pressured to take part in the activities. It's essentially playing a big game of I'm-not-touching-you with the establishment clause.

It's a pretty narrow case and sucks. The coach was absolutely in the wrong and in no way was being stopped from expressing his faith. Seeing as how there are educators basically seeking the courts to allow them to actively discriminate against students as long as it aligns with their religious beliefs, it's a bad sign.

But I don't think it's that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that's also in comparison to Americans being stripped of their reproductive rights.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 17:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 17:27

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Vegetable posted:

This ruling seemed not particularly objectionable. He�s allowed to pray in public but can�t be telling students to do so. The school objected because students might feel forced to join in. But that doesn�t seem totally persuasive.

Of course, I look forward to a Muslim employee of the school doing the same thing and having the same parents get really mad.

He can't explicitly tell students to pray. But the District was concerned about the "enormous authority and influence over the students" that he wielded, and several of the players' parents told the District's employees that their kids only participated in the prayers because they were worried about being separated from the team (whether directly via the coach's powers, or indirectly via social ostracism) if they didn't participate in the coach's "optional" team prayer meetings.

The dissent says that the coach "consistently invited others to join his prayers", and that the district only learned about the prayers when he invited the entire opposing team to join his prayer circle. As the dissent explained things, it's no wonder the District took issue with his conduct:

quote:

Kennedy recounted that he initially prayed alone and that he never asked any student to join him. Over time, however, a majority of the team came to join him, with the numbers varying from game to game. Kennedy�s practice evolved into postgame talks in which Kennedy would hold aloft student helmets and deliver speeches with �overtly religious references,� which Kennedy described as prayers, while the players kneeled around him. Id., at 40. The District also learned that students had prayed in the past in the locker room prior to games, before Kennedy was hired, but that Kennedy subsequently began leading those prayers too.

Moreover, the legal history recounted in the dissent makes clear that Kennedy's primary concern wasn't his ability to pray, but rather his ability to pray with students, something the district and appeals courts both clearly perceived. On top of that, he intentionally kicked up a media circus, turning himself into a conservative cause celebre and causing intense disruption as right-wing demonstrators bombarded the school district with threats and invaded the field after games to join his prayer meetings.

quote:

While the District�s inquiry was pending, its athletic director attended BHS� September 11, 2015, football game and told Kennedy that he should not be conducting prayers with players. After the game, while the athletic director watched, Kennedy led a prayer out loud, holding up a player�s helmet as the players kneeled around him. While riding the bus home with the team, Kennedy posted on Facebook that he thought he might have just been fired for praying.

...

Kennedy then hired an attorney, who, on October 14, sent a letter explaining that Kennedy was �motivated by his sincerely-held religious beliefs to pray following each football game.� Id., at 63. The letter claimed that the District had required that Kennedy �flee from students if they voluntarily choose to come to a place where he is privately praying during personal time,� referring to the 50-yard line of the football field immediately following the conclusion of a game. Id., at 70. Kennedy requested that the District simply issue a �clarif[ication] that the prayer is [Kennedy�s] private speech� and that the District not �interfere� with students joining Kennedy in prayer. Id., at 71. The letter further announced that Kennedy would resume his 50-yard-line prayer practice the next day after the October 16 homecoming game. Before the homecoming game, Kennedy made multiple media appearances to publicize his plans to pray at the 50- yard line, leading to an article in the Seattle News and a local television broadcast about the upcoming homecoming game. In the wake of this media coverage, the District began receiving a large number of emails, letters, and calls, many of them threatening.

The District responded to Kennedy�s letter before the game on October 16. It emphasized that Kennedy�s letter evinced �materia[l] misunderstand[ings]� of many of the facts at issue. Id., at 76. For instance, Kennedy�s letter asserted that he had not invited anyone to pray with him; the District noted that that might be true of Kennedy�s September 17 prayer specifically, but that Kennedy had acknowledged inviting others to join him on many previous occasions. The District�s September 17 letter had explained that Kennedy traditionally held up helmets from the BHS and opposing teams while players from each team kneeled around him.

...

The District explained that its establishment concerns were motivated by the specific facts at issue, because engaging in prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after the game finished would appear to be an extension of Kennedy�s �prior, long-standing and wellknown history of leading students in prayer� on the 50-yard line after games. Id., at 81. The District therefore reaffirmed its prior directives to Kennedy. On October 16, after playing of the game had concluded, Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, and as advertised, knelt to pray while most BHS players were singing the school�s fight song. He quickly was joined by coaches and players from the opposing team. Television news cameras surrounded the group.2 Members of the public rushed the field to join Kennedy, jumping fences to access the field and knocking over student band members. After the game, the District received calls from Satanists who ��intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after football games if others were allowed to.��

...

Stressing that �[d]evelopment of accommodations is an interactive process,� it invited Kennedy to reach out to discuss accommodations that might be mutually satisfactory, offering proposed accommodations and inviting Kennedy to raise others. Id., at 93�94. The District noted, however, that �further violations of [its] directives�
would be grounds for discipline or termination. Kennedy did not directly respond or suggest a satisfactory accommodation. Instead, his attorneys told the media that he would accept only demonstrative prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after games. During the October 23 and October 26 games, Kennedy again prayed at the 50-yard line immediately following the game, while postgame activities were still ongoing. At the October 23 game, Kennedy kneeled on the field alone with players standing nearby. At the October 26 game, Kennedy prayed surrounded by members of the public, including state representatives who attended the game to support Kennedy. The BHS players, after singing the fight song, joined Kennedy at midfield after he stood up from praying.

...

After the issues with Kennedy arose, several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy�s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team. No BHS students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy�s suspension. In Kennedy�s annual review, the head coach of the varsity
team recommended Kennedy not be rehired because he �failed to follow district policy,� �demonstrated a lack of cooperation with administration,� �contributed to negative relations between parents, students, community members, coaches, and the school district,� and �failed to supervise student-athletes after games due to his interactions with media and community� members. Id., at 114. The head coach himself also resigned after 11 years in that position, expressing fears that he or his staff would be shot from the crowd or otherwise attacked because of the turmoil created by Kennedy�s media appearances. Three of five other assistant coaches did not reapply.

...

The Court of Appeals affirmed, again emphasizing the specific context of Kennedy�s prayers. The court rejected Kennedy�s contention that he had been �praying on the fifty-yard line �silently and alone.�� The court noted that he had in fact refused �an accommodation permitting him to pray . . . after the stadium had emptied,� �indicat[ing] that it is essential that his speech be delivered in the presence of students and spectators.�

...

In addition, the court held that Kennedy�s prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause, reasoning that �speech from the center of the football field immediately after each game . . . conveys official sanction.� Id., at 1238. That was especially true where Kennedy, a school employee, initiated the prayer; Kennedy was �joined by students or adults to create a group of worshippers in a place the school controls access to�; and Kennedy had a long �history of engaging in religious activity with players� that would have led a familiar observer to believe that Kennedy was �continuing this tradition� with prayer at the 50-yard line.

The District Court further found that players had reported �feeling compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time,� and that the �slow accumulation of players joining Kennedy suggests exactly the type of vulnerability to social pressure that makes the Establishment Clause vital in the high school context.� The court rejected Kennedy�s free exercise claim, finding the District�s directive narrowly tailored to its Establishment Clause concerns and citing Kennedy�s refusal to cooperate in finding an accommodation that would be acceptable to him.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that �the facts in the record utterly belie [Kennedy�s] contention that the prayer was personal and private.�. The court instead concluded that Kennedy�s speech constituted government speech, as he �repeatedly acknowledged that�and behaved as if�he was a mentor, motivational speaker, and role model to students specifically at the conclusion of the game.�. In the alternative, the court concluded that Kennedy�s speech, even if in his capacity as a private citizen, was appropriately regulated by the District to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, emphasizing once more that this conclusion was tied to the specific �evolution of Kennedy�s prayer practice with students� over time.

...

The majority opinion intentionally glosses over much of this history and omits numerous details.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 17:49

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Mr. Nice! posted:

They used him forcing players to pray with him after games to further eviscerate any separation of christian church and state.

Oh absolutely but at least it wasn't, say, abolishing Medicaid

I feel like watching this Court is like watching Godzilla stomp Tokyo and telling myself hey, that's just a park, at least the bridges are still standing

# ? Jun 27, 2022 17:50

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I feel like watching this Court is like watching Godzilla stomp Tokyo and telling myself hey, that's just a park, at least the bridges are still standing

That is fantastic. I am absolutely going to use this when talking to people about the court, and I'll pretend that I was clever enough to think of it myself.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 18:05

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

Groovelord Neato posted:

Roe v. Wade being overturned has the same surreal feeling as a decades-long business clown becoming president where I'll be doing something and it'll hit me that yeah that actually happened.

Looking forward for the demolition of the administrative state!

This is much worse because Trump by himself is more of a symptom, he wasn�t competent enough of an administrator to execute most awful poo poo and had no real vision beyond the last thing whispered in his year. Most of the awful poo poo he did his regular stuff the US empire already does and continues to do but was just proud, loud, and dumber about it.

The 6-3 court on the other hand is an existential threat to every civil right any minority group. There isn�t really any immediate way to address it without the senior dem leadership suddenly getting their poo poo together and playing hardball by impeaching justices and court packing. The more cemented the court with time the more likely that the only solutions to protect minority rights are well, extralegal.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 18:06

mandatory lesbian: Dec 18, 2012

Cimber posted:

Funny, because Jesus explicitly said NOT to do that stuff.

No christian has ever read the bible, bc the ones that do realize by the end that its all bullshit

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:03

Qtotonibudinibudet: Nov 7, 2011; Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

Epicurius posted:

He could. It just wouldn't have any practical effect. An executive order is an order by the President to an executive branch agency to tell them to do or stop doing a certain thing. Saying "It is the position of this administration that the right to abortion is a human right" really doesn't do a lot, practically. He's said he is looking at other executive orders he could issue regarding abortion.

Out of curiosity, could an executive order direct the VA to provide abortions to non-veterans, and would states be unable to sue the federal government for operating an illegal abortion clinic on their territory? I assume it's largely pointless navel gazing since states can still charge individuals with murder and there's presumably a challenge to the effect of "the law that establishes the VA doesn't include provisions for civilian services so the order is invalid", but eh.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:04

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

Epicurius posted:

He could. It just wouldn't have any practical effect. An executive order is an order by the President to an executive branch agency to tell them to do or stop doing a certain thing. Saying "It is the position of this administration that the right to abortion is a human right" really doesn't do a lot, practically. He's said he is looking at other executive orders he could issue regarding abortion.

The other problem with executive orders is that as soon as the next person take over, all the old orders are wiped away. So even if Biden did do something to facilitate access to abortion (such as ordering the VA to allow anyone to use their hospitals for the purposes of aquiring an abortion), it would come to a screetching halt Jan 20th 2025 or 2029.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:07

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

CMYK BLYAT! posted:

Out of curiosity, could an executive order direct the VA to provide abortions to non-veterans, and would states be unable to sue the federal government for operating an illegal abortion clinic on their territory? I assume it's largely pointless navel gazing since states can still charge individuals with murder and there's presumably a challenge to the effect of "the law that establishes the VA doesn't include provisions for civilian services so the order is invalid", but eh.

There are some fairly aggressive orders similar to that which progressives are urging Biden to issue. There are questions whether (given who is in the supreme court) using money not appropriated for this would be outside his allowable discretion and whether the Feds really could tell the states who want to ban abortions on federal property that they can kick rocks, but this is absolutely something that can be attempted.

Given how absurdly cautious Biden is even under the best of circumstances, he's going to want lawyers to study this for a while, if they hadn't been already after the leak.

edit: rather than literally asking VA doctors to provide abortions for civilians in VA hospitals which seems legally sketchy, I think a more likely solution would be using something like HHA to pay doctors to provide abortion services on Federal land.

Rigel fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 27, 2022

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:09

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Cimber posted:

The other problem with executive orders is that as soon as the next person take over, all the old orders are wiped away. So even if Biden did do something to facilitate access to abortion (such as ordering the VA to allow anyone to use their hospitals for the purposes of aquiring an abortion), it would come to a screetching halt Jan 20th 2025 or 2029.

I don't believe it's automatic like that, old executive orders remain in effect until explicitly overridden. But you're right that there is no way to protect an executive order from a future administration

This would be not too different from the Mexico City policy, which has a history of tracking the presidential party in exactly this manner

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:11

Stickman: Feb 1, 2004

Unfortunately runs afoul of the Hyde amendment, which the Democrats have never managed to get rid of and has been a blight for 40 years. They could at probably least offer use of federal land to non-government doctors, but that would be logistically difficult

Or they could just ignore the Hyde amendment and offer abortions anyway, and then ignore the court when they�re ordered to stop. What would the court do?

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:14

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

haveblue posted:

I don't believe it's automatic like that, old executive orders remain in effect until explicitly overridden. But you're right that there is no way to protect an executive order from a future administration

This would be not too different from the Mexico City policy, which has a history of tracking the presidential party in exactly this manner

If DeSantis was elected, he would have that order on his desk ready to sign as soon as he got back from the swearing in ceremony. Just like Biden had a stack of "cancel Trump's stupid poo poo" EO's ready to sign once he reached the white house.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CMYK BLYAT! posted:

Out of curiosity, could an executive order direct the VA to provide abortions to non-veterans, and would states be unable to sue the federal government for operating an illegal abortion clinic on their territory? I assume it's largely pointless navel gazing since states can still charge individuals with murder and there's presumably a challenge to the effect of "the law that establishes the VA doesn't include provisions for civilian services so the order is invalid", but eh.

I don't think the VHA is even allowed to provide abortions to eligible vets; it looks like they were precluded from it by a provision of the VHA law of 1992: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg4943.pdf (section 106 on page 5).

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:15

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Stickman posted:

Unfortunately runs afoul of the Hyde amendment, which the Democrats have never managed to get rid of and has been a blight for 40 years. They could at probably least offer use of federal land to non-government doctors, but that would be logistically difficult

Or they could just ignore the Hyde amendment and offer abortions anyway, and then ignore the court when they’re ordered to stop. What would the court do?

If Biden could count on Congress to support him in what would be a clearly illegal use of the VCA, then he wouldn't need to do it illegally at all, because he could just have them pass a law making it legal.

The court would give political cover and legitimacy to state and local governments sending the police to stop VCA clinics from offering abortions. And if the President of the US sends troops to go prevent local police from interfering in a practice that violates both state and federal law, then that sparks either a constitutional crisis, a civil war, or both.

E: Assuming, of course, that the military even agrees to go. If a general says "that's a clearly illegal order and I'm not going to go violate a Supreme Court ruling for your unconstitutional power grab", then that's a can of worms of its own.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:26

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vlunc5/clarence_thomas_says_american_citizens_are/idx8osp/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vlunc5/clarence_thomas_says_american_citizens_are/idxmkjs/

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas � who was 43 years old when confirmed � saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:31

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Realistically what we are probably going to have is out of state doctors having consultations with patients over the internet, they will prescribe medication which then gets mailed to them. Charities and non profits are probably going to have to help with the costs along with doctors being willing to do this for little or no money.

The Feds (and the states those doctors live in) then need to prevent crazyass jesus states from prosecuting those out of state doctors, and from interfering with the mail. Once the patient has the medication, then she will obviously have to be cautious. There are still going to be arrests, women thrown in jail, and lives ruined. If the voters don't care enough to stop it in November, hopefully they will care after seeing 2 years of that poo poo.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:34

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

VideoGameVet posted:

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas � who was 43 years old when confirmed � saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

On an episode of 5-4 one of the hosts told the story from one of his friends who clerked and during Thomas's lunch (each justice takes all the clerks out for a lunch) the clerk said something about how he thought Thomas and Reid were friends when Thomas made some comment about Reid. Thomas told the clerk he had something to show him when they got back to the Court. Took the clerk into his chambers, opened the top drawer of his desk, and there was his confirmation vote. Dude holds a grudge.

Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jun 27, 2022

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:38

Grape: Nov 16, 2017; Happily shilling for China!

Rigel posted:

Realistically what we are probably going to have is out of state doctors having consultations with patients over the internet, they will prescribe medication which then gets mailed to them. Charities and non profits are probably going to have to help with the costs along with doctors being willing to do this for little or no money.

The Feds (and the states those doctors live in) then need to prevent crazyass jesus states from prosecuting those out of state doctors, and from interfering with the mail. Once the patient has the medication, then she will obviously have to be cautious. There are still going to be arrests, women thrown in jail, and lives ruined. If the voters don't care enough to stop it in November, hopefully they will care after seeing 2 years of that poo poo.

Some blue state governors and their apparatus will definitely take advantage of this to grandstand for re-elections, I can tell you that.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:41

Stickman: Feb 1, 2004

Main Paineframe posted:

If Biden could count on Congress to support him in what would be a clearly illegal use of the VCA, then he wouldn't need to do it illegally at all, because he could just have them pass a law making it legal.

The court would give political cover and legitimacy to state and local governments sending the police to stop VCA clinics from offering abortions. And if the President of the US sends troops to go prevent local police from interfering in a practice that violates both state and federal law, then that sparks either a constitutional crisis, a civil war, or both.

E: Assuming, of course, that the military even agrees to go. If a general says "that's a clearly illegal order and I'm not going to go violate a Supreme Court ruling for your unconstitutional power grab", then that's a can of worms of its own.

The bars for Congress passing a law supporting something and Congress taking action against an something are very different though. He wouldn�t need congress to pass a law, just not effectively interfere.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 19:44

Sub Par: Jul 18, 2001; Dinosaur Gum

It's actually worse than all of that. Gorsuch arbitrarily decides to begin his inquiry with only the last three instances of the coach praying after games (when there's existing precedent that the full context should be required in religion clause cases). In those three instances, it is true that the coach prayed without any of his team joining him and he did so on the quieter side. However:

1. For years leading up to this, he has been leading public, demonstrative, Christian prayer at these school functions.

2. He was still on the job - his duties had not ended just because the game was over. He remained responsible for players until they went home, and he had official team duties to perform in addition (leading post-game talk, gathering equipment, etc.)

3. He was only in position to pray as he did because of his function as a public school employee. He was not praying privately in a public place - he was praying publicly in a private place. The field is off limits to the general public.

4. The school district attempted to work with him, offering him accommodation, asking him how he would like to bring his prayer into alignment with district policy and the 1st amendment. They offered that he could pray at the 50 yard line on the field after players had left, or elsewhere on campus. Or that he could pray privately and quietly before returning to his duties. He opted not to respond to any of these efforts and instead engaged in a media campaign, encouraging members of the public, elected officials, his players, and others to join him on the field.

As Sotomayor rightly (in my view) points out, the question of coercion shouldn't even be reached. A public school employee in public school-branded clothing at a public school event on public school property performing a public, obviously and intentionally religious rite is an establishment clause violation on its face. Whether players would be coerced into joining is irrelevant - any reasonable observer with a full understanding of the facts and cultural context would identify this as a religious expression conducted with the approval of the public school. That's what County of Allegheny says.

It's been so demoralizing seeing this "history and tradition" test being shoved down our throats these last few months. They're just... bad. They are shallow and designed to allow judges to hide their motivated reasoning behind smoke and mirrors. When they look back on this court in 75 years or whatever, this is going to look like a major, major turning point in how the court weighs constitutional claims. And not in a good way.

It was also really frustrating to read where Sotomayor pointed out that all the poo poo the majority quotes attacking Lemon is just their own words from concurrences and dissents. They just packaged all that up and went "see, the court doesn't like Lemon!" The whole saying about "nothing has changed in the facts or the law, the only thing that has changed is the makeup of this court" rings so true. Lemon was freaking 8-1 for God's sake.

Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 27, 2022

# ? Jun 27, 2022 20:58

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Stereotype posted:

It�s weird that the democrats are perpetually hamstrung by arbitrary procedural rules but republicans just barrel through them.

Wasn't Harry Reid the one that opened the door to the so called nuclear option which is what the McConnell used to push through Gorsich?

I also recall McConnell brushing off Trump when the House was under GOP control and Trump was trying to get moeny for his wall, basically saying that the filibuster would be useful to force compromise on things later on. Trump publicly abused McConnell calling him a wimp etc.

These procedural things cut both ways. They just seem more unfair when it is your team trying to get things done.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 21:38

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

MikeC posted:

Wasn't Harry Reid the one that opened the door to the so called nuclear option which is what the McConnell used to push through Gorsich?

Harry Reid used a lesser nuclear option (tactical nuclear option?) when he got tired of republicans blockading sub-scotus judicial nominees. The filibuster was theoretically still in place for scotus nominees at that point, but it didn't come up in the remainder of Reid's tenure. McConnell then nuked that remaining case for Gorsuch and now the filibuster cannot be used on any nominee's confirmation to any post

Of course claiming Reid shares any blame for this requires that you also believe that absent his actions McConnell would not have done that anyway

haveblue fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 27, 2022

# ? Jun 27, 2022 21:43

Pook Good Mook: Aug 6, 2013; ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

haveblue posted:

Harry Reid used a lesser nuclear option (tactical nuclear option?) when he got tired of republicans blockading sub-scotus judicial nominees. The filibuster was theoretically still in place for scotus nominees at that point, but it didn't come up in the remainder of Reid's tenure. McConnell then nuked that remaining case for Gorsuch and now the filibuster cannot be used on any nominee's confirmation to any post

Of course claiming Reid shares any blame for this requires that you also believe that absent his actions McConnell would not have done that anyway

Reid and McConnell were both right in eliminating it and didn't go far enough.

It's a loving legislative body. Make lawmakers own their nonsense. If moderates are serious about compromise it will also induce more negotiations across the aisle; if a bill is going to pass anyway, better work to get what you want in it.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 21:54

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Reid also had no choice but do it because otherwise there would have been even more obstruction of Obama appointees.

# ? Jun 27, 2022 21:57

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?