|
Magic Underwear posted:Sure, you can always find a bookie or a carribean sports book, but they never had the reach and influence that draft kings et al. have. The argument is to return to the state before that scotus ruling, not to exterminate all sports betting. They oughta ban the lottery and Powerball first, that's the beam in the eye of poor hopeless bastards everywhere and it's truly predatory. Okay that's my hot take for the day.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Rigel posted:They should not have standing in any case, but if you were determined to find a way somehow to get through standing to reach the merits, I think DOE v Brown is probably the best way to get there. They may have reached down and grabbed this case and told them to brief it possibly because the standing issue in the other case they have is trickier and could cause more issues. They're going to nuke it on "Major Question" grounds. The APA will be a footnote. They are going to handwave the standing issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I really think this whole 'Sinema will split the Democratic vote in Arizona' thing is vastly, vastly overplayed. She didn't leave the party because she thought she could split the vote, she left the party because she thought she'd lose the primary and not be able to run in the general because of the sore loser law. Her approval ratings are in the toilet across the board. Nobody likes a turncoat. The Republicans in Arizona are way too conservative to vote for a bisexual manic-pixie dream girl wannabe and the independents aren't too fond of her either. It'll come down to turnout and I don't see Sinema inspiring anyone to turn out for her, but she will drat sure inspire Dem voters to turn out against her. They've been talking of primarying her since at least Oct. 21. When people say she'll split the vote they don't mean 50/50 split. Even taking 1-2 percent from the Dem candidate gives the GOP candidate a huge advantage. And yes there are a couple percentage points of dems stupid enough to vote 3rd party for her. Pook Good Mook posted:They're going to nuke it on "Major Question" grounds. The APA will be a footnote. The proper response from Biden would be "nah I'm forgiving it anyways if you don't like it good luck enforcing your ruling you illegitimate fucks."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The proper response from Biden would be "nah I'm forgiving it anyways if you don't like it good luck enforcing your ruling you illegitimate fucks." In such a case, if I had any of the debt to be forgiven, I'd probably assume that the next Republican administration would just reinstate it and I'd be on the hook for it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The proper response from Biden would be "nah I'm forgiving it anyways if you don't like it good luck enforcing your ruling you illegitimate fucks." Biden is the one who'd need luck in enforcing it. He can't just Thanos snap the debt away - he has to order an executive official to do it. It's unlikely at best that the relevant executive official would carry out the order after the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that particular order to be unconstitutional. Hell, Trump packed everything he could full of sycophants and yes-men and he still couldn't manage that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
"Biden can just ignore the court" also presumes that the material outcome is the point of the executive order and not the PR. If the material outcome were the point, they'd just use their congressional majorities to pass forgiveness into law and then there'd be no court case. The court stepping in as the rotating villain fits their purposes just fine, if it didn't they'd pass a law in the lame duck period just in case, but by the time the court rules the Republican majority how will be seated, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
raminasi posted:In such a case, if I had any of the debt to be forgiven, I'd probably assume that the next Republican administration would just reinstate it and I'd be on the hook for it again. Tbh I think there are ways to make it impossible or impractical for the debt to be reinstated, but the bigger issue isn't Biden himself but whoever in the administrative part of the DoE has to sign the paperwork. Trying to "one weird trick" it would depend on there being a lot of support in the rank-and-file to circumvent a court decision, which is usually a bad bet Edit: I can't believe people are trying to make "rotating villains" happen still, the Supreme Court as a body has been a villain since like 2000 at the bare minimum, and it's probably the easiest arm of the government to point to people actually having really consistent positions, even if the positions range mostly from "gently caress you, I'm legislating from the bench" to "all text should be taken extremely literally, even the treaties with Native Americans". Also, they don't need to rotate a villain in for that, Manchin and Sinema already rejected the legislative solution, which is why it went through executive order instead - it got amended out of a bill like 6 months ago BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Dec 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
They don't need a rotating villain because a different villain already killed the legislative solution six months ago  Anyway are we sure it was Manchin and Sinema, seems like student loan forgiveness bills keep mysteriously dying in committee in the House but maybe I missed something H.R.2034 - Income-Driven Student Loan Forgiveness Act quote:Latest Action: H.R.4797 - Student Loan Relief Act quote:Latest Action: (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the material outcome were the point, they'd just use their congressional majorities to pass forgiveness into law and then there'd be no court case. Yeah I'm sure the Republicans in the senate would have been on board with that to get a filibuster proof majority. I'm sure Senima or Manchin would vote for it or abolish the filibuster as an alternative. Surely those things have no impact on the ability of the "congressional majorities" to pass something like student loan forgiveness
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Levitate posted:Yeah I'm sure the Republicans in the senate would have been on board with that to get a filibuster proof majority. I'm sure Senima or Manchin would vote for it or abolish the filibuster as an alternative. Surely those things have no impact on the ability of the "congressional majorities" to pass something like student loan forgiveness Or on the willingness of House leadership to spend time passing something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Levitate posted:Yeah I'm sure the Republicans in the senate would have been on board with that to get a filibuster proof majority. I'm sure Senima or Manchin would vote for it or abolish the filibuster as an alternative. Surely those things have no impact on the ability of the "congressional majorities" to pass something like student loan forgiveness I'm no parliamentarian but I am pretty sure you can spend money on forgiving federally held debt in a reconciliation bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm no parliamentarian but I am pretty sure you can spend money on forgiving federally held debt in a reconciliation bill. Mmm. Nope. It affects the deficit more than ten years out and therefore isn’t a suitable subject for a reconciliation bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Mmm. Nope. It affects the deficit more than ten years out and therefore isn’t a suitable subject for a reconciliation bill. No this is wrong, it's still a suitable subject, but any deficit increase outside the window just has to be offset. For example the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made some corporate tax cut provisions permanent (increasing the deficit) but offset this with revenue increases elsewhere. E: could also depend in how you do the accounting. Is forgiveness a one-time expenditure because that's allowed, or are future loan payments counted as revenue. And even if they are, a lot of loans would be paid off in 10 years anyway, since IBR exists some more will be forgiven anyway. And of course there's a moratorium on this payments right now with an indefinite limit on extensions so... VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Yep. Democrats increasing taxes to forgive college loans in reconciliation definitely wouldn’t be spun as taking money from workers to let rich kids off the hook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Yeah, in this particular case, I am not convinced that the other 48 would all be unified in student loan debt forgiveness. Its not a universally popular issue and if everyone had to go on the record, we would start to hear about concerns and some adjustments and some exceptions needed, and a need to "pay for it", etc. Getting past Manchin and Sinema does not magically mean all good things immediately pass. Its a continuum not an on/off switch, it would only mean that the 3rd-worst Democrat now decides what passes. And if we win another seat, that means the 4th-worst Democrat decides what passes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Right so it is allowed under reconciliation, but part of it might have to be offset. Maybe, depending on whether you can score it as a one-time expenditure or not. Now the conversation moves to "but do they want to" and I think we both agree that no they do not, the PR from trying is good enough, the material outcomes don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now the conversation moves to "but do they want to" and I think we both agree that no they do not, the PR from trying is good enough, the material outcomes don't matter. Fortunately, in this case we don't need a law and the president can just do it. Or, at least he should be able to. And if, say Tester from MT gets griped at by people angry at those ne'er-do-well good for nothin' kids not having to pay back loans, he can shrug and say "hey, I had nothing to do with this".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
So in case you didn't believe before that one of the conservative justices leaked the Dobbs decision... https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/1616154385389608962?s=20&t=GTHqOaX0t-vvXtUwj-2rnQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So in case you didn't believe before that one of the conservative justices leaked the Dobbs decision... Lol it's an open secret that Alito and Thomas brag about decisions at their dinner parties and to their donors
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So in case you didn't believe before that one of the conservative justices leaked the Dobbs decision... Technically speaking, Ginny Thomas isn't on the SCOTUS. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1616158138679296010 I'm sure it was an exhaustive investigation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Crickets from the crowd throwing tantrums about it being a violation of the sanctity of the court. I know nothing matters but it is funny to release this when it all but confirms it was Alito or Ginni. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1616158138679296010 When you know the exact location of the leak you can exhaustively look everywhere else and say you can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Dameius posted:When you know the exact location of the leak you can exhaustively look everywhere else and say you can't find it. Ya this is playing hide and seek with a toddler and making a big show of coming into their bedroom and ignoring their shoes sticking out from under their bed. "Oh how will I ever find Sam?! He hid so good!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Even if a justice were to hold a presser announcing they leaked it nothing would happen to them. Thomas could say that he discusses each case in detail with his wife and asks her to solicit input from interested parties and any attempt to punish him would still hit an immovable brick wall of Congressional Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Its not really even established that leaking draft opinions is a bad thing that needs to be punished (outside of academic legal nerds who are too precious about SCOTUS tradition, and people using the issue politically). Sure, the employer can punish employees for breaking their rules, but the only reason why the rest of us should care is because it would be funny if we found out Thomas leaked it after the GOP lost their minds over the anonymous liberal law clerk boogeyman.
Rigel fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
Is it yet time for a 2023 SCOTUS thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
Just slap a new title on this one and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Just slap a new title on this one and call it a day. It's what we've done since 2013. We have to show respect for the venerable traditions of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
This is the scotus thread until it dies, resigns, or gets impeached
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
This thread should have retired under previous mods, now we're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
wukkar posted:This thread should have retired under previous mods, now we're screwed. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
somebody please write a snarky breakdown of the current justices i beg of you
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1616546323322507264?s=61&t=YXP24lc7vWIvn6pUnv2IgA lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:somebody please write a snarky breakdown of the current justices i beg of you Gotchu. They all suck and I hate them. They are tearing this country apart and they don't care because they'll all be dead before climate change kills 90% of us. CmdrRiker hates them goddammit. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This is the scotus thread until it dies, resigns, or gets impeached I'm gonna open 27 new threads about SCOTUS and pack the forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1616546323322507264?s=61&t=YXP24lc7vWIvn6pUnv2IgA We investigated everyone except these nine people and it we can’t figure out who did it sure is a convoluted way to say Alito did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:somebody please write a snarky breakdown of the current justices i beg of you heavensent cure to the myth of objectivity in originalism / textualism and slayers of the illusory nonpartisan conceit of the high court 5/5 stars
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
well we can't have these justices be investigated--they might lie, and that would be illegal 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Murgos posted:We investigated everyone except these nine people and it we can’t figure out who did it sure is a convoluted way to say Alito did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 01:41
|
|