|
Send Roberts a new letter, inform him this one is not a request. I'm sure they could find a few people willing to enforce an order for Roberts to appear.Murgos posted:Congress can pass laws that determine how the courts operate and what rules they follow. IMO that’s not the sort of thing you just shrug and say do your worst too or they may and you probably won’t like it. Roberts knows that even if the Dems had a firm grip on both chambers of Congress there is zero chance of them having the political will to pass meaningful judicial reform (and lol if anyone thinks Dems would kill the filibuster to do so).
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
He can get subpoenaed by one of the Senate committees, but right now the Judiciary Committee doesn’t have the votes because Feinstein is MIA
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Mmm yes, let's antagonize one of the swing votes on the extremely conservative supreme court. What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Mmm yes, let's antagonize one of the swing votes on the extremely conservative supreme court. What could possibly go wrong? "Swing" vote at best, ratfucker at worst. Feinstein needs to resign ASAP. Might as well put Mitch back in charge already for all the good she's doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Congress can pass laws that determine how the courts operate and what rules they follow. IMO that’s not the sort of thing you just shrug and say do your worst too or they may and you probably won’t like it. They won't, so he has no worries there
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Mmm yes, let's antagonize one of the swing votes on the extremely conservative supreme court. What could possibly go wrong? Kind of a weird argument. If they're ruling based on personal biases and political grievances instead of impartially interpreting the constitution and the laws, what is their function exactly and why should we respect anything they say. Yeah antagonize him then, if that backfires it's just another argument to reform the courts
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Kind of a weird argument. hmm so it goes antagonize the court -> claim victimhood -> engage in political process to reform the courts? And you think that cycle of events has even a shot in hell at being successful? All you would be doing is fueling a counter-narrative that the left lost and can't hack it so they're trying to upend the system. What is the upside exactly? You give Roberts and opportunity to grandstand and shirk the power of congress? Provide a great narrative for the right to coalesce around to get Trump re-elected? The argument that in government you shouldn't do stupid, ineffectual things that you will pay a price for is not weird - it's pretty foundational. In the United States we've gotten away from that practice because people are stupid as poo poo, but that's the exception and not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:
The alternative of "do absolutely nothing at all and continue to sell laws to the highest bidder" is somehow better? Granted "ineffectual" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement as unless its effect results in more money/power to the power structure it's not getting through Congress anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:hmm so it goes antagonize the court -> claim victimhood -> engage in political process to reform the courts? If the court didn't need to be reformed then "antagonizing" it (by what, demanding basic accountability for financial perks provided to justices by people with an interest in obtaining favorable rulings?) wouldn't do anything because the court would be objectively ruling on the law and the constitution, instead of using its position to enact petty revenge for political slights. Like what is your argument here, that the court is a political body and justices rule on personal biases and emotion rather than sound legal reasoning? Because if so, I agree, but I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't be reformed then. Or you agree it should be reformed but you don't think it will "work"? Well I agree there too, Republicans like a biased political court when it's in their favor, and Democrats have no interest in wielding political power, so this congress will never do anything serious to address the problems with the court. So given that, it doesn't matter what they do. "Antagonize" them, don't antagonize them, what does it matter, the court is beyond accountability and will continue to do whatever they want and collect the resulting bribes, they're not going to stop doing that just because everyone is nice to them. Everyone since FDR has been "nice" to them and all the decorum-poisoning has done is encourage them to be laughably corrupt so I don't think nice is working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:and lol if anyone thinks Dems would kill the filibuster to do so. But but...if we do something to fix the court system, expand the SC, make tons of judges and fix the electoral system in this country the next time the Republicans have the trifecta they might do bad things we don't like if we keep the filibuster!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Once upon a time, I had occasion to be aware of the case of Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). As far as I can recall (and it’s been a few years) the holding was that an elderly couple could sue a municipal government for a civil rights violation (like Section 1983 or something I think, maybe discrimination more generally) because they condemned twice as much of the plaintiff’s land as their neighbors in connection with a water-related construction project. The plaintiffs alleged that the local government did that because of specific animus against the plaintiffs, with whom it had recently settled a different lawsuit. The Court (as I recall) permitted the plaintiffs to maintain the suit on the basis of a “class of one” theory (i.e. that the government was targeting them unduly and without a rational basis because of the previous lawsuit). Any relevance to Disney’s ongoing dispute with the State of Florida? It sure seems like DeSantis is trying to settle a score with Disney just because he hates Disney specifically. Is the government really allowed to single out individual companies for harsh treatment just because officeholders don’t like that company specifically?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Is the government really allowed to single out individual companies for harsh treatment just because officeholders don’t like that company specifically? No. Even if you ignore the Florida GOP openly and publicly saying they passed a bill to punish Disney for their opposition to a bill they passed and admitting to First Amendment violations, this kind of action is pretty much a Bill of Attainder and those are explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution. If this case somehow makes it to the SCOTUS (it won't) any justice who doesn't rule in favor of Disney should be tossed into the ocean. Fox News had a stronger defense against Dominion than the Florida government is going to have against Disney.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Good thing the company they're picking on isn't notoriously litigious so they don't have to worry about a lawsuit, huh
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Javid posted:Good thing the company they're picking on isn't notoriously litigious so they don't have to worry about a lawsuit, huh Disney filed today.  https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172231546/disney-florida-governor-ron-desantis-lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Any relevance to Disney’s ongoing dispute with the State of Florida? It sure seems like DeSantis is trying to settle a score with Disney just because he hates Disney specifically. Is the government really allowed to single out individual companies for harsh treatment just because officeholders don’t like that company specifically? Depends on why and who. The executive branch has more leeway, (prosecutorial discretion, etc.), otherwise they'd never be allowed to bring charges against anyone. But people have gotten charges or rulings thrown out if they were able to demonstrate that the same conduct from other people, with the same criminal background, no mitigating circumstances, etc. was treated differently in charging or sentencing. The legislative, not so much; that's explicitly banned in the Constitution. With Disney specifically, they really are special snowflake with a bizarre tax structure in their county, so there's basically no comparable case out there, now or historically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:The alternative of "do absolutely nothing at all and continue to sell laws to the highest bidder" is somehow better? The alternative of "pursue policies that will have a positive outcome for people while avoiding obvious landmines" is my preference. VitalSigns posted:If the court didn't need to be reformed then "antagonizing" it (by what, demanding basic accountability for financial perks provided to justices by people with an interest in obtaining favorable rulings?) wouldn't do anything because the court would be objectively ruling on the law and the constitution, instead of using its position to enact petty revenge for political slights. I think the court is complex organ whose functions can't be reduced quite as succinctly as you're attempting in your post. I'd like to see the court reformed and think attempting to force Roberts to answer to Congress would be a stupid move that would make reform more difficult and wouldn't accomplish anything useful. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
If the court is complex, then saying that "antagonizing" Roberts is not worth it is also an oversimplification. There's no way to know whether it would affect his votes and even if it did how bad that would be. I also note that it's kind of bizarre to assert that Roberts will get revenge if they try to subpoena him, which is basically an admission that he's unfit for the job, then retreat to "well it's complex" when this is pointed out. I think that if congress normalizes the corruption by not even attempting to hold the court to some kind of ethical standard, it will make reform more difficult, because reform ultimately depends on the public will to see it through, and they'll just be telling the public eh what the judges are doing is fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
If Roberts, or any justice, is petty enough to change their rulings out of spite in response to being made to testify before Congress then that's a pretty good reason to force them off the bench (which is impossible because lol Congress) or push for judicial reform (which is only likely to come from right wingers if they ever lose their SCOTUS majority) to diminish if not nullify their ability to gently caress things up for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
What's interesting about this conversation is "they go low, we go high" was practically the entire Obama administration handbook for dealing with Republicans, and Donald Trump was elected president immediately after so you'd think that would discredit the strategy but instead there's still calls to double down on it, and we're now at the point where anything firmer than "oh please answer some questions about all the corruption on the court if it's not too much of a bother, sorry for even bringing it up of course you shouldn't be accountable to anyone" is now too mean. Even trying to police actual corruption is "going low" because corrupt judges get upset if you try and upsetting people is rude or something. Other things that you'd think would discredit the strategy but don't: Republicans don't use this strategy and they win half the time anyway and are constantly a dire threat, why do Republicans do so good despite ignoring this sage advice. Republicans are always telling the Democrats we need to go high when they go low, do Republicans have the best interests of our party in mind? Why do they want us to think that capitulating to them is a good strategy? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the court is complex, then saying that "antagonizing" Roberts is not worth it is also an oversimplification. There's no way to know whether it would affect his votes and even if it did how bad that would be. I also note that it's kind of bizarre to assert that Roberts will get revenge if they try to subpoena him, which is basically an admission that he's unfit for the job, then retreat to "well it's complex" when this is pointed out. You haven't really provided any perceived upside to the proposed course of action other than appeals to the way things "should" be. If you think the interactions between political actors, which members of SCOTUS absolutely are, are as cut and dry as you are presenting here I'm afraid you have a very narrow view of cause and effect in American politics. As for why Republicans continue to be successful despite being horrible - they deliver wins to their supporters in a wide scope of issues in a way the Dems can only dream of, and their supporters are genuinely horrible people who are willing to excuse bad behavior in order to wield power. The American left doesn't have that luxury, as it's most salient quality is infighting over policy purity and struggling with unpopular issues that alienate moderates. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:You haven't really provided any perceived upside to the proposed course of action other than appeals to the way things "should" be. Yes I have, the upside of actually fighting for the principle that judges should not be allowed to be this ridiculously corrupt, is that by fighting back with "oh yes we should" the court is hurting its reputation, which is one way to create the public will to reform the court with or without its permission. (Or the court capitulates and starts policing its own corruption to avoid this, upside either way). I think we're just coming from incompatible premises. You seem to believe that if congress does not currently want to do something, then it Cannot Be Done, and therefore the only sensible course of action is to capitulate even more to the Roberts courts' imperial manner, and be ever nicer and more accommodating to their corruption, in the hopes that they will feel appeased and reach back across the aisle and restore the norms they're breaking out of gratitude or something. I'm coming from a premise that they will keep being high-handed and imperious and totally corrupt no matter how nice Democrats are to them, unless they're forced not to be, therefore the only way to get enough congressional support for reform is to get the public behind it, and they're not going to know how badly reform is needed if democratic leaders decide to keep up the kayfabe of a respectable Supreme Court Grip it and rip it posted:If you think the interactions between political actors, which members of SCOTUS absolutely are, are as cut and dry as you are presenting here I'm afraid you have a very narrow view of cause and effect in American politics. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
hahahaha https://twitter.com/Schwartzesque/status/1652015577358303232?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
But if we ask him to be accountable to his bribery then he might continue to dislike us! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Did the absurd judiciary privacy bill get passes last year? IIRC it would've basically existed to cover up stuff like this and all of the poo poo Ginni Thomas does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
This is getting beyond absurd now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:As for why Republicans continue to be successful despite being horrible - they deliver wins to their supporters in a wide scope of issues in a way the Dems can only dream of, and their supporters are genuinely horrible people who are willing to excuse bad behavior in order to wield power. The American left doesn't have that luxury, as it's most salient quality is infighting over policy purity and struggling with unpopular issues that alienate moderates. would the left electorate not excuse bad behavior? sure, there's elite "i actively pay attention to politics and have opinions about minutiae" opinion, and that'd maybe sour a bit if the democrats dropped "decorum", but it's not like those voters are going over to the GOP the majority of dem voters (really, any voters) aren't that tuned in to the details of politics, and are mostly going to focus on issues. wins there matter more than the pretense of robust, incorrupt, clean political process
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Did the absurd judiciary privacy bill get passes last year? IIRC it would've basically existed to cover up stuff like this and all of the poo poo Ginni Thomas does. Congress passed the defense spending bill, yes. This CNN article says they worked with the ACLU to pare down the most abusable provisions along those lines in the Anderl bill. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Dameius posted:But if we ask him to be accountable to his bribery then he might continue to dislike us! Just reporting on it may be a bridge too far, he might even vote to strip women of their bodily autonomy if this continues
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
That’s not really surprising for someone who places high end people at biglaw firms? Placing a single partner can be worth a quarter mil or more. That’s just how that world works. Like, that article is all “oh she did so good placing Ken Salazar at Wilmer, obviously Roberts would lean towards Wilmer” and uh, it’s not hard to place a former Democratic Senator and SecState at a law firm with heavy Dem associations. (If I had to guess, the fuckton of former clerks at Wilmer is a lot more likely to bias Roberts towards them than the Salazar placement.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
I'm all for the Roberts court going down in infamy as the most corrupt collection of justices in US history. The guy loves his legacy. So watching it burn up is great to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm all for the Roberts court going down in infamy as the most corrupt collection of justices in US history. The guy loves his legacy. So watching it burn up is great to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:would the left electorate not excuse bad behavior? Well certainly today is quite a bit different than where we were just a few years ago, but I would be concerned that people would simply not show up to vote rather rather than start voting republican. VitalSigns posted:
I think where we really differ is in how we think generating the public will to reform the court will be borne. I'm of the opinion that the efforts that have been suggested here will not only be ineffectual, but will actually prove counter-productive in that effort. I have no doubt that Republican Justices will continue being horrible, but I do have concerns that they could in fact be worse. Dameius posted:But if we ask him to be accountable to his bribery then he might continue to dislike us! The actual concern is that if the dipshit democrats try to force the issue with the Supreme Court they will be left looking less competent than they usually do and will provide fodder for the right to galvanize around. Given the fact that the Republicans are showing some fractures with respect to Trump this would be a particularly stupid unforced error imo. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Outrageous bullshit https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/28/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering-supreme-court/index.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
Stare decisis? Never heard of her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:39
|
|
|
NC's one of those states that was starting to go purple but a single election that gives the GOP power is all they needed to set progress back decades if not longer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:NC's one of those states that was starting to go purple but a single election that gives the GOP power is all they needed to set progress back decades if not longer. So basically also Trump in 2016, and the next and every time GOP wins presidency or any other election the rest of our lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:NC's one of those states that was starting to go purple but a single election that gives the GOP power is all they needed to set progress back decades if not longer. If a single election is able to do this much then maybe it’s worth dispensing the indefensible judicial system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
The “justices serve on good behavior” statement could be used as a stick and shouldn’t de facto mean that they are immune from the consequences of their actions. The implication of “serving on good behavior” is that their behavior is a matter of constitutional import and so therefore their behavior is subject to public scrutiny and oversight. Make them log everyone they talk to and the context of every conversation. Account for every dollar in and every dollar out of their pockets. You serve on good behavior? Great, then we get to legislate what good behavior means and how you comply with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If a single election is able to do this much then maybe it’s worth dispensing the indefensible judicial system. lol what exactly are you proposing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Well they’re going for it https://twitter.com/ahoweblogger/status/1653030348278693888?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:08
|
|