|
haveblue posted:You don't need a supermajority to fix the court. You need a simple majority of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. You need a simple majority of both houses to expand the court. You need a simple majority of the Senate to appoint more justices. We had those things for the first half of the Biden administration. The will wasn't there yet, but we were down to two holdouts for that first step, both of whom are likely to be gone next time OK but how about when we travel from theory to practice. We need a 2/3rds majority to actually impeach a judge, and until that happens, talk is meaningless. I just googled it and it only happened once in 1805. If FDR couldn't fix this problem, Biden sure as hell won't. ugh god, worst snipe in history. Everyone line up to slap me in the face.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
haveblue posted:You don't need a supermajority to fix the court. You need a simple majority of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. You need a simple majority of both houses to expand the court. You need a simple majority of the Senate to appoint more justices. We had those things for the first half of the Biden administration. The will wasn't there yet, but we were down to two holdouts for that first step, both of whom are likely to be gone next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:So first off, just to get this out of the way: I completely agree. I'd have to ask what "function[ing] as a solution for lifetime appointments" means I guess? McConnel put them in to their lifetime appointments 1,000% under the idea of "gently caress you, make me". He made up completely bullshit Senate "precedent" that never existed before, and then lasted for all of a year before being discarded to get what he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I got my bar license before the Dobbs decision, and it's pretty remarkable how much that one case has changed the general perception of the Court by other attorneys. One of the most comical parts of posting on this website is abruptly realizing someone has a deliriously funny set of credentials to be arguing. I have 2 master's degrees. If you don't mind my asking, what were your thoughts on the appointment of ACB? I had a really bad IRL argument with a lawyer who respected her and thought she would be a good addition to the court. My rejoinder conformed to the lines that I'm invested in results, and she's going to unwind progress. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. If you tell me I'm wrong I'll take it right to the face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:I'd have to ask what "function[ing] as a solution for lifetime appointments" means I guess? McConnel put them in to their lifetime appointments 1,000% under the idea of "gently caress you, make me". He made up completely bullshit Senate "precedent" that never existed before, and then lasted for all of a year before being discarded to get what he wanted. That's where I think you believe we're arguing, while we debate multiple sides to an issue. McConnel won, it's over. I'm not necessarily pointing out a problem to solve, I'm saying the problem is permanent. For the next 30 years, we have no path upward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'd recommend reading up on the history of the British House of Lords if you're interested in this topic. As an inherently anti-democratic institution which originally had important political advantages over the House of Commons, it was a powerful gatekeeping force protecting the interests of the elite from the whims of democracy, but there were a number of times where overwhelming public sentiment was able to overcome its gatekeeping role, forcing the House of Lords not only to back down on an issue it felt strongly about but also to willingly surrender some of its own power in the aftermath to placate the angry populace. A famous instance of this was George V threatening to pack the Lords with reformist Liberals if the Lords did not willingly remove their ability to veto any legislation. Now they can at best delay a bill, up to three sessions of parliament, before the house can choose to overrule. In principle, this has meant that the Lords can't veto legislation from a government that just got elected, but can block an unpopular administration from passing something heinous on the way out. His father Edward has likewise threatened to do the same when the Lords vetoed the national budget due to its radical welfare policies - it was tradition that the Lords never veto money bills, as it could cause a national crisis (translation: a government shutdown). This was so egregious that Edward said if they voted it down a second time he would pack the chamber, and the Lords relented. One of those times where our hilarious fake democracy was saved by our monarch taking the side of the elected Commons over the unelected Lords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:OK but how about when we travel from theory to practice. We need a 2/3rds majority to actually impeach a judge, and until that happens, talk is meaningless. I just googled it and it only happened once in 1805. You don't need to impeach the justices if they can be outvoted by the other justices, that's the theory behind court packing Oracle posted:If you have two holdouts you do not, in fact, have the votes; you’re two shy Oh absolutely, that's why it didn't happen. I'm saying we don't need 66 senators and 290 representatives to unfuck the court, it can be done with 51 and 218 (and the presidency) if they can all agree that it's necessaary
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You don't need to impeach the justices if they can be outvoted by the other justices, that's the theory behind court packing I don't mean to sound argumentative but are you are aware that won't happen? At least in the next 30 or so years? It's complete fluff to think the conservative majority in the SC could be outvoted, or that the court will be packed. I'm not trying to argue principles with you, I'm stating a plainly obvious fact that the scenarios you concoct have no basis in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:The complete abandonment of stare decisis was the last straw for a lot of people, it tore the mask off in a way that woke a lot of them up I kind of doubt that, because stare decisis has always been optional for the Supreme Court, and the current state of the Court isn't even close to the worst the Court has ever been about stare decisis. There's been cases in the past where the Court ruled one way on an issue, only to rule in the opposite direction on the same issue just a few years later. For example, in 1944 the Court overturned Texas Democrats' whites-only primary system in Smith v. Allwright, despite the fact that the Court had ruled that system legal in 1935 in Grovey v. Townsend. An even more direct example is 1943's West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette allowing students to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, overruling the 1940 ruling Minersville School District v. Gobitis which had ruled 8-1 that it was legal to force students to say the pledge. The Supreme Court overturning precedents has always kind of been expected, and isn't particularly a bad thing. There's lots of bad precedents that have been overturned by later Courts before, after all. haveblue posted:Oh absolutely, that's why it didn't happen. I'm saying we don't need 66 senators and 290 representatives to unfuck the court, it can be done with 51 and 218 (and the presidency) if they can all agree that it's necessaary Of course, a side issue here is that if we can abolish the Senate filibuster and present solid Congressional majorities for progressive policies, we don't necessarily need to pack the court anymore, at least not right away. The Court's outsized importance today is partially a reaction to the fact that Congress has been increasingly nonfunctional over the past few decades, with the executive and judiciary increasingly resorting to significant stretches of their power in attempts to do an end-run around legislative uselessness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I don't mean to sound argumentative but are you are aware that won't happen? At least in the next 30 or so years? You are asserting that things will not happen because they are impossible. I'm saying they are not actually impossible. Not having the votes to make a threshold today does not mean the threshold does not exist quote:It's complete fluff to think the conservative majority in the SC could be outvoted, or that the court will be packed. I'm not trying to argue principles with you, I'm stating a plainly obvious fact that the scenarios you concoct have no basis in reality. You are in a self-admitted doomposting spiral and I'm trying to remind you of the rules in play here and that we have not in fact reached the end of history
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I don't mean to sound argumentative but are you are aware that won't happen? At least in the next 30 or so years? Alito and Thomas are in their 70s. It's not going to take 30 years to replace them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You are asserting that things will not happen because they are impossible. I'm saying they are not actually impossible. Not having the votes to make a threshold today does not mean the threshold does not exist Yeah, I think it's a bit premature to assume that we're doomed for the next 30 years at minimum. Things can change rapidly and unpredictably. Last time it happened was 2016, saying it can't possibly happen the other way around in the next 30 years is ludicrous. Like, I don't have high hopes for 2024, the democrats will probably lose the Senate barring some unprecedented turnout by Dems and disaffection by Repubs, but there's a nonzero chance that Trump is not allowed on the ballot and R voters stay home or mount a write-in campaign, enough to keep D voters motivated. If there's more than 50 Dems in the Senate they probably take the House, and there's a nonzero chance they decide to end the filibuster. Without the filibuster you have openings to pack the Supreme Court, at minimum to counterbalance the five justices seated by presidents who lost the popular vote, to add Puerto Rico and DC to the states and thus Senate, to enact gerrymandering legislation and reaffirm the Voting Rights Act... I don't think any of this is likely but it's eminently possible, and that during an incredibly terrible year for Dems' chances. To say something like that is impossible for a generation and a half is preposterous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Alito and Thomas are in their 70s. It's not going to take 30 years to replace them. Maybe they should go out on more expenses paid trips and see if rolling a Scalia is just a game of numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You are asserting that things will not happen because they are impossible. I'm saying they are not actually impossible. Not having the votes to make a threshold today does not mean the threshold does not exist I wouldn't agree to a spiral per se. I know I'm just words on a screen to you but I'm a generally an optimistic person but this problem is breaching my boundaries. There's a gap between "impossible" and "won't happen" that you're not addressing. I don't care about the academic nature of possibility if we both know the event won't occur. Deteriorata posted:Alito and Thomas are in their 70s. It's not going to take 30 years to replace them. We had a Democratic president during Scalia's death and the GOP freely robbed us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:I don't think any of this is likely but it's eminently possible, and that during an incredibly terrible year for Dems' chances. To say something like that is impossible for a generation and a half is preposterous. I am completely asserting that position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Alito and Thomas are in their 70s. It's not going to take 30 years to replace them. This assumes they won't die or retire in years when Republicans hold the presidency or the senate, because if either of those is true then Dems will not be able to replace them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Alito and Thomas are in their 70s. It's not going to take 30 years to replace them. I seriously believe that if the SC continues its current trajectory of fuckery, the next near miss that Judge Beer had, won't be so near a miss. So, keep in mind that there are other ways a Supreme Court Justice seat might be vacated, and hope it doesn't come to that. Or hope that it does, I'm not your mother.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Maybe they should go out on more expenses paid trips and see if rolling a Scalia is just a game of numbers. Your lips to God's ear. DarkHorse posted:Yeah, I think it's a bit premature to assume that we're doomed for the next 30 years at minimum. Things can change rapidly and unpredictably. Last time it happened was 2016, saying it can't possibly happen the other way around in the next 30 years is ludicrous. Yeah, I agree that none of this seems likely now, but 30 years is a pretty long time out to be arguing things can't be changed. Even if things go well for dems in November are we likely to see much of that? Maybe not. But who knows what the political scene looks like in, say, 2036? Who might have died, who might be new on the political stage, what issues might have become or stopped being salient, etc.. and that's all the stuff that is predictable as "stuff that will happen" even if we can't divine the shape of any of it. There are unknown unknowns waiting out there too. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Piell posted:This assumes they won't die or retire in years when Republicans hold the presidency or the senate, because if either of those is true then Dems will not be able to replace them. Eh, my expectation is that Thomas or Alito will pass away during a D presidency and we'll get to hear endless whining from the GOP about why another conservative should be nominated to keep the court balanced, or decorum, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Your lips to God's ear. 30 years separate the Cuban Missile crisis and Bill Clinton getting elected. It's a breadth of time that includes the arguably largest incident of the Cold War AND the collapse of the Soviet Union. You have Johnson sacrificing the support of poor white southern racists for the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation, Nixon's response in the Southern Strategy that took lessons from Goldwater's overt racism to Atwater's dog whistles, all the way to Clinton's Third Way. In that period of time both republicans AND democrats experienced a period where it was assumed they were permanently shut out of government. I picked that time period basically at random, because 30 years separates Clinton from the present and there's been just as much transformation. The rise of the Religious Right and right-wing media, the transition from "Don't Say Gay" to Obergefell, the first black president and the first main-party female candidate, then of course Trump and then their repeated electoral losses ever since. Thirty years is an eternity when it comes to politics
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Eh, my expectation is that Thomas or Alito will pass away during a D presidency and we'll get to hear endless whining from the GOP about why another conservative should be nominated to keep the court balanced, or decorum, or whatever. If they have the capacity to, I halfway expect the republicans to attempt a perma-blockade of a replacement
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
Kavros posted:If they have the capacity to, I halfway expect the republicans to attempt a perma-blockade of a replacement They will absolutely do this. It’s no longer possible to fill a scotus seat with a senate/president mismatch
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They will absolutely do this. It’s no longer possible to fill a scotus seat with a senate/president mismatch I think a Republican president and slim majority Democrat Piell fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Piell posted:I think a Republican president and slim majority Democrat House would possibly fill a seat ...you meant Senate, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:One of the most comical parts of posting on this website is abruptly realizing someone has a deliriously funny set of credentials to be arguing. I have 2 master's degrees. I personally don't think ACB had put out a ton of awful opinions. Though honestly she didn't have a ton of history at the bench to stand on prior to her appointment to the SCOTUS. I certainly disagree with the reasoning with a number of her pre-appointment cases dealing with criminal defendant's rights. A lot of people made a big deal out of her family's religious affiliations, but I think that has really nothing to do with her judgeship and shouldn't be considered. I certainly wouldn't say she was a good addition to the court, though she's hardly the worst possible candidate. That said, I don't deal in constitutional law in my practice so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:40
|
|
|
I really hope at least 1 trial happens this year for Trump. It's absolutely insanse that he was able to stall and delay all of these major trials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 06:50
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:I really hope at least 1 trial happens this year for Trump. It's absolutely insanse that he was able to stall and delay all of these major trials. It’s January. Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 07:03
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:It’s January. Calm down. You're right, I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 07:07
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Thirty years is an eternity when it comes to politics 30 years ago the Clintons were campaigning on universal healthcare leading up to the midterms, Muslims were a background culture concern despite the WTC bombing the year prior, and Fox News didn't exist. Wild to think how time flies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 09:08
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Thirty years is an eternity when it comes to politics 30 years is an eternity for one person's perspective, that's probably well over 1/3 of an average lifespan. I don't really know if that's all that comforting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 09:14
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone again for tolerating my stupid-rear end derail. I've spent a lifetime on these forums seeing people expose their paranoid psychological issues and expect to be coddled back to sanity. I completely promise I'm not the type- this just seems like a genuinely disastrous problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1742925130563809713
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
Do his attorneys really think this is a filing that will be entertained by anyone outside of Matthew Kacsmaryk? Just because there is a stay on the proceedings doesn't mean that other ground work can't be performed. This is just to throw as much sludge in the gears as possible. At what point can/will Trump's attorneys be sanctioned for frivolous motions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Here's the motion: https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/1742929612009849236  quote:In response, the prosecutors agreed that "while the appeal is pending... the defendant will not be subjected to the "burdens of litigation," but improperly suggested that the prosecution could somehow "continue to shoulder its own burden" and advance the case in President Trump's absence. Doc. 182 at 3. By this, the prosecutors meant that they would attempt to unconstitutionally try President Trump in absentia by continuing to submit filings "and other pleadings pertaining to the Government's trial presentation." Id.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
I hope the DC circuit returns that this entire appeal and stay was improper. Trump didn’t ask leave for an interlocutory appeal and SCOTUS precedent seems to say that unless the immunity is explicitly established by the constitution that the appeal of the district finding isn’t available until after the trial. Because then when Trump says that he needs more time because they didn’t do any work while the stay was in effect he can be told “No.”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:Thanks to everyone again for tolerating my stupid-rear end derail. I've spent a lifetime on these forums seeing people expose their paranoid psychological issues and expect to be coddled back to sanity. I completely promise I'm not the type- this just seems like a genuinely disastrous problem. Your anxieties are real and they're not unreasonable, but it's important to have a degree of objectivity about this. It's helpful to have other people talk you off the ledge on occasion. The Trump years have been hell on those of us who believe in objective reality, and it's had the consequence of making us doubt our sanity in some cases so it's good to occasionally get reassurance that gravity actually still works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
You're out of order! This whole court's out of order! Except an actual filing, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You're out of order! This whole court's out of order! I... DECLARE.... IMMUNITY!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You're out of order! This whole court's out of order! The literal ‘pound on the table’ theory of legal defense in filing form.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
The stay order means Jack Smith must be frozen in suspended animation or else that’s trying Trump in absentia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:45
|
|