|
Slaan posted:It makes it even more obvious what partisan hacks they are if you know what executive supremacists they are. They've all gone for decisions that let presidents do whatever the hell they want in the past. But suddenly it's all States Rights (to get brown people killed) and balance of power between the branches when the president has a -D Trump bans all Muslims from the country? Sure. Biden wants to forgive student loans? Get the gently caress out of here you commie.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
If the parties were swapped and you had a Dem governor blocking a Republican POTUS on the border and openly defying the SCOTUS and interfering with Federal agents like Abbott's doing right now, the Dem governor would already be in a cell or the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
It’s almost like electing a Republican president had consequences. You don’t like the Supreme Court? Stop republicans from being president. It’s that simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Cimber posted:wait, what happened? SCOTUS allowed federal immigration officers to dismantle the physical barriers the Texas state government had installed on the border
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
haveblue posted:SCOTUS allowed federal immigration officers to dismantle the physical barriers the Texas state government had installed on the border But notably, those 4 justices disagreed with the idea that the federal government should have final say over states regarding US immigration policy. Nor did they say why, so without even a figleaf of legal reasoning the answer seems to be "pure partisanship".
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Who's taking bets on Sotomayor dying under a Trump administration? There's been precisely zero speculation about a retirement. She's in her 70s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who's taking bets on Sotomayor dying under a Trump administration? There's been precisely zero speculation about a retirement. She's in her 70s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who's taking bets on Sotomayor dying under a Trump administration? There's been precisely zero speculation about a retirement. She's in her 70s. Unless she has a pre-existing health condition I don't know about, she's definitely going to last another five years. She has the position and money to receive the good American health care and is also only 69
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
Fair. Weirdly, she describes herself as 70 in a recent interview. Close enough I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
Thomas and Alito are both older than her anyway (75 and 73, respectively). I wouldn't expect any of the three of them to necessarily "age out" of the court in the next administration, but it's not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Fair. According to Wikipedia, she is 69 years, 7 months, and 6 days old. Add June 25 to your legal birthday calendars
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Please resign at the end of the term, effective when your replacement is confirmed. I love Sotomayor but we can't risk another McConnell ratfuck
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Please resign at the end of the term, effective when your replacement is confirmed. I love Sotomayor but we can't risk another McConnell ratfuck I doubt she's got any desire to pull an RBG but considering how miserable she seems to be (not that I could blame her given how hosed the SCOTUS is) if Biden wins reelection and has a Dem senate I wouldn't be surprised if she decides to retire in the next few years unless we're lucky and a couple conservative justices die or resign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Unless she has a pre-existing health condition I don't know about, she's definitely going to last another five years. She has the position and money to receive the good American health care and is also only 69 Sotomayor has Type I Diabetes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Sotomayor has Type I Diabetes. Which is not, generally speaking, a problem if you have adequate medical care. Which she does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Which is not, generally speaking, a problem if you have adequate medical care. Which she does. T1D still reduces life expectancy by as much as a decade in Finland and Sweden, and even people with the lowest measurable risk factors (A1C, smoking status, eGFR, BMI) still see a notable reduction of life expectancy. Even T1D that is generally well managed over time is hard on the organs. https://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(23)00055-4/fulltext https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-021-05503-6
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 05:43
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:T1D still reduces life expectancy by as much as a decade in Finland and Sweden, and even people with the lowest measurable risk factors (A1C, smoking status, eGFR, BMI) still see a notable reduction of life expectancy. Even T1D that is generally well managed over time is hard on the organs. That ignores current age (and honestly doesn't say much about how controlled/quality of care). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2088852 is more relevant, I think. For a woman of age 70 with T1d, remaining life expectancy is 12.8 years; for a woman of age 70 without diabetes, it's 15.5 years. It's not really that big a difference if you've made it that far. (Also worth noting that this came up during her nomination - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wh-still-mum-on-sotomayor-diabetes-024778 - and "doctors said Drexler’s report that Sotomayor lacks any evidence of eye, kidney, nerve, or heart problems is remarkable and indicates she can expect greater longevity than the typical diabetic.")
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
everyone huddled around the imperial court's Organ Report to assess the probabilistic threat to our civil liberties
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
I have spoken!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:07
|
|
|
External organs sees their shadow, we have six more weeks of Chevron
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:16
|
|
|
Calling the supreme court the imperial court is apt
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That ignores current age (and honestly doesn't say much about how controlled/quality of care). My bad, I actually missed the most relevant figure in my first reference (Figure 4) which directly supports your point here, showing a convergence as age increases. That'll teach me to skim articles and phone post about health stuff I'm not actually an expert in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 06:25
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:But notably, those 4 justices disagreed with the idea that the federal government should have final say over states regarding US immigration policy. Nor did they say why, so without even a figleaf of legal reasoning the answer seems to be "pure partisanship". that's not necessarily correct, this wasn't a decision on the merits, it was a decision on the temporary injunction while the scotus case processes. Now, that does at minimum tell us that they don't think it's a completely laughable choice. Those four all think there is a nonzero chance of Texas winning the suit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 08:48
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:everyone huddled around the imperial court's Organ Report to assess the probabilistic threat to our civil liberties
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 09:01
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:that's not necessarily correct, this wasn't a decision on the merits, it was a decision on the temporary injunction while the scotus case processes. Now, that does at minimum tell us that they don't think it's a completely laughable choice. Those four all think there is a nonzero chance of Texas winning the suit. They think it has a nonzero chance because they're partisan hacks who put their party's desires above all else, OP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who's taking bets on Sotomayor dying under a Trump administration? There's been precisely zero speculation about a retirement. She's in her 70s. Forget Sonia, Clarence Thomas retires and is Replaced by a 30 year old graduate of Hillsdale College named Hezekiel
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They think it has a nonzero chance because they're partisan hacks who put their party's desires above all else, OP. Imo this only really describes Alito and Kav (and Kagan, and probably KBJ, jury still out on her). The others are pretty clearly true believers with a pretty strong, albeit often incomprehensible, ideological core
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
Gorsuch constantly reminding us in every ruling that we reneged on every treaty with the Native Americans is such a weird quirk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:43
|
|
|
"the strength of the legal system...."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Sotomayor has Type I Diabetes. to live in the social class with functional medicine....
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
welp, still no change on Civil Rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:46
|
|
|
Is there a book about the modern court that's as insightful as The Nine, or should I just mentally picture a swastika over that branch of federal government for now and not worry about trying to understand it any deeper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
Would it also be inappropriate to start taking bets on the elephant in the room? 1) Storming a national capitol with intent to interrupt transfer of power and intent to kill somehow is NOT an insurrection 2) The chief executive of the nation is somehow not an officer of the United States 3) The secret third thing, a capstone for Roberts' crusade against Congress and the administrative state, like "actually the postwar Union has no authority to ratify amendments, everything from the 13th Amendment onward is void"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Would it also be inappropriate to start taking bets on the elephant in the room? How void are we talking here? Going to make it retroactive to 1865?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 07:17
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Would it also be inappropriate to start taking bets on the elephant in the room? My prediction is the court really doesn’t want to get into this and there will be an extremely narrow 9-0 ruling that because insurrection is undefined and no criminal court has held him liable for insurrection he is qualified for the ballot
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:My prediction is the court really doesn’t want to get into this and there will be an extremely narrow 9-0 ruling that because insurrection is undefined and no criminal court has held him liable for insurrection he is qualified for the ballot I really doubt the liberals will sign off on "doing a january 6 does not disqualify you from the presidency". If this happens it'll split along party lines like Bush v Gore
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:My prediction is the court really doesn’t want to get into this and there will be an extremely narrow 9-0 ruling that because insurrection is undefined and no criminal court has held him liable for insurrection he is qualified for the ballot I cannot see them inventing a requirement for a criminal conviction for insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I really doubt the liberals will sign off on "doing a january 6 does not disqualify you from the presidency". If this happens it'll split along party lines like Bush v Gore Yeah, the most likely outcome is 6-3 with the Republicans holding that Trump's actions don't probably rise to a level of "insurrection" sufficient to trigger the amendment while the liberals go "what the gently caress" I say 6-3 because none of the conservatives are brave enough to buck the others solo. Two switching over might happen but never just one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, the most likely outcome is 6-3 with the Republicans holding that Trump's actions don't probably rise to a level of "insurrection" sufficient to trigger the amendment while the liberals go "what the gently caress" Nah. Roberts could quite easily be the 4th vote against, even in a 5-4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Nah. Roberts could quite easily be the 4th vote against, even in a 5-4. I doubt it. Roberts is the one conservative justice who understands that public perception of the court's legitimacy can affect his ability to effect change. He'd never sign onto an obvious bullshit Calvinball argument just to be on the losing side. He absolutely might cast the deciding vote either way, but he'd leave the dissents to the shameless shills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:25
|
|
