|
The previous convention was the basically the Senate would approve President's picks unless they were blatantly extreme or incompetent --- in which case they would generally approve the slightly-more-acceptable replacement. (Robert Bork was rejected but Anthony Kennedy was approved, Miera was rejected by Alito was approved, etc.) There is of course nothing illegal about the Senate not doing that, but it's a part of the pattern of GOP trying to prevent the country from actually being governed unless they have 100% control.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Lol Thomas splitting hairs to an incredible degree here He's saying that because no states at the time exercised this power over national elections, only over state elections, that this clearly wasn't the intent of the amendment Papercut fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
Lol Roberts isn't buying it, it's joever
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:Lol Roberts isn't buying it, it's joever At work and can’t listen. He’s not buying what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Roberts (and Kav and Thomas) were going after the idea that the insurrection clause could empower states, rather than empowering the federal government only. They're teeing up a reversal on the grounds that the states don't have the authority to enforce it I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:Roberts (and Kav and Thomas) were going after the idea that the insurrection clause could empower states, rather than empowering the federal government only. They're teeing up a reversal on the grounds that the states don't have the authority to enforce it I think. Who the hell would enforce it then? Elections are managed by the states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
How convenient that states deserve more power for things that Republicans don’t like, ie. abortions, but not things like this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Who the hell would enforce it then? Elections are managed by the states. Individual states deciding on their own whether someone is eligible to be president didn't really make any sense from the beginning. The actual determination of whether someone's allowed to be president pretty much fundamentally has to happen at the federal level, after which the states would use their own state laws to remove him for being an ineligible candidate. "Who would actually make that call?" is a pretty good question. The only answer that really makes any practical sense at all is "the federal courts", though there's always the chance the SC could throw a curveball and put that determination in the hands of Congress or something instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Who the hell would enforce it then? Elections are managed by the states. They're basically saying that section 3 can allow the federal govt to refuse to seat someone who is ineligible, but doesn't allow states to remove that person from the ballot
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
CO keeping Trump off the ballot was always a long shot, and listening to this now, it seems dead. The lawyer isn't making a very good argument, and the Justices are shooting him down every time. The Justices are saying, "Other states will do this to other candidates they don't like in the future, right?" The lawyer is basically saying, "But you can say this is, like, super rare, and so it won't happen all that often in the future."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Who would actually make that call?" is a pretty good question Objections sustained during the certification of the vote? Rejection of all electors pledged to that candidate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Yeah it doesn't seem like it's gonna be a close decision based on this questioning
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Individual states deciding on their own whether someone is eligible to be president didn't really make any sense from the beginning. The actual determination of whether someone's allowed to be president pretty much fundamentally has to happen at the federal level, after which the states would use their own state laws to remove him for being an ineligible candidate. The idea that states can determine eligibility is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Arguably it's going to boil down to 'the courts do not want to be a venue for reversing presumption of innocence'. Essentially, that it would be an immediate court clogger that would have negative effect and further make partizan the courts as a political beatstick, you can just imagine the last second drama of a hack state judge issuing an order right at the ballot printing deadline. Disqualification is likely to now be found to require a conviction, an actual war, or an objection in the joint session or be a question posed after the actual election once the issue is truly germane. The states not being obligated to enforce the constitution section by section seems like dubious precedent itself however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Yeah it doesn't seem like it's gonna be a close decision based on this questioning Probably going to be 9-0 or maybe 8-1, but even the liberals are agreeing with the idea that states don’t have the authority to do what CO did
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Meanwhile Trump is never getting the immunity he craves for, correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Meanwhile Trump is never getting the immunity he craves for, correct? Is that in this case as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
No that’s another case and I don’t think he wins that one
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Lol Thomas splitting hairs to an incredible degree here I really hope Thomas dies sooner rather than later and it'd be ironic for Biden to get to replace him considering Biden's a big reason we were stuck with him in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I really hope Thomas dies sooner rather than later and it'd be ironic for Biden to get to replace him considering Biden's a big reason we were stuck with him in the first place. These fucks have some of the best healthcare in our modern world outside of being a billionaire, that our taxes pay for. Also Thomas also has learned from reptiles to just completely conserve his energy and not make any unnecessary movements when not under the metaphorical heat lamp that is a donor's yacht. It's conservatism straight to his cold blooded core, and he will probably outlive all of us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
I wonder if years from now if legal scholars are going to be reading the courts ruling on this and deciding this was a work of partisanship or if they are going to consider it legitimate work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
“Chief Justice Roberts noted that the challengers’ position would have empowered the former Confederate states to determine whether candidates were disqualified from holding federal office.“ Fair point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Well, now that oral arguments are wrapped I’m sticking to a prediction of 9-0 but I could see it going 8-1 with Soto on the outs maybe. I don’t think it’ll even be a 6-3 but then what do I know
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The Justices are saying, "Other states will do this to other candidates they don't like in the future, right?" The lawyer is basically saying, "But you can say this is, like, super rare, and so it won't happen all that often in the future." It's unfortunately not rare in that Trump himself will likely cause this issue to occur again
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
smackfu posted:“Chief Justice Roberts noted that the challengers’ position would have empowered the former Confederate states to determine whether candidates were disqualified from holding federal office.“ Only if one forgets that initially those states were stripped of such oversight entirely, and then later bound by the Voting Rights Act until Roberts decided to slip their leash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Only if one forgets that initially those states were stripped of such oversight entirely, and then later bound by the Voting Rights Act until Roberts decided to slip their leash. It's funny for Roberts to worry about states doing this after the nakedly political "oh well this isn't a matter for Federal courts" decision when confronted with the GOP's hosed up Gerrymandering of Wisconsin. He's nothing if not consistent in pushing for outcomes that benefit the GOP the most (IE: not wanting Dobbs to strike down Roe because he knew it'd hurt the GOP badly in elections). Also considering that Congress gave a blanket clearance to everyone after the Civil War WRT the 14th amendment, any state that did try this poo poo would've gotten smacked down judicially if not militarily as well for trying that poo poo. It's not like the Confederates had any issue disenfranchising people after the Civil War either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
SO what i think is going to come down: "Nope, this is a federal question, not something the states can decide. (Please ignore the fact that we let states decide all sorts of other federal questions when it comes to voting, thanks, love and kisses). Now, if Trump is convicted in the DC case he'll not be eligible since the 14th would automatically trigger, so it doesn't matter if he's on the ballot or not. Unless of course we stall things for so long that Trump is elected before the trial can complete, in which case he'll pardon himself and make all this moot. Yeah...about that, we are gonna schedule hearings on if Trump can be tried or not sometime in the next season, maybe December. Sound good? Ok? No one has a problem? Great!" --Roberts
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
That’s the thing…they love federalism when it helps their cases, but hate it when it comes to civil rights issues
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Cimber posted:SO what i think is going to come down: I feel they're going to add in some special sauce about not being convicted specifically of the crime of only insurrection and that it has to be 1,000% turbo-guilty of that exact crime whose definition we've put on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard" and it only applies to Democrats in the future, so even if he is found guilty in the DC case it won't count because gently caress you liberal cry more about it yes we're ignoring the long held tradition of how the 14th was implemented after the civil war according to traditionalists we don't give a gently caress get bent. This is of course as you say, all on the optimistic assumption that they don't just sandbag the thing entirely for the better part of a year and let it all play out somewhere else so they can duck the issue for the election then swoop in and set things right according to the particulars of the fascist leaning of society at that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
We continue to march to the timeline of Trump on every ballot but not immune from his felonies.jeeves posted:Also Thomas also has learned from reptiles to just completely conserve his energy and not make any unnecessary movements How is this so loving accurate
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
SCOTUS is not going to save the Democrats from the iceberg they are heading for, full steam ahead. They're going to have to beat Trump at the polls. If democracy is at stake I'd start by directly giving the voters things they want via executive authority, but it seems like they'd rather scold and fearmonger about the end of democracy just like in 2020. The Justices seem very skeptical. I agree that it feels like 8-1 or 7-2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:SCOTUS is not going to save the Democrats from the iceberg they are heading for, full steam ahead. They're going to have to beat Trump at the polls. If democracy is at stake I'd start by directly giving the voters things they want via executive authority, but it seems like they'd rather scold and fearmonger about the end of democracy just like in 2020. The Justices seem very skeptical. I agree that it feels like 8-1 or 7-2. A political party may not be punished for an attempted coup if its leader is able to postpone his conviction until the next election Voter nullification
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:SCOTUS is not going to save the Democrats from the iceberg they are heading for, full steam ahead. They're going to have to beat Trump at the polls. If democracy is at stake I'd start by directly giving the voters things they want via executive authority, but it seems like they'd rather scold and fearmonger about the end of democracy just like in 2020. The Justices seem very skeptical. I agree that it feels like 8-1 or 7-2. “If you want to preserve democracy you will need to embrace the very authoritarian consolidation of power to a single autocrat that you are campaigning against.” Is some galaxy brained poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
Murgos posted:“If you want to preserve democracy you will need to embrace the very authoritarian consolidation of power to a single autocrat that you are campaigning against.” Lmao using the power the executive actually already has is more authoritarian than using the courts to delete a rival is some universe brain poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Lmao using the power the executive actually already has is more authoritarian than using the courts to delete a rival is some universe brain poo poo If courts delete people who did not actually do insurrections, we're already way past the fascism boundary In 2028 SCOTUS is going to have to rule, "No Kamala Harris did not do an insurrection when she failed to pull a permit to refurbish her bathroom" a few times, because that sort of poo poo is coming regardless of what they say this year
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
If Biden really wants to win, all he needs to do is authorize the drone strike
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:If courts delete people who did not actually do insurrections, we're already way past the fascism boundary Whether Jan 6 was an insurrection or a disorganized riot and trump’s level of participation is hardly settled and can be argued several ways that are all coherent. Deleting Trump over 1/6 is far more damaging to the existing order than not, and if I’m correct the 3 liberals on the court are going to agree As an aside nobody is going to try to delete Kamala from the ballot. Republicans would absolutely love to run against her
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Devor posted:If courts delete people who did not actually do insurrections, we're already way past the fascism boundary Nah they'll refuse to take up the case as moot because Harris won't be the nominee, even if Biden wins reelection and she's VP in 2028 because nobody likes Kamala Harris and she's not going to convince people like Newsom not to run against her because she'd be the easiest Dem candidate to beat in the past several decades. HashtagGirlboss posted:Whether Jan 6 was an insurrection or a disorganized riot and trump’s level of participation is hardly settled and can be argued several ways that are all coherent. Deleting Trump over 1/6 is far more damaging to the existing order than not, and if I’m correct the 3 liberals on the court are going to agree Please tell us more how enforcing the 14th amendment's ban on insurrectionists being allowed to hold office is more damaging to the country than just pretending it doesn't exist because angry fascists will continue to be angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
smackfu posted:“Chief Justice Roberts noted that the challengers’ position would have empowered the former Confederate states to determine whether candidates were disqualified from holding federal office.“ Its deader than poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Nah they'll refuse to take up the case as moot because Harris won't be the nominee, even if Biden wins reelection and she's VP in 2028 because nobody likes Kamala Harris and she's not going to convince people like Newsom not to run against her because she'd be the easiest Dem candidate to beat in the past several decades. You would need a strong consensus that it was an insurrection. You may feel confident that it was, but that consensus does not exist generally. Without that consensus, it would be extremely damaging
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:28
|
|