|
UberJew posted:There's a reasonable chance that Hillary will just renominate Garland if the republicans don't confirm him until she's president, also I would hope she would instead nominate a 40-year-old clone of Sotomayor so the Republicans rue not doing their job.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I would hope she would instead nominate a 40-year-old clone of Sotomayor so the Republicans rue not doing their job. If she really wants a marxist baby maybe she could look into these forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I would hope she would instead nominate a 40-year-old clone of Sotomayor so the Republicans rue not doing their job. They're probably going to focus a decent part of the campaign in various states with vulnerable Senators on how Garland is awesome and why can't the Senate act like adults? Picking someone else is probably not going to be possible for Hillary and the Democrats by the time they're done beating Senate Republicans over the head with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:If she really wants a marxist baby maybe she could look into these forums. Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The scorched Earth campaign has actually not been working. It has at best been delaying the inevitable, but mostly been loving up the doable by refusing . You don't scorch the earth when you're winning. Delaying the inevitable is pretty much the whole point. And the GOP aren't exactly in their last gasps. They hold both houses and are a decent candidate away from holding all branches. Having that even for two years is enough to dismantle obamacare and fill all those court vacancies, overturn roe, implement a flat tax, all that good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy? Warsuzawahfurhrbfufhhr or whatever would be the best, but WhiskeyJuvenile would be the most entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They're probably going to focus a decent part of the campaign in various states with vulnerable Senators on how Garland is awesome and why can't the Senate act like adults? Picking someone else is probably not going to be possible for Hillary and the Democrats by the time they're done beating Senate Republicans over the head with it. Vulnerable senators who also had no problem confirming him to the most powerful non-SCOTUS judicial position in the country not all that long ago. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Where is TheWarsawza anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I would hope she would instead nominate a 40-year-old clone of Sotomayor so the Republicans rue not doing their job. They should find some 18 year old fitness freak who signs a blood pledge to act as a permanent corporeal vessel for Ginsburg's consciousness, why half rear end it
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Is there any chance of Garland going full Warren and revealing himself to be a closet liberal when he gets confirmed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:You don't scorch the earth when you're winning. Delaying the inevitable is pretty much the whole point. The GOP is going to have the House for a while and they'll be trading off control of the Senate with the Democrats for a while as well. However, it's getting harder and harder for them to win the White House and we're approaching the point where repealing Obamacare doesn't gain you brownie points because it's not showing Obama who's actually in charge. Every year it is unrepealed and every subsequent term of another Democratic President makes it harder to do. Plus Hillary is gonna fill, like, all the vacancies come January with her Democratically controlled Senate. After that, it's going to be a generation or so before there's any chance of Roe getting overturned and any damage future President Mythic Reasonable Republican does with his congressional lackeys will be mitigated by the 5-7 liberals on the Supreme Court. The scorched Earth tactic has done very little to delay the inevitable, and has largely resulted in accelerating events. The failure of the Grand Bargain a few years ago, for instance, has lead to the Democrats now being in unison with the goal of expanding Social Security. They could have had cuts and limits put on that would have been enough for Conservative wet dreams just a few years ago. Now, instead of arguing with the Democrats on just how to do cuts so as to keep the program solvent, they're now fighting a platform of raising the caps and expanding coverage. That's way worse than if they hadn't even brought it up and let Obama just do nothing instead of blocking the deal. Bloody Pancreas posted:Is there any chance of Garland going full Warren and revealing himself to be a closet liberal when he gets confirmed? There is always a chance that once given the oath, a new Supreme Court Justice is reborn ideologically in comparison to previous rulings. Conservatives have been burned by that very thing several times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Does that kind of ideological phoenix act get less common for Justices promoted from appointed positions rather than elected ones?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Does that kind of ideological phoenix act get less common for Justices promoted from appointed positions rather than elected ones? It's less likely now because everyone is vetted to hell and back. It's also pretty unlikely that we go back to appointing non-judges for the foreseeable future. The last one, I think, was Rehnquist and he was appointed by Nixon. Garland is probably less likely than most since he's already sitting in the second highest seat. Most of the ideological phoenix act seems to come from not being presented with opportunities to rule on issues prior to being appointed and sitting in the chair where you don't have to worry about anyone overruling you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Bloody Pancreas posted:Is there any chance of Garland going full Warren and revealing himself to be a closet liberal when he gets confirmed? Garland's fairly liberal as it is. If you mean "the most liberal justice on the bench" then no. He's been around for a long time (which is the biggest concern with his pick since he'd retire 10-20 years sooner) so a late-in-life change of heart seems unlikely. He's also probably mature enough to not go ultra-left out of spite towards the GOP's bullshit. IIRC he's considered to be overall left of Kagan(or Breyer maybe?) but right of Sotomayor and RBG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:If they do nominate him during the lame duck I'm looking forward to the contortions they go through to justify it. At what point do you just say "gently caress it, we know this blatantly contradicts what we've been saying all year, but we're doing this anyway, because we can." It's not like they're fooling anyone about what's going on here. They will not justify it and they will not find this to be a particular problem with their voters, as long as it appears to be to prevent someone worse* from getting in. *more liberal
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy? Phil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They should find some 18 year old fitness freak who signs a blood pledge to act as a permanent corporeal vessel for Ginsburg's consciousness, why half rear end it This is the best reason to become a Satanist I've heard all day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's also pretty unlikely that we go back to appointing non-judges for the foreseeable future. The last one, I think, was Rehnquist and he was appointed by Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy? I don't care if they're lawgoons or not, but either Fishmech or Tiggum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Kagan was never a judge before SCOTUS, was she? poo poo. Thanks, Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Bloody Pancreas posted:Is there any chance of Garland going full Warren and revealing himself to be a closet liberal when he gets confirmed? Probably not as dramatically as Warren, but there are a few reasons to believe he will. The knocks on him for having conservative leanings come, in my opinion, from his adherence to precedent. He has a very low overturn rate, and has a reputation for not being very adventurous in pushing precedent he doesn't like. Faithfully following conservative precedent, of which there is quite a bit from the Burger-Rehnquist-Roberts Courts, does not make him an adherent of that judicial philosophy, it just makes him a judge who values stare decisis. While that likely comes from some preference for stability in the law and will likely persist to some degree when he is on the bench, Supreme Court justices are obviously less precedent-bound than circuit court judges, so that should be less of a constraint on exercising his preferences. He is almost certainly not a closet Ginsberg, but Obama's team probably nominated him for reasons other than just tweaking Orrin Hatch. They have been pretty competent on judicial nominations, so it's likely they have some decent basis for confidence in his landing somewhere on the left. And maybe most importantly, he's a human being and he's unlikely to forget which side has been slamming him without any justification for crass political gain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Kagan was never a judge before SCOTUS, was she? So there's still a chance of Caro being a Supreme Court Justice under President Trump?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Gyges posted:He's almost certainly not withdrawing Garland for any reason because it lends legitimacy to the bullshit idiocy that the Republicans are putting forward that a President's term is actually only 3 years with a 1 year vagrancy charge pending. The hell it does. The Republicans are trying to say the President shouldn't get a nomination during his entire last year, which is obviously idiotic. This would be pulling the nomination during the actual lame duck period between the election and the new term, which is entirely different and arguably sensible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Do your part and email your senators and tell them to put Garland to a vote. Not that John and Ted care about my opinion but I sent them a message anyway. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:The hell it does. The Republicans are trying to say the President shouldn't get a nomination during his entire last year, which is obviously idiotic. This would be pulling the nomination during the actual lame duck period between the election and the new term, which is entirely different and arguably sensible. Yes, it does. You can't argue for 9 months that the President actually does serve full 4 year terms and appointing Justices is one of his jobs, then immediately drop it after another bullshit, arbitrary, threshold is crossed. The President is still President even during the lame duck session and still has the responsibility to nominate people to fill judicial vacancies. Withdrawing the nominee Obama put forward because Hillary won and now they can usher in the Judicial Liberal Apocalypse reinforces the idiotic politics the the Republicans have been playing for almost half a year. Besides, there's no way in hell a President is giving up the naming of a Justice that there's every indication they do actually like just so their successor can fill the vacancy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Gyges I just wanted to say your take on American politics the past few pages is spot on. One nuance to add is that the GOP in congress is really stuck because they depend the bar stances they take for fundraising. So they are dooming themselves long term to raise money from fnc rubes today. Given then obesity levels of congressional republicans they probably are thinking long term anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:. Was garland obama's ideal pick or did he pick Garland because it would set up this ridiculous situation of the republicans refusing to vote on a guy they had previously said would be acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
He was nominated because the president felt that he was the person that should be the next SCOTUS justice. There is no 10th dimensional chess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was garland obama's ideal pick or did he pick Garland because it would set up this ridiculous situation of the republicans refusing to vote on a guy they had previously said would be acceptable? Yes. We're talking about a guy who tried in good faith to work with Republicans for 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:He was nominated because the president felt that he was the person that should be the next SCOTUS justice. There is no 10th dimensional chess. Obama almost certainly factored in the fact that, were Republicans to turn out to not be as intransigent as they have turned out to be, he'd still need their support for the nomination, and, in that light, must have concluded that Garland was the most likely candidate to get Republican approval. That is probably it though. Nothing deeper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Yes. It was at most 4 years, of which 2 of them he had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It was at most 4 years, of which 2 of them he had majorities in both chambers of Congress. .....no, not really. He never had a filibuster proof majority, because many of the Democrats he had the majority with sided with conservative GOP members.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was garland obama's ideal pick or did he pick Garland because it would set up this ridiculous situation of the republicans refusing to vote on a guy they had previously said would be acceptable? Nobody gets their ideal pick because there is no perfect candidate that fulfills every one of your steamy conlaw desires. Garland is a nominee that Obama feels is a good pick for the court and believes helps showcase Republican idiocy. Considering that Garland seems to be in the same general area on ideological graphic depictions as Kagan, I'm not sure he is much of a compromise at all. Garland has been on short lists for several vacancies after all. Plus this is Obama's third pick, that's pretty high for a president in the modern era so his short list is likely mighty short at this point. Edit: I guess Taft got the Supreme Court Justice of his dreams eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy? evilweasel 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It was at most 4 years, of which 2 of them he had majorities in both chambers of Congress. He had majorities in both chambers for something like ~9 months because Ted Kennedy died and they held a special election to replace him (the only reason why ACA passed was due to the interim senator voting for it) which ended in a Republican getting the seat and the number of votes dropping to 59. Instead of it being a compromise bill between the House/Senate like it usually is the House had to pass the Senate version and then amend it afterwords.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
I've seen some pieces speculating that Kennedy's leftward drift this term has been because of Scalia's absence. I don't know how much Kennedy was persuaded by Scalia's opinions, so I don't have any basis for vetting the speculation, but its an interesting take of the soft power changes (as opposed to simply the reduction of 1 conservative vote out of 9 votes total) to the Court's dynamic because of Scalia's death. Even if there isn't a major leftward shift for Kennedy's overall jurisprudence, his decision to side with the liberals in both an AA and abortion case is pretty significant. I'm curious to see the extent and duration of this evolution.Evil Fluffy posted:Garland's fairly liberal as it is. If you mean "the most liberal justice on the bench" then no. He's been around for a long time (which is the biggest concern with his pick since he'd retire 10-20 years sooner) so a late-in-life change of heart seems unlikely. He's also probably mature enough to not go ultra-left out of spite towards the GOP's bullshit. He reminds me of being in the same vein as Breyer. Generally left ideology, believes in the administrative process, has a law and order streak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:He had majorities in both chambers for something like ~9 months because Ted Kennedy died and they held a special election to replace him (the only reason why ACA passed was due to the interim senator voting for it) which ended in a Republican getting the seat and the number of votes dropping to 59. Actually it was less than that because it took a while for Franken to be seated thanks to the lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I've seen some pieces speculating that Kennedy's leftward drift this term has been because of Scalia's absence. I don't know how much Kennedy was persuaded by Scalia's opinions, so I don't have any basis for vetting the speculation, but its an interesting take of the soft power changes (as opposed to simply the reduction of 1 conservative vote out of 9 votes total) to the Court's dynamic because of Scalia's death. Even if there isn't a major leftward shift for Kennedy's overall jurisprudence, his decision to side with the liberals in both an AA and abortion case is pretty significant. I'm curious to see the extent and duration of this evolution. I doubt it's. Scalia was famously unable to persuade Kennedy from writing Casey and Whole Women's Health is basically just Breyer laying out how exactly Texas egregiously tried to use the letter of Casey against the intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:He was nominated because the president felt that he was the person that should be the next SCOTUS justice. There is no 10th dimensional chess. Making a more moderate pick you think has a better chance of getting past a Republican controlled senate (or at least make them look bad for blocking) isn't 10th dimensional chess, it's barely even checkers. I'm sure Obama thinks Garland would make a good justice, but I also don't think he would have made the same pick were the Democrats in control of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I've seen some pieces speculating that Kennedy's leftward drift this term has been because of Scalia's absence. I don't know how much Kennedy was persuaded by Scalia's opinions, so I don't have any basis for vetting the speculation, but its an interesting take of the soft power changes (as opposed to simply the reduction of 1 conservative vote out of 9 votes total) to the Court's dynamic because of Scalia's death. Even if there isn't a major leftward shift for Kennedy's overall jurisprudence, his decision to side with the liberals in both an AA and abortion case is pretty significant. I'm curious to see the extent and duration of this evolution. Could it be that he's trying to avoid ties? Like if he's on the fence about a decision, but the options are to vote with the 3 conservatives for a 4-4 decision, or the 4 liberals for a 5-3 decision, might he be more inclined to avoid the tie?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:06
|
|