|
I'm looking a bit further into the proceedings, and I'm behind the times. The district court had already entered its ruling pursuant to the 4th circuit's ruling allowing GG to use the boy's restroom. This denial from SCOTUS is following from that specifically. The 4th circuit denied them a rehearing after the district court ruling. I'm not sure that the supreme court officially denied cert or just kicked the can down the road to the next conference, though.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
SCOTUS took no action, so the lower court ruling would stand I believe. It was not remanded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:The big difference is that you have to follow precedent when you are a a judge for the circuit court. His personal opinions could be different and as a supreme court judge he can set the precedent rather than follow it. I recall a news story where someone claimed he was picked to prosecute Timothy McVeigh because he is a very thorough, by the book man. The idea was he would not leave any real openings for appeal. Maybe there is potential he will take a dim view of sloppy/lazy investigation or prosecutions. I'm not expecting him to be any more lenient on defendants than the current court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I recall a news story where someone claimed he was picked to prosecute Timothy McVeigh because he is a very thorough, by the book man. The idea was he would not leave any real openings for appeal. Maybe there is potential he will take a dim view of sloppy/lazy investigation or prosecutions. I'm not expecting him to be any more lenient on defendants than the current court. I mean, this is significantly more likely. He isn't going to be any more strict than we can already see, but there is a chance he might be more lenient. Especially over the coming years since lots of justices seem to drift left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
And, McCain stops pretending that any Clinton nominees could ever be acceptable:quote:McCain promised that Republicans would be "united against any Supreme Court nominee" put forth by Clinton. Time to get rid of any sort of filibuster rule at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS took no action, so the lower court ruling would stand I believe. It was not remanded. Lower court ruling stands, but what I'm saying is they didn't flat out deny certiori, so it might be picked up at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And, McCain stops pretending that any Clinton nominees could ever be acceptable: Gonna be awesome when another justice or three kick the bucket/retire and we have a full blown constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:The big difference is that you have to follow precedent when you are a a judge for the circuit court. His personal opinions could be different and as a supreme court judge he can set the precedent rather than follow it. I agree, I'm asking whether there is any reason to believe Garland's personal opinions are in fact different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
botany posted:I agree, I'm asking whether there is any reason to believe Garland's personal opinions are in fact different. Not really. I think there's a decent chance that Obama picked Garland knowing that personally he might be a little more to the left than his record shows but that's 100% speculation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And, McCain stops pretending that any Clinton nominees could ever be acceptable: Remember, his nomination isn't being filibustered, the Judicial Committee is refusing to acknowledge that Obama has given them a nomination to consider. It has to get thru them before it can get a vote / be filibustered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
duz posted:Remember, his nomination isn't being filibustered, the Judicial Committee is refusing to acknowledge that Obama has given them a nomination to consider. It has to get thru them before it can get a vote / be filibustered. And Garland is going to be almost unanimously confirmed within a week of  being elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
With 50 seats, could they add a rule to the senate that automatically brings Supreme Court nominees through the committee if not denied within some number, say 90 days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:With 50 seats, could they add a rule to the senate that automatically brings Supreme Court nominees through the committee if not denied within some number, say 90 days? These are all formalities entirely decided upon by the senate. The committee that is holding up Garland will not be holding up any of Clinton's appointments if there are 51+ democratic senators. There's no way short of amendment to force the senate to act, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
duz posted:Remember, his nomination isn't being filibustered, the Judicial Committee is refusing to acknowledge that Obama has given them a nomination to consider. It has to get thru them before it can get a vote / be filibustered. If it goes to committee, is there any possibility the Democrats stop it at that point to give the nomination to Hillary instead of Obama?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Unlikely, the party line so far has been that the President has the right to be President no matter which year of their term it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Is there some system to bypass congressional gridlock on SC appointments after x amount of time
Relin fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Chuu posted:If it goes to committee, is there any possibility the Democrats stop it at that point to give the nomination to Hillary instead of Obama? If it goes that far, no. It’s more likely that Garland will yank his own name, or even that Obama will. Democrats shooting Garland down would validate everything the GOP has been saying and doing for nine months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Relin posted:Is there some system to bypass congressional gridlock one SC appointments after x amount of time Recess appointments, but they’re temporary, and you only get one per Senate session these days. You have to do it in the moment between the old Senate being gavelled out and the new Senate being gavelled in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
If the Dems get a majority they can just end the filibuster. Hopefully they're not too scared to do it this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Garland isn't going to withdraw his own name and Obama isn't going to withdraw him either. Senate democrats could do nothing right now if the republicans wanted him approved. The committee is just a formality. They could technically call a vote at basically any time, which they will immediately after Clinton is declared the winner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Garland isn't going to withdraw his own name and Obama isn't going to withdraw him either. Senate democrats could do nothing right now if the republicans wanted him approved. The committee is just a formality. They could technically call a vote at basically any time, which they will immediately after Clinton is declared the winner. Of course the GOP can approve him now. The question is whether the Democrats should let them have their cake and eat it to by approving Garland the day after they lose the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Of course the GOP can approve him now. The question is whether the Democrats should let them have their cake and eat it to by approving Garland the day after they lose the election. This comes up on every page in this thread. Yes they should. If they rescind the nomination it plays well for the Republicans "See, they didn't actually intend for us to confirm him! It was just to make us look bad!" I posted this in the USPOL thread but maybe I should put it at the top of every page here 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I was right, the Republicans will never vote to confirm any Dem nominee ever again. I was right.  I was right; PM me your apologies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
This is why is Obama made a secret deal for Garland to withdraw his own name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:This is why is Obama made a secret deal for Garland to withdraw his own name. no
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:These are all formalities entirely decided upon by the senate. The committee that is holding up Garland will not be holding up any of Clinton's appointments if there are 51+ democratic senators. There's no way short of amendment to force the senate to act, though. That's why you have to change the rules to avoid this bullshit next Congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Of course the GOP can approve him now. The question is whether the Democrats should let them have their cake and eat it to by approving Garland the day after they lose the election. Obama nominated Garland to the supreme court. There is no "have your cake and eat it too" here - Garland is someone Obama wants on the supreme court and deserves a vote on the subject. If after election day there the senate does not vote before the recess Obama will recess appoint him. Obama will then nominate him again the instant the next congress convenes. If he is not confirmed by inauguration day Clinton* will nominate him again and publicly state its Obama's nominee, not hers. That is the principle the democrats are trying to hold the republicans to. The constitution had the recess appointment as a back stop in case the senate didn't do its job and vote on a nominee. Unfortunately congressmen no longer have farms to go home to tend to so congress is continuously in session. *if Trump wins nuclear hellfire will make Garland appointment moot
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Obama nominated Garland to the supreme court. There is no "have your cake and eat it too" here - Garland is someone Obama wants on the supreme court and deserves a vote on the subject. If after election day there the senate does not vote before the recess Obama will recess appoint him. Obama will then nominate him again the instant the next congress convenes. If he is not confirmed by inauguration day Clinton* will nominate him again and publicly state its Obama's nominee, not hers. That is the principle the democrats are trying to hold the republicans to. It’s not his fault that Garland is a busy man who has “decided to withdraw [him]self from consideration for Justice of the Supreme Court to focus on [his] family and work”.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s not his fault that Garland is a busy man who has “decided to withdraw [him]self from consideration for Justice of the Supreme Court to focus on [his] family and work”. please back this up with anything garland has said, or anything obama has said, or anything garland has done, or anything obama has done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And Garland is going to be almost unanimously confirmed within a week of Only if the GOP loses the Senate. If they hold it I could see the leadership ramping up the gently caress Clinton machine to a whole new level and just refusing to pay her any heed since they know the odds are heavily in their favor to make large gains in 2018 as well. Mr. Nice! posted:These are all formalities entirely decided upon by the senate. The committee that is holding up Garland will not be holding up any of Clinton's appointments if there are 51+ democratic senators. There's no way short of amendment to force the senate to act, though. Passing a regular law could go a long ways but lol at the idea Ryan would even think about allowing a House vote on that sort of thing. Chuu posted:If it goes to committee, is there any possibility the Democrats stop it at that point to give the nomination to Hillary instead of Obama? Obama is not going to pull Garland's nomination. Period. Garland withdrawing himself would be the only way and honestly at this point he'd probably rather make the GOP run out the clock than give any credence to them ignoring his nomination like they have. The only real question is: When the new Congress is sworn in days before Obama leaves office, would he re-nominate Garland to the new Congress or just let Clinton have it at that point? Because it is 100% within his authority to put forth new nominations even in his final days in office but by that point he might just let Clinton take over unless she makes it clear, publicly, that she wants Garland on the bench too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
ulmont posted:That's why you have to change the rules to avoid this bullshit next Congress. What I'm saying is the rules aren't set in stone. They can amend senate rules at any time. The senate still has to approve presidential nominees. There is nothing that can be done to force them if the majority says no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
I'm still not sure why people are so insistent that Garland should be withdrawn and the immortal ghost of Communism be nominated. He's replacing Scalia. Attila the Hun would move the court to the left, and Garland's only real knock seems to be his age. Let him take Scalia's seat, and then let Hillary's first nominee be picked by Hillary and the Lady Justices getting together and choosing RBG's replacement. Then it's a race between Kennedy, Breyer, and Thomas to be the second person replaced by Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
“He’s replacing Scalia” is a Republican argument, and it’s irrelevant. The president should put the best possible candidate in the seat. Political capital is worthless these days. Obama/Hillary would gain nothing by appointing Garland, and sacrifice perhaps twenty years years of court control. You can’t count on having “enough” justices. If I told you a few years ago that the Senate would refuse, for nine months, to consider the president’s nominee, you would have dismissed the idea. Yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
You don't need an amendment or a law to require votes on nominees, just a Senate rule. The chambers set their own rules on administrative matters guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:You don't need an amendment or a law to require votes on nominees, just a Senate rule. The chambers set their own rules on administrative matters guys. And those rules can be changed effectively on a whim. There's nothing that can be done outside of a constitutional amendment to force the senate to act if a majority wants to obstruct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“He’s replacing Scalia” is a Republican argument, and it’s irrelevant. Why would anyone be surprised by obstructionism a few years ago? Unless few = 8+
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“He’s replacing Scalia” is a Republican argument, and it’s irrelevant. Obama thinks Garland is the best pick, why is this so drat hard for people to understand? He was one of the people considered during prior vacancies too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm still not sure why people are so insistent that Garland should be withdrawn and the immortal ghost of Communism be nominated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“He’s replacing Scalia” is a Republican argument, and it’s irrelevant. No, no it's really not. Appointing a turnip to fill Scalia's seat significantly swings the court to the left, assuming the turnip votes with the liberal block. Replacing Scalia with a moderate or centrist or even a Kennedy conservative is a big win. The Republican argument is that since Scalia's seat is being filled it is owed to the conservatives to fill it. That they own the seat and Obama is stealing it from them. The argument put forth here and in other places is that while Garland isn't the unholy love child of RBG and Sotomayor, he's a perfectly fine nominee that significantly moves the balance of the court leftward. The only significant argument against him I've seen so far is that he isn't a 30 year old judge with a long family history of centenarians. So instead of 3-4 decades on the court we're only guaranteeing 2-3. quote:The president should put the best possible candidate in the seat. Garland has been on the short list of nominees for quite a while now. There is absolutely no reason to think that he isn't the choice of Obama instead of a weak and halfhearted attempt at compromise or 12th dimensional chess. Obama knew that anyone he put up would be stonewalled by the Republicans and he went with a guy he had been considering before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
BiohazrD posted:This comes up on every page in this thread. Yes they should. Everyone's watched Deal or No Deal at least once. They get that the buy-out amount changes after every round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:12
|
|
