|
PerniciousKnid posted:He's a moronic pushover who will do whatever the (hyper conservative) people around him say to do. This exactly. If the campaign and the immediate aftermath of the election have taught us anything it's that Trump becomes whatever the last person to speak with him wanted. He is putty in the hands of anyone with a calm, reassuring voice and a swift hand with the flattery. This describes Pence perfectly, let alone Christie and Gingrich and Giuliani and whatever other grime elementals he's summoned to serve in his administration.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Lmao look at this guy who thinks Loving is safe and settled law.  Nocturtle posted:Didn't West Virginia go something like +40% for Trump? I'm guessing that's -1D right there. Remember, he's the Democrat who had a campaign ad where he was literally shooting Obamacare with a rifle. He also was iffy on whether or not he'd stay a Democrat in a 50/50 tie. So he's not exactly super-reliable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. He released a list of potential picks ages ago. They're all Teaparty wonderkinds who would slash every Supreme Court decision related to gay rights to shreds. Nobody gives a gently caress that Trump is willing to let gays grovel in his presence. Fuckwit conservatives have been saying garbage like that for more than anyone here has been alive, and it's never stopped them from loving with us. gently caress even Anita Bryant did nothing but go on about how they had nothing againt gay people. Who the gently caress do you think you're fooling you dumb piece of poo poo? e: Like no, Trump whined about how taking away the states rights to discriminate against us was a huge injustice, but he just loves us all so much he'd never do anything that could negatively affect us! Schizotek fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I'm seeing a lot of personal interest and not much interest in social welfare or principle in these responses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:I'm seeing a lot of personal interest and not much interest in social welfare or principle in these responses. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the rights of people like me to marry their partners, or for women to have access to abortion, weremere personal interest and in no way matters of social welfare or principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Pussy Cartel posted:I'm sorry, I didn't realize the rights of people like me to marry their partners, or for women to have access to abortion, weremere personal interest and in no way matters of social welfare or principle. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3270616&userid=217262 Or a highlight from the Texas thread regarding his support for bathroom laws Number Ten Cocks posted:The fear isn't of actual transgendered people, it's of giving access to creeps who don't mind faking it to get a little peek. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Also I hope any Trump nominee is someone who Roberts absolutely despises, is an open and obnoxious racist, and who constantly thanks him for ending the VRA. David Duke could sit next to Roberts on the SCOTUS and constantly backslap him for gutting the VRA and Roberts wouldn't change his view on it. Roberts has always hated the VRA and killing it entirely is a long time dream of his. joepinetree posted:I can say with a lot of certainty that the people who know who the DNC chair is and what role they do are not the people who stayed home. You don't make Dean DNC chair because yes, it would 100% absolutely be used in the 2018 and 2020 elections. You do have Ellison or someone else made DNC chair and welcome Dean to the table of ideas but he doesn't need to be the head of the DNC. Dean basically did the thing that third parties refuse to do to make themselves actual viable political parties. It resulted in a ton of Dem gains and oh hey after abandoning that the GOP holds total control over a majority of states and split control in most of those that remain. mcmagic posted:Jeff Merkley was very encouraging on this and seemed to imply that the Dems would filibuster any nominee Trump puts up because of how the seat was stolen from the Obama administration. All Trump has to do is make sure Garland's name is on his shortlist of nominees, and then when he announces someone else his surrogates can go out with the message of "we went over his information, both our own and what Obama had, and decided ultimately to go with someone else." Is Trump savvy enough to thread that needle? Doubtful, but the media would happily run with "Trump looked across the aisle, Dems are being stubborn babies" when they filibuster his actual pick. Or Trump actually nominates Garland, the GOP vote him down "on the merits" or whatever, and the Dems are left with no way to oppose his next pick without getting savaged by everyone. If the GOP get in lock step on this they could completely shame the Democrats because the media sure as poo poo isn't going to call them out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
You guys realize "run a candidate in literally every election" is not some ultra complex mystery that can only be divined and articulated by wise guru *~*Howard Dean*~* right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You guys realize "run a candidate in literally every election" is not some ultra complex mystery that can only be divined and articulated by wise guru *~*Howard Dean*~* right? It is to Democrats apparently. Dean's advantage would be more successfully browbeating existing DNC members into doing things differently. You know, only Nixon can go to China and all that. (ie, only an insider could implement meaningful change without discarding decades of institutional knowledge). But if Bernie wants a new person to burn it all down (pun intended) then go with it because he's apparently the only democrat in a national elected position that knows what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I am worried about Roe, even though it's solidly based on the logical consequences of Loving, etc. Conservatives love nothing more than ignoring legal precedent in the furtherance of conservative causes. Honestly, if they're willing to pull an eleven justice Supreme Court, I'm not convinced Loving is safe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
It appears Keith Ellison may get the nod which would be great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Honestly, if they're willing to pull an eleven justice Supreme Court, I'm not convinced Loving is safe. Judging by the sorts of people cheering on Trump and throwing their whole-hearted support behind him, I'm half expecting Republicans to be close to putting Loving on the chopping block.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You guys realize "run a candidate in literally every election" is not some ultra complex mystery that can only be divined and articulated by wise guru *~*Howard Dean*~* right? It's not just about running candidates, the biggest innovation in the 50 state strategy was actually putting resources into those races in terms of money, time, visits by high-profile Democrats, etc., instead of putting all those resources into key races and swing states. It's a holistic strategy of identifying people you want to run in all 50 states, getting them to run, supporting them when they do run, and promoting them to run for higher positions if they're successful. Compared to the current Democratic strategy which is to basically ignore every race except those ones that are seem as really important, and to sink all of your time and resources into those key races, a strategy that has demonstrably failed over the last six years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Its also a point that the 50 state strategy involved spending resources that could have been used to elect cronies that would otherwise be unelectable. Dean got punted for "not playing the game", which had nothing to do with winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
The other thing is that the 50 State Initiative wasn't just putting warm bodies in slots on the outside chance something happened. You have to actually recruit people who have some sort of chance on their own, even if it's minuscule in a solid Republican district. District 4 in Florida is a solidly Republican district. This year there was a Democrat who ran for the seat. He ran because he didn't feel it was right for the Republican to run unopposed. This was his 5th or 6th hopeless attempt done on principle in as many different electoral positions. He was approximately half a step beyond a write in candidate and decided that the Bernie model of fund raising was the right and noble way. So the multiple loser with no real chance and no recognition designed his campaign around small donations from the common man, who didn't even know he existed. He is exactly the type of candidate you get if all you do is throw warm bodies at every race you can instead of actually investing effort into every race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what extra-textual limitations to the commerce clause John Roberts is able to pull out of his rear end!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I can't wait to see what extra-textual limitations to the commerce clause John Roberts is able to pull out of his rear end! Overturning Raich v. Gonzalez's "literally everything anywhere ever is interstate commerce" bullshit would be a great start, but idk if they'd go through with it. Trump would lose lots of power if they did that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Overturning Raich v. Gonzalez's "literally everything anywhere ever is interstate commerce" bullshit would be a great start, but idk if they'd go through with it. Trump would lose lots of power if they did that. Raich v. Gonzalez was decided correctly hth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Raich v. Gonzalez was decided correctly hth. I'm well aware of the reasoning behind it. Ensuring that you can do stuff non-profit under your own roof in a state where it's legal and remain unmolested is more important to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Raich v. Gonzalez was decided correctly hth. If it was tobacco it would have come out the other way. Scalia, at least, was explicit that drugs are special.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a wee tiny happy homonculus, and this is the only time I will ever say "I wish Scalia had been alive to see this".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
A thing popped on my facebook about Obama/SCOTUS. Wondering if it is true. It said that when the Senate is in recess, POTUS can appoint a SCOTUS without approval. Is this true? If so, other than pissing off the right, why shouldn't he do this? You know the right would do it in the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
The GOP controls Congress so they can just stay in session until Trump is sworn in. It's a dead mechanism if the President and Congress are not from the same party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:A thing popped on my facebook about Obama/SCOTUS. Wondering if it is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
The new Senate is sworn in before the new president, meaning that while Obama is still president the Senate must gavel out, however briefly, because that Senate ends and a new one begins. During that interval the president can make a recess appointment. A recess appointment lasts until the end of the "next session" of the Senate. If this was attempted with a Supreme Court justice in the four seconds between sessions, the new senate would probably just gavel out the new session immediately, thus ending the recess appointment. That's not really in keeping with tradition, but then again neither is recess appointing a Supreme Court justice, or for that matter deciding black presidents' terms only last approx. three years. Obama will not do this because he doesn't get cute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Also because then Garland would no longer be on the federal court right below SCOTUS and that would leave another opening for Republicans to fill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:The new Senate is sworn in before the new president, meaning that while Obama is still president the Senate must gavel out, however briefly, because that Senate ends and a new one begins. During that interval the president can make a recess appointment. I think he might. There is literally no reason for him not to and when you hear senators talking about how this is the actual theft of a seat, I think the democrats might actually grow a set on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think he might. There is literally no reason for him not to and when you hear senators talking about how this is the actual theft of a seat, I think the democrats might actually grow a set on this. His recess appointment won't last and it removes him from the federal circuit spot. It isn't going to happen. I still believe in the hypothetical world that if clinton won that Garland would already be confirmed, but as it is he's going to go down in history as being completely loving snubbed by republicans because he got nominated by a black guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
So Obama could recess appoint someone other than Garland. Somebody not in a federal court position that would be lost. A law school prof or a former AG or something. He probably won't, and the Republicans would just make it the shortest-serving Supreme Court appointee ever if he did, but he could if he wanted to send some kind of message by it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
So, Donald Trump is making mouth-sounds about preserving gay marriage and the like. Knowing that this is actually up to the Supreme Court at this stage, I think this is absurd at face value, but I'm open to being wrong. So... Is there any such thing as a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade while preserving Obergefell? I already know nobody on his 'short list' from a few months ago would qualify, but does such a justice even exist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Would the court even overturn Roe v. Wade? The court's had a conservative majority for decades, why haven't they done it already, or made abortion flat out unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So, Donald Trump is making mouth-sounds about preserving gay marriage and the like. Knowing that this is actually up to the Supreme Court at this stage, I think this is absurd at face value, but I'm open to being wrong. So... The funniest thing was his rationale. He said he had no interest in overturning Obergefell because the Supreme Court had decided and now it's settled law, but that he would overturn Roe v Wade and leave abortion up to the states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So, Donald Trump is making mouth-sounds about preserving gay marriage and the like. Knowing that this is actually up to the Supreme Court at this stage, I think this is absurd at face value, but I'm open to being wrong. So... Maybe Trump was just pandering and doesn't actually give a poo poo about abortion or gay marriage. Hell, maybe Trump will renominate Garland as a moderate (which he is). At this point, nothing would surprise me. He could nominate literally anyone and I wouldn't be shocked. Ted Cruz, Garland, or a relative of his - all equally possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Trump was just pandering It turns out Trump has this thing where he says things that aren't true! Trump, and the Rs, will attempt to overturn whichever set of caselaw they believe will give them power. It is likely that this will involve overturning both lines.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Would the court even overturn Roe v. Wade? The court's had a conservative majority for decades, why haven't they done it already, or made abortion flat out unconstitutional? It's been slowly getting pushed back for decades, only being held up because O'Connor and now Kennedy are the swing votes on the issue. But it's nowhere near as strong as it was prior, given the poo poo that's been going on in red states. Considering it's what the social conservative wing of the Republican party wants, and they keep saying that they want a litmus test for the Supreme Court, it's going to go away if RBG or Kennedy dies or steps down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So Obama could recess appoint someone other than Garland. Somebody not in a federal court position that would be lost. A law school prof or a former AG or something. If he nominates someone else the republicans sue and it goes in front of Garland's court, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
There are almost certainly conlaw theories where Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional but Obergefell is not. But I don't see the Trump administration digging through binders full of conservative jurists to find just the right guy to thread that needle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I can see legally how you could overturn Roe but it would be way harder to do the same for Obergfell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I can see legally how you could overturn Roe but it would be way harder to do the same for Obergfell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Why? It's the same situation. Overturn either and it goes back to the states, varying between legal and illegal depending on what state you're in. Obergefell being overturned means they don't get any federal recognition and life sucks, but them's the breaks. Its because of the basis for the law. Roe v Wade required effectively created the right to an abortion under the penumbral due process right to privacy declared in Griswold. It doesn't have an independent legal basis. Obergefell is a flat equal protection claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|