|
if by they you mean the democratic house, then yea, and half the democratic presidential field would Ben on board
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Javid posted:I feel like they'd actually impeach her at that point Yeah I'm sure the Democrats running the House would just line up to impeach RBG and give Trump the chance to cement the Federalist Society's control over the SCOTUS for the next half century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yeah I'm sure the Democrats running the House would just line up to impeach RBG and give Trump the chance to cement the Federalist Society's control over the SCOTUS for the next half century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Why would RBG care what the current crop of dumbass politicians think? She's been in office longer than some of them have been alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kellyo/status/1198389061955866627?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Thread title is still sadly accurate
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
it is 424 days until January 20, 2021, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg can plausibly die on any of them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
We only have to make it to Jan 2020, Supreme Court justices are never replaced in an election year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
Mitch McConnel slowly smiling dot gif
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:Mitch McConnel slowly smiling dot gif 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1198649939603140613
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
If something happens her family needs to pull a "she's not seeing anyone go away" like McCain's did. Or find a body double to fill in for her or something. Do literally whatever it takes to make sure Trump doesn't get to replace her with another Federalist Society minion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If something happens her family needs to pull a "she's not seeing anyone go away" like McCain's did. Or find a body double to fill in for her or something. Do literally whatever it takes to make sure Trump doesn't get to replace her with another Federalist Society minion. God Emperor Bader Ginsburg in her Golden Throne
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Yes the whole republic hinges on RBG staying alive. Maybe we should focus on efforts to improve the nation that aren't dependent on the health and well-being of people in their mid 80s?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Yes the whole republic hinges on RBG staying alive. Well we tried that but I was told that she just wasn’t “inspiring” enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:God Emperor Bader Ginsburg in her Golden Throne I was going to make a Weekend at Bernie's joke, but this is actually the better reference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Can someone explain this case and what's going to happen? https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1198973108532711424
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:Can someone explain this case and what's going to happen? MJS is getting a little hysterical here (though only a little). It isn't the end of the administrative state; it's the return of judicial invalidation of regulations on substantive grounds, the old "substantive due process" era. (Aka Lochner.) Only it's done in trappings that are acceptable to legal conservatives in a way that SDP isn't. Basically, the Court is setting up to be able to say "no, Congress can't give an executive agency the power to decide that question" on a question-by-question basis. They're not going to wholesale invalidate agencies, they're going to enable themselves to neuter regulations they don't like on a piecemeal basis. Ironically, it's a form of something that Gorsuch's dissent described—it's a hydraulic change. Starved of the ability to invalidate regulations via a substantive due process approach, the Court is going to find an alternative route to do so via non-delegation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
A Democratic President in 2020 will have every single agency regulation challenged in front of a hopelessly partisan judicial system, and SCOTUS will vote 5-4 to smirk and say "a functional Congress must fix this". Never mind that as we've seen with VRA and a dozen other things, "a functional Congress" is the political science equivalent of "Homo economicus" or "a perfectly spherical frictionless cow".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
I’m bad at even basic legal stuff. So if I understand correctly this whole subject being brought up isn’t about a “ruling” changing anything but Kavanaugh signaling through an opinion he retroactively made for an older case of how he’ll vote on future cases that have to do with ruling on regulations? Is that about right? So why is this news? Of course Kavanaugh is going to rule against anything good and decent going forward I don’t see how anything has changed or been illuminated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So if I understand correctly this whole subject being brought up isn’t about a “ruling” changing anything but Kavanaugh signaling through an opinion he retroactively made for an older case of how he’ll vote on future cases that have to do with ruling on regulations? Is that about right? It's Kavanaugh saying "I voted to deny hearing this case because its the same as the older case (Gundy) and we got that right last year, but I think maybe we should strike down some future regulations on non-delegation grounds for more or less the reasons Gorsuch outlined in his Gundy dissent."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's Kavanaugh saying "I voted to deny hearing this case because its the same as the older case (Gundy) and we got that right last year, but I think maybe we should strike down some future regulations on non-delegation grounds for more or less the reasons Gorsuch outlined in his Gundy dissent." But that’ll be on a case by case basis going forward as individual cases eventually get brought up to SCOTUS over time right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:But that’ll be on a case by case basis going forward as individual cases eventually get brought up to SCOTUS over time right? Yes, but. It is possible that an individual case might be decided in a sufficiently broad manner as to completely control the outcome of some large class of cases in the future (after all, the latest partisan gerrymander basically said "Go gently caress yourself, we aren't hearing these cases, stop bringing them in federal courts."). It is likely that any individual case might be decided in a sufficiently broad manner as to control the outcome of some number of cases like it in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
I don't know why people are upset - surely this just means that the Patriot Act will immediately be neutered. Right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
The New Kremlinology. https://twitter.com/athein1/status/1198673505702727680?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:The New Kremlinology. So uh, I’m somewhat familiar with the type of treatment she received (all of which has been publicly reported) and he’s really reading in to things and making a lot of assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
I'm an utter layperson as far as medical stuff but that tweet thread definitely reads like they were working backwards from a conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
That account’s most recent tweet is linking a Federalist article about how “the msm won’t do their job” when it comes to “responsible” assessment of RGB’s health. So, yeah, not going to bother with whatever bullshit they might be peddling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
If it's a tweet then it's worthless, no need to do any further checking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:MJS is getting a little hysterical here (though only a little). It isn't the end of the administrative state; it's the return of judicial invalidation of regulations on substantive grounds, the old "substantive due process" era. (Aka Lochner.) Only it's done in trappings that are acceptable to legal conservatives in a way that SDP isn't. What’s going to happen is the conservative majority is going to nullify every thing that impedes the oligarchs and robber barons they serve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
gently caress https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1204068545765822465
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
I’m so glad SCOTUS supports bullshit science like fetal heartbeat crap
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:gently caress eke out posted:denying cert -- refusing to hear a case -- isn't the same thing as "upholding" a law btw and that tweet is bad journalism. in fact it's incredibly different because it has no precedential effect
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
i often think about how cool and good it is that hillary's incompetence cost 2+ seats on the scotus
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Relin posted:i often think about how cool and good it is that hillary's incompetence cost 2+ seats on the scotus Don't worry, Democrats are going to find a way to gently caress up next year too. Or the leadership and major media outlets will drop the facade if Sanders or Warren win and just openly embrace the GOP to keep their wealth. FWIW she only cost 1 seat so far unless you think Kennedy would've still resigned and that Clinton would've agreed to nominate Rapey McBeer while her Scalia replacement got ignored. The real answer continues to be 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Relin posted:i often think about how cool and good it is that hillary's incompetence cost 2+ seats on the scotus Even if she’d won, McConnell would have just held the seats open.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Even if she’d won, McConnell would have just held the seats open. 100% Don't blame this on Hillary. Pundits would have spent 4 years being concerned about this but yeah, ZERO Justices are getting confirmed by a Dem President while the GOP has the Senate. That's the new permanent status quo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Even if she’d won, McConnell would have just held the seats open. Wouldn’t these just have been 4-3 decisions the other way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Wouldn’t these just have been 4-3 decisions the other way? Kennedy likely would not have chosen to retire under a Dem president, so things would have stayed 4-4 for a while. After that it's up to which Justice kicked it next; if RBG then we get the bad kind of 4-3 decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:Don't blame this on Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 05:41
|
|
