|
nerve posted:Didn't Obama nominate the gops pick for Scalia No.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
One republican on the senate judiciary said offhand that Obama was only going to nominate someone socialist instead of a moderate like Merrick Garland so they shouldn't give whoever he nominates a hearing. Then Obama nominated Garland and they still told him to pound sand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What's wrong isn't that they have positions of power, what's wrong is that they obstructed Obama from doing his constitutional duty. That isn't something easy to correct, it isn't fair, but someone has to have principles at some point or it's just constant escalation and tit for tat actions and nothing ever improves in the aggregate. And how did they stop Obama from doing his constitutional duty? Exercising the power legally theirs by virtue of their control of a legislative body. How is the number of Supreme Court justices determined? By statute, which can be changed by a party exercising power legally theirs by virtue of their unified control of the legislative and executive. I don't see how anything improves in the aggregate if the party that's willing to abuse systems when they control them always get what they want, without fear that the other party will undo it when the tables are turned
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Imagine having the fate of your country depend on the health of a single one of its citizens. Who stubbornly refused to consider retirement years ago when she was already past the age that most people of means would've retired and had gone through multiple mortality scares. IF the worst happens, her family needs to loving lie and cover it up until February. atelier morgan posted:Don't worry, Biden will nominate some anti-abortion ghoul in her place if he wins to be 'fair' to the republicans, anyway mandatory lesbian posted:Truth be told I doubt Obama would have selected anyone good either, honestly this countries political options are such trash lol This is some r/chapotraphouse levels of alternate reality bad posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Enough to prevent a filibuster? Reid specifically refused to invoke the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations in 2013 so I'm not sure they would have been willing to do that back then. Maybe they would have had RBG said she'd step down, idk. They didn't have a filibuster-proof majority when Kagan was confirmed in August 2010 either She was confirmed 63-37, picking up 5 Republican votes (and losing one Democrat, Ben Nelson lol) There are enough  Republicans that Obama's pick would have won a straight up or down vote in the Senate in 2016 if he had had one, which was why McConnell chose not to have one and allowed the Republicans to performatively wring their hands about it but escape all blame.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Or you could just throw some progressives on the court and not give the GOP more chances to stack the bench with more beers. The GOP can and would just do that anyway. This argument doesn't work at all when the GOP response to Democratic senates confirming Reagan and HW Bush picks was, the first time the shoe was on the other foot, to refuse to do the same. At this point it's clear they aren't politely waiting for Democrats to be the first ones to abuse their power before following.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The GOP can and would just do that anyway. Robert Bork could not be reached for comment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Robert Bork could not be reached for comment. There is a huge difference between rejecting a single nominee, and refusing to allow the president to nominate anyone (which is what we are talking about), and I think you know that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Robert Bork could not be reached for comment. Oh, the nominee who got a floor vote and was rejected?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
It is loving hilarious that conservatives still bring up Bork when even if you ignore his absolutely psychotic beliefs carried out the Saturday Night Massacre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The GOP can and would just do that anyway. Not sure what you're arguing? Yes the GOP can and have gleefully abused the system for their own benefit.The Dems have largely refused to do the same and are resultingly getting hosed. Dems should shed decorum and abuse the system back because desperately clinging to it isn't going to make the GOP stop. poo poo's hosed: recognize it, embrace it, use it to your advantage the second you can to gently caress the GOP over. Anything less than that is ceding more ground to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It is loving hilarious that conservatives still bring up Bork when even if you ignore his absolutely psychotic beliefs carried out the Saturday Night Massacre. It's less hilarious when realizing how much worse the GOP has gotten since then and how much more potent the right wing media is at disseminating propaganda. Robert Bork would absolutely have been confirmed by the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Beer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There is a huge difference between rejecting a single nominee, and refusing to allow the president to nominate anyone (which is what we are talking about), and I think you know that. The president did nominate him. McConnell just refused to do his part of it. Putting on my devil's advocate, the senate doesn't have to vote no in order to withhold its consent in the advice in consent clause. The opposite is true, it, the senate, has to vote yes to affirm consent. Really though it was all Garland was theater. Like Mr Nice said above, McConnell said he wasn't going to allow a vote so Obama specifically chose a candidate Garland that McConnell previously said was acceptable to put McConnell in a bind of hypocrisy. Fun fact though: Republicans dont give a poo poo and are fine in being called hypocrites by Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's less hilarious when realizing how much worse the GOP has gotten since then and how much more potent the right wing media is at disseminating propaganda. Robert Bork would absolutely have been confirmed by the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Beer. Fox News was essentially created to prevent another GOP presidential resignation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Republicans will of course abuse their power on anything having to do with judicial appointments but it’s not like they run on “I will abuse my power” for the most part. They just lie or at best omit how they’re going to act. It’s like Susan Collins saying Roe v. Wade would be safe under Kavanaugh. That’s why you’re probably not gonna see either party, even Republicans, promising to pack the court. Maybe it’ll happen at some point but why would they telegraph it ahead of time outside of the activist fringe? yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
They already packed the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Republicans will of course abuse their power on anything having to do with judicial appointments but it’s not like they run on “I will abuse my power” for the most part. They just lie or at best omit how they’re going to act. It’s like Susan Collins saying Roe v. Wade would be safe under Kavanaugh. Republicans pretty openly talk about packing/rigging the courts though. That "GOP vows to rig courts in their favor forever, gently caress Democrats" isn't a word-for-word chryon on Fox News (yet) doesn't make it any less so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The president did nominate him. McConnell just refused to do his part of it. Putting on my devil's advocate, the senate doesn't have to vote no in order to withhold its consent in the advice in consent clause. The opposite is true, it, the senate, has to vote yes to affirm consent. That's true but I was explaining the difference between the Bork/Kennedy confirmation process and the Garland confirmation process. It wasn't the same thing. yronic heroism posted:Republicans will of course abuse their power on anything having to do with judicial appointments but it’s not like they run on “I will abuse my power” for the most part. They just lie or at best omit how they’re going to act. It’s like Susan Collins saying Roe v. Wade would be safe under Kavanaugh. Yeah if you were going to do it as a Democrat, the right strategy would be to come up with some bullshit lie about what you're doing and why, and stick to it. The other side doesn't have to believe it, just like no one believed McConnell, it just has to be something to make your own voters feel better about supporting it and muddy the waters enough for the people in the middle to throw up their hands and say "how can we ever know what to believe"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:They already packed the courts. Quibbling over the definition of court-packing vs “changing the number of judges/justices” is not what this is about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Republicans will of course abuse their power on anything having to do with judicial appointments but it’s not like they run on “I will abuse my power” for the most part. They just lie or at best omit how they’re going to act. It’s like Susan Collins saying Roe v. Wade would be safe under Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Please point out to me how abortion rights have suffered with kav on the court? The slam dunk case abut needing admitting privileges went... pro-choice, did it not? It went more on the "c'mon this is literally the exact facts as the last one that was just decided, try harder next time" side than "pro-choice", and both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch dissented. Roberts joined the liberal side literally only because precedent and he doesn't want the court to lose all respectability amongst the normal people. Kavanaugh was absolutely willing to overturn the precedent and ram through a pro-life decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Medical_Services,_LLC_v._Russo#Supreme_Court posted:Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the judgment of the four, but not on their opinion. Roberts wrote that while he maintained his dissent against the majority opinion from WWH, he joined the majority judgement in this case out of respect for court precedent set by WWH.[32][34][35] Roberts wrote "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."[33] Piell fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jul 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
If rbg goes brain dead should keep her on life support to watch conservatives suddenly become staunch anti-life-support/compassionate end of lifers. Just for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
If Democrats ever control the presidency and the senate simultaneously, the nominally left justices should all immediately resign and be replaced with double the number of 25 year old socialist law school graduates. The Republicans are abducting people in the streets of Portland and people are seriously arguing about preserving the the court as a nonpartisan body. Do the same for the rest of the federal judiciary, nothing but the best left wing lawyers you can find under the age of 30. If they get 2/3rd of the senate somehow and control of the house then impeach the republicans on the bench as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
At this point I'm expecting biden to win and RBG to say well there's no need to rush into a politically motivated resignation, I'll stay on till I literally die Then she'll live till 2022 when the republicans take the house and senate and they'll impeach and remove biden and his VP and get to replace her anyways
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Piell posted:Kavanaugh was absolutely willing to overturn the precedent and ram through a pro-life decision. And it was obvious enough that coincidentally Susan Collins released a statement right afterward saying "no, there doesn't appear to be any reason to think that he'd overturn Roe".
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Close, except it'll be Amy Comey Barret. Watching the left throw a collective aneurism when they can't throw sexist (woman), rapist (again, woman), or racist (2 of her kids are adopted from Haiti) at her, and might have to consider her on merits, will be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
amy comey barret on the merits: "well, she said would abolish west virginia if it wasn't a republican state"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:amy comey barret on the merits: "well, she said would abolish west virginia if it wasn't a republican state" Coney like the rabbit, not Comey like the reason we have Trump
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:Coney like the rabbit, not Comey like the reason we have Trump Who cares how that Christian Dominist rear end in a top hat's name is spelled? gently caress her and the bootlickers who are dumb enough to think her merits matter to the GOP beyond "is even more of a religious extremist than Mike Pence."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:One republican on the senate judiciary said offhand that Obama was only going to nominate someone socialist instead of a moderate like Merrick Garland so they shouldn't give whoever he nominates a hearing. Then Obama nominated Garland and they still told him to pound sand. It was Orrin Hatch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Surprising no one, the SCOTUS will not expedite their ruling for Congress w/r/t Trump's tax returns because the conservatives sure as poo poo know that in no way is it good for Trump, the GOP, or their own interests for Congress to get its hands on information that is all but certain to drat Trump and all his sycophants by proxy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Surprising no one, the SCOTUS will not expedite their ruling for Congress w/r/t Trump's tax returns because the conservatives sure as poo poo know that in no way is it good for Trump, the GOP, or their own interests for Congress to get its hands on information that is all but certain to drat Trump and all his sycophants by proxy. To quote someone I can't remember, the court is going to rule that the President is subject to congressional subpoenas, but postdate it to Biden
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:To quote someone I can't remember, the court is going to rule that the President is subject to congressional subpoenas, but postdate it to Biden Without a doubt. Meanwhile if we're lucky, AG Bharara will be busy seizing the financial information of the Trump organization and all the adult members of the family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:AG Bharara God, that phrase gives me genuine shivers of pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Who cares how that Christian Dominist rear end in a top hat's name is spelled? gently caress her and the bootlickers who are dumb enough to think her merits matter to the GOP beyond "is even more of a religious extremist than Mike Pence." Completely serious: there are enough people with similar names that it's much harder to keep them straight if people here don't use their actual names. It's a coin toss on any given day if I can remember who floorshitter is because I only run into him in discussions on SA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:AG Bharara Sarcastro posted:God, that phrase gives me genuine shivers of pleasure. I'm with you on that. I love Preet for that, so... you think Bharara, Schiff, Harris... Berman?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:amy comey barret on the merits: "well, she said would abolish west virginia if it wasn't a republican state" Her reasoning is incredibly loving dumb, she's an idiot and her law degree is a joke, which is why trump is going to nominate her. Like imagine considering even for a second what Virginia would think about this, after they seceded from the Union to join another nation. I bet she's got some fun views on reconstruction too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's less hilarious when realizing how much worse the GOP has gotten since then and how much more potent the right wing media is at disseminating propaganda. Robert Bork would absolutely have been confirmed by the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Beer. i'm not convinced at all, there's a very good chance that he would have gotten, while not borked, miersed
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
there's a ton of internal SCOTUS leaks in here that don't typically get made public: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1287738230088044545 Of note: the reason the 2nd Amendment cases keep getting denied is Roberts has told other conservatives he's not on board with Mandated Guns For All
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Also of note: the Georgia copyright case was an example of why Thomas never gets decisions where the rest of the majority is concerned about keeping their majority: he was initially the drafter of the majority opinion in that case and went so far into nutjobland, he lost his majority to Roberts who was writing the main dissent. (thomas's majority opinion wound up keeping only alito, lawl)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 15:43
|
|