|
Alito: "Is the FDA infallible?" Oh dear.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Sotomayor is not going to retire, who is on the conservative short list to be named to the court next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:With the SCOTUS agreeing to take up the abortion pill case I wonder how much of it is Roberts screaming at the conservatives to rule mostly/entirely in favor of the FDA unless they want to ensure Dem turnout jumps in November like it did when they issued the Dobbs ruling. Because ruling in favor of the fundie doctor group bringing this lawsuit rips away any remaining weak argument of "we totally aren't trying to outlaw abortion nationwide" the GOP has tried to make. POTUS can't ignore SCOTUS just because you are a whiny baby. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Sotomayor is not going to retire, who is on the conservative short list to be named to the court next? But really Sotomayor is being foolish if she doesn't retire at end of term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I predicted ACB to replace RBG and got laughed at. Well I mean it's an election year, it's commonly agreed among both parties that you don't replace a Justice during an election year right? /s
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:16
|
|
|
Obama didn't push back too hard against Turtle because it was a supposed-foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to win, right? I mean, I wonder what Obama could have done if he really wanted to get that appointment in before Jan 20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
duodenum posted:I mean, I wonder what Obama could have done if he really wanted to get that appointment in before Jan 20. Given more speeches and got the same outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
duodenum posted:Obama didn't push back too hard against Turtle because it was a supposed-foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to win, right? Obama didn't push back because there wasn't really anything he could do to push back, and he probably figured that making a big deal about it would just motivate GOP voters even harder. If Obama really wanted to get that appointment in before Jan 20, he was poo poo outta luck, because there isn't really anything he could have done about it except "complaining more" or "sparking a constitutional crisis".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Obama didn't push back because there wasn't really anything he could do to push back, and he probably figured that making a big deal about it would just motivate GOP voters even harder. Yeah, I remember the exact moment Scalia died, because I realized everything was hosed. Even Republicans who didn't like Trump would vote for him to keep "Scalia's seat". And McConnell knew it, too, so there was no way he was going to allow a Garland vote, because why would he? It was the ultimate motivator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I predicted ACB to replace RBG and got laughed at. When RBG refused to retire in 2014 I called her getting replaced by some right wing dipshit but I think it was more along the lines of "president Ted Cruz replaces her with standard FedSoc lackey" and less "thin-skinned orange fascist replaces her with cultist who was part of the Bush v. Gore legal team".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:With the SCOTUS agreeing to take up the abortion pill case I wonder how much of it is Roberts screaming at the conservatives to rule mostly/entirely in favor of the FDA unless they want to ensure Dem turnout jumps in November like it did when they issued the Dobbs ruling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
If you’re unhappy either the quality of Supreme Court justices nominated between 2017 and 2021 I hope you voted for Clinton. Otherwise, you have yourself to blame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If you’re unhappy either the quality of Supreme Court justices nominated between 2017 and 2021 I hope you voted for Clinton. Otherwise, you have yourself to blame. Clinton ran a poo poo campaign. That's nobody's fault but her own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
Lets not litigate 2016 AGAIN please, otherwise I'm going to start bitching about Gore 2000 and nobody wants that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Lets not litigate 2016 AGAIN please, otherwise I'm going to start bitching about Gore 2000 and nobody wants that. 18 year old me voted for Nader because he made fun of both Bush and Gore. But I live in Illinois and my vote did not matter with the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:18 year old me voted for Nader because he made fun of both Bush and Gore. But I live in Illinois and my vote did not matter with the electoral college. TBF I lived in Jersey at the time and I voted for Nader as well, not because I wanted him but because I wanted a viable 3rd party. Had I lived in a state that mattered I would have easily voted for Gore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:18 year old me voted for Nader because he made fun of both Bush and Gore. But I live in Illinois and my vote did not matter with the electoral college. 18 year old me didn’t vote at all because I didn’t care about politics at that time. But I live in Florida so my vote…oh poo poo. Sorry everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
moose47 posted:18 year old me didn’t vote at all because I didn’t care about politics at that time. But I live in Florida so my vote…oh poo poo. Sorry everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
moose47 posted:18 year old me didn’t vote at all because I didn’t care about politics at that time. But I live in Florida so my vote…oh poo poo. Sorry everyone. An individual vote is the most meaningless thing in the world. They only matter in the aggregate, and it’s the responsibility of the candidate to build the support that can win on that measure. Even the closest election a single vote is meaningless, because was it that third party vote, or was it that person who got in a car wreck on the way to the polls and didn’t vote, or any other of countless individual reasons a voter didn’t vote for a candidate. No voter is on the hook. It’s entirely the responsibility of the political apparatus. That’s their job In my life I have voted for Nader/kerry/Obamax2/clinton/spoiled ballot In no case did my vote matter
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:An individual vote is the most meaningless thing in the world. They only matter in the aggregate, and it’s the responsibility of the candidate to build the support that can win on that measure. Even the closest election a single vote is meaningless, because was it that third party vote, or was it that person who got in a car wreck on the way to the polls and didn’t vote, or any other of countless individual reasons a voter didn’t vote for a candidate. No voter is on the hook. It’s entirely the responsibility of the political apparatus. That’s their job I beg to differ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPICta8Rb9I
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 06:28
|
|
|
moose47 posted:18 year old me didn’t vote at all because I didn’t care about politics at that time. But I live in Florida so my vote…oh poo poo. Sorry everyone. That's gotta be a sixer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 09:34
|
|
|
I mean yeah, it's not about your individual vote, it's that if everyone starts going "Well my vote doesn't count" and then the Shitlord Party crawls over broken glass to uniformly vote for a fascist, well
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 12:19
|
|
|
You guys are overcomplicating this. It’s very simple. The president appoints federal judges. So if you care about who serves on the federal courts, you care who becomes president. If you don’t vote for the presidential candidate likely to choose better judges, you’re screwing yourself and everyone else. That’s it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:An individual vote is the most meaningless thing in the world. They only matter in the aggregate, and it’s the responsibility of the candidate to build the support that can win on that measure. Even the closest election a single vote is meaningless, because was it that third party vote, or was it that person who got in a car wreck on the way to the polls and didn’t vote, or any other of countless individual reasons a voter didn’t vote for a candidate. No voter is on the hook. It’s entirely the responsibility of the political apparatus. That’s their job It’s the responsibility of the candidate to entice voters to vote for them. It’s the responsibility of people to be voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:01
|
|
|
Ogmius didn’t spend every waking hour of 2016 canvassing for Clinton so it’s probably actually their fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:14
|
|
|
If you want to discuss voting and its effectiveness, take it to the electoral politics thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You guys are overcomplicating this. It’s very simple. The president appoints federal judges. So if you care about who serves on the federal courts, you care who becomes president. If you don’t vote for the presidential candidate likely to choose better judges, you’re screwing yourself and everyone else. That’s it. A national politician that wants to ensure a national policy - through courts or otherwise - has the responsibility to build a coalition that enables that. Clinton failed to do so. She bears much of the blame for why the courts jerked so far right. Any random voter bears none What you’re suggesting honestly doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. For example, there are plenty of people out there who might generally oppose abortion and specifically support the rvw repeal but also care far more about other issues. I know a couple, actually, who the democratic candidate potentially could have reached for support, but who ended up sitting out 2016 because they couldn’t stand either candidate. Similarly, a soft supporter of abortion and generally favorable of rvw who was turned off by Hillary is an entirely reasonable response to the campaign she led Hillary was a weak candidate who ran a poo poo campaign and bears a large amount of the blame for all of this, along with Obama and rbg, but mostly her tbch, and as the Trump interregnum nears its end it’s probably time to start coming to terms with the fact that Biden 2024, in many ways by his own choices, is similarly weak Vote shaming over the court might make you feel like you’re morally superior, but it’s ignoring how separated the court is from the electorate, and it’s ignoring who seeks the power to control it and it ignores that Hillary would very much have rather been the candidate in 2016 and lost, court and all, than stepped aside for somebody else Edit: Baronash posted:If you want to discuss voting and its effectiveness, take it to the electoral politics thread. Duly noted I’ll stop HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:36
|
|
|
E: off topic Back on the court, a couple of interesting cases coming up. Biggest one I expect something rotten out of is Starbucks vs McKinley. NLRB injunctions are important for being able to operate the process in a timely fashion and prevent skulduggery. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
How often does the court hear a case in October and then not rule on it by April? Three articles in a row on Washington Post were all about how three different states with racist gerrymandered districts had not received a ruling from the SC so they are just going ahead with the racist districts. It seems like the court is blatantly sitting on this for political reasons when they will rule on cases from this month by the end of June.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:E: off topic The real big case upcoming is Grants Pass v Johnson on April 22, which I (and probably most people) expect to rule in favor of the city and overturn the 9th circuit precedent from Boise v Martin. This will almost immediately mean very blue cities (LA/SF/Seattle/Portland all waiting and salivating and kicking their chops) start aggressively criminalizing homelessness. Portland already has some recent ordinances they passed that they’d love to start enforcing. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if the other west coast cities don’t as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:How often does the court hear a case in October and then not rule on it by April? Three articles in a row on Washington Post were all about how three different states with racist gerrymandered districts had not received a ruling from the SC so they are just going ahead with the racist districts. It's not infrequent. Taking a quick look, 2/6 from October (CFPB case and the SC districting case), 4/7 from November, 5/7 from December remain undecided this term, for example. And last term, 5/8 cases heard in October (Clean Water Act case, Alabama redistricting case, dormant commerce clause case, § 1983 SoL case, and the Warhol/Prince fair use case) weren't decided until April or later. 2021 term was better, with only 2 of the October cases still pending on April 1. e: Basically, the court doesn't sit on opinions, they release them when they have a final opinion ready to go. For complex or controversial cases that takes longer than for the cases no one hears about because mostly just the lawyers care. Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
The Gerrymander cases are absolutely being sat on though. These aren't the first cases they've heard about racial Gerrymanders after gutting Shelby and they won't be the last. Running out the clock and issuing some "these are bad and must change... for the next election because it's too late now" rulings suit their needs much more than ruling early enough that the states actually have to not use the racist maps (or outright ignore a ruling like Ohio did).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
The SCOTUS themselves put deadlines on election cases, making it so cases can't be decided near an election (generally about 6 months or so IIRC). So they knew that these cases needed to have the opinions released as early as possible so that elections offices could act on them. But oops, we didn't finish this decision until May and that is too close to the election so I guess we have to use the unconstitutional map that happens to favor the Republicans. Sorry guys, our bad!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Who else felt their heart skip a beat with "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office" Are we about to see coups become legalized?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who else felt their heart skip a beat with "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office" Coups are only illegal if they fail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 06:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who else felt their heart skip a beat with "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office" This is already explicitly the law in some places like France and it doesn’t mean that coups are legal there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 09:23
|
|
|
The only reason I feel like you will not get a ruling giving Presidents absolute immunity is because Biden is in office right now and he could use that ruling to do whatever he wanted. The three liberals and maybe Roberts would always vote against that thought. Alito and Thomas might always vote for that thought. The three others would always vote against that while Biden is in office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 12:12
|
|
|
There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: The Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that an 1864 state law banning nearly all abortions and making it a crime can take effect. But Arizona also has a law passed a few years ago banning abortion after 15 weeks...so how can an older law take precedence over a newer one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The only reason I feel like you will not get a ruling giving Presidents absolute immunity is because Biden is in office right now and he could use that ruling to do whatever he wanted. The three liberals and maybe Roberts would always vote against that thought. Alito and Thomas might always vote for that thought. The three others would always vote against that while Biden is in office. The SC making that ruling would be completely neutering their own power, something most people who spend their entire lives trying to climb the ranks of power aren't usually prone to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: If a law on the books says it’s illegal to, say, possess more than 6oz of weed, and they pass a law making it illegal to possess more than a pound of weed, that doesn’t mean it’s now legal to possess 6oz. In other words, the new law wasn’t saying you had a right to abortion till 15 weeks, it was just banning them after. Logically it makes sense that that’s the exception that proves the rule, but legally I guess not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:22
|
|