|
AR can kinda still be a jag sometimes...
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
It's almost like we shouldn't let Nazis upend our legal system They are going to abuse any process you can dream up, because they are Nazis yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What if he says it’s a lie but you’re pretty sure it is actually the truth? Well you as the lawyer can’t ask him questions about the affair when you know he will commit perjury about the affair. He can testify in a narrative form without the lawyer asking questions though. But you’re saying based on common sense he’s obviously lying to you about the affair but doesn’t admit he’s lying? See evilweasel’s answer, you don’t know for a fact he’s lying. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 07:03 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
I thought he looked that way because of BEER but that much Diet Coke explains it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Right wing Democratic court nominees like (checks notes) Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
nerve posted:Didn't Obama nominate the gops pick for Scalia No.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Probably they were a good way to nip budding Borks early once upon a time but obviously not anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Don’t overthink this. There will be a vote either before the election or during the lame duck and Democrats can’t stop it. They can only pack in response in 2021.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:LOL that isn't happening. Hopefully if nothing else the Democrats win the Senate and would reinstate the “tax” provision and that would save the ACA for another few months until the next bullshit challenge works its way up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Kind of surprised Trump hasn’t nominated an evangelical Protestant yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that's not quite the (bad) scotus news, and it's not an accurate description of what happens if we (wrongly) end census enumeration tomorrow / next week and keep it ended Are you sure about the algorithm part? I thought apportionment was strictly by enumerated people and the courts always said they gotta go by the count as a constitutional process (though it’s pretty high odds that gets changed 5-4 with Trump applying some other, non-enumerative data to determine who’s not a citizen.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
I agree at this point the count is almost done no matter what but the fight will be in however the numbers can be manipulated by Trump and what a new Congress can do in response.GreyjoyBastard posted:tbf Thomas's position on why oral arguments are bunk and should be abolished is somewhat less crazy than all his other raving mad ideas This would be good in a world even 10-20 years ago but at this point it’s better that the non-Thomas fringe justices love to talk and will use these opportunities to tell on themselves. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
Right, but Texas didn’t get to gain any total seats from it, just redraw it’s own maps. When I’m talking about Congress, it’s more about whatever action they can take on apportionment when Trump fucks around with citizenship. I’d be shocked if they ordered another census, and if they’ve got close counts where the raw counts can just be unTrumpified to remove skew that’s what will happen. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Can they be forced to though? Once a new census is conducted some of the existing districts may have newly known-unequal populations. Probably impossible to do unless it’s a full census of everyone in the state (and country) because the point of the decennial census is to count everyone once (specifically where they lived on April 1st). Otherwise there’s no way to prove through enumeration that district B actually grew as fast as District A. So it’s not a matter of just counting a few areas where we know there’s rapid change in population or were just harder to count. There’s definitely reasons to do small-scale census-taking continuously to get as much data as we can but without some big legislative changes it’s not going to change apportionment and redistricting. I guess re-reading your post you’re probably assuming a new national census but I don’t think that’s going to be anyone’s priority. There are about a hundred things that the Democrats can do that would be more politically advantageous and more impactful then literally counting everyone again with a fairly small marginal difference and a bunch of whining from people who “just filled it out last year.”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 09:05
|
|
|
We’re gonna find out who actually cares about textualism pretty quick. Also, few more of these and they’ll make the case for court-packing themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
This is probably as much about the principal of hating immigrants as it is any actual apportionment difference for the administration.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Delaware about to have 600 EVs  well played
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1320883524954660867 Golly gee, it’s a good thing those state legislatures (and state courts) aren’t limited in what they “may” do by state constitutions or we’d have to pretend people calling themselves Federalists believed in the principles of federalism. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Re: the Federalists, part of the asymmetry in the parties’ judicial selections is Democrats don’t have to mirror the Justice Taney fan club of the right because they just need to nominate people who are reasonable and not hacks and they historically get reasonable non-hack decisions. Whereas Republicans from Nixon through Bush I hoped for conservatives but until they had a foolproof ideological assembly line sometimes ended up with moderates who even moved further away from Republican nonsense over time. It became necessary for the right to create its own safe space legal ecosystem to sustain their judicial project. Where the Democrats really go wrong is if they don’t pass judicial reform when we know what the Republicans would do in this situation. And Clinton in particular really appointed people who were too old. When everyone wants to sit for thirty-plus years, you gotta look at the actuarial tables. tl; dr of course Republicans need a cult following to enact their will. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I kinda see the Biden admin as a dead count bounce of any sort of Democratic rule in this country. Yeah, Roberts is real bad on voting rights. There really wasn’t going to be much left standing there once Kennedy retired.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
To be fair they’ve tried doing everything except winning more votes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 08:29
|
|
|
ulmont posted:While the guarantee of a republican form of state government has not been meaningfully defined by the Supreme Court, this might be an step too far. In a 6-3 decision: “No you see the founders couldn’t figure out spelling and capitalization and therefore they clearly meant a Republican Party government, in perpetuity.”
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I hope they start selecting judges for willingness to retire early at the outset when they're nominated. It's not just RGB, but part of a longer trend among liberal appointees, who are more likely to value their career above outcomes It probably hurts just as much or more that the RBGs were pretty old when nominated compared to everyone the Republicans put up. Wanting to be on the bench for 30 years is not as impactful for 45 year olds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You wouldn't have to, if Obama had declared the senate had consented to Garland, the new liberal court could confirm his constitutional reasoning in a 5-4 ruling Get real. Nobody would buy this IRL including 4 justices plus the one additional who would have an obvious conflict of interest in hearing such a case. And no, “Trump would try it” (and fail) isn’t a real argument especially when no one else has the same size authoritarian coalition as Trump. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Piell posted:Conflicts of interest pretty much aren't a real thing for the Supreme Court now Yeah, no poo poo, Republicans are less ethical and it shows.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Shows in their 6-3 majority Aggressors will always have that kind of advantage over those showing more integrity. The four Democratic nominees who were in place in 2016 had the integrity not to play Calvinball with the rule of “Senate confirms or the nominee isn’t seated.” As would any credible Obama nominee. There’s no point howling at the moon that these people aren’t tankies who don’t care about rules, or Thomas clones who... don’t care about rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
If course, the real root of the problem goes way further back than the Obama admin or even Clinton, since Republicans controlled the presidency for 20 out of 24 years ending 1992, appointed ALL justices within that time, and only had a 5-4 court because the median range of American jurisprudential thought is way, waaay to the middle of Republican ideological though even circa the 80s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Dixiecrats (68-82) and Republicans (82-88) for most of it. I was just going to point this out but this is much more succinct. Of course, if the complaint is that Democrats need to be less deferential on nominations than before, obviously they’ve decided on that. The writing was on the wall once Feinstein got dethroned. And less Ds votes for Kavanaugh/Gorsuch than Rs for Sotomayor/Kagan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So Democrats from 68-82 and from 89-92 We already know how and know your thesis of Dems bad based on generations past. Most posters including me would agree they made shortsighted decisions, much like everyone who wasn’t rich and voted for Nixon/Reagan/Bush. So you’ve fired your zingers and made your point. And me without my DeLorean. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Probably pack the court in the 80s with Baker/Dole’s blessings, so we would have ended up in the same place only faster.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns is forgetting that political movements that are, by nature, authoritarian and bad faith will always have a leg up. By their nature they are mostly first to the punch. And no, Gore probably wouldn’t have won the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount. Most methods of recounting had him behind. That’s what made the OG 5-4 decision a huge waste of energy as well as jurisprudence they didn’t even want to see cited in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
The world in which the appointment arms race accelerated from 0 to 100 is one in which Republicans and Dixiecrats (who were functionally Republicans when you look at how they treated nominees by LBJ and Nixon) cause abortion to be illegal during every R administration, chuck out voting/civil rights legislation by the eighties at latest, and basically do everything they’re doing now much earlier, affordable care act is repealed by fiat under Trump. It’s way too pat to say “now they’re gonna do it anyway so doesn’t matter” because for people living under those past R administrations it mattered a lot. It’s easy to say here’s what should have been done but much harder to anticipate the consequences especially when 60 percent of people were voting for loving Reagan.Kaal posted:This is actually not the case. Historians agree that had the Florida court-ordered full recount been allowed to continue, rather than being stopped by the Republicans, Gore would have won the state. There were smaller recounts that had been occurring previously that would not have put Gore over the top (because they were missing pockets of uncounted Democrats), but the final one would have. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts What the Florida courts were ordering was still going to keep Bush in the lead. Yes, there were other ways a count could have gone to Gore, but that’s not what was ordered, and if it eventually had been remember that Katherine Harris was the certifying official and an R Congress was meeting on 1/6/00 under the electoral count act. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:These guys need to up their troll game I mean all Republican nods at inclusion are basically this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOYMFkFgPzk Hawley just dresses it up in intellectual posturing and insecurity about never becoming president.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Does anyone really think there is a law they can pass to bypass the electoral college which the Supreme Court would not invalidate?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:They don't need to. States can assign electors however they want. Except SCOTUS can review and rule on what the states and state courts do, as in Bush v. Gore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Pretty much. Obama could've said "nah Congress has sole authority on this matter and you don't get to ignore Amendments that you don't like so gently caress you and your ruling, the DOJ is going to continue enforcing the VRA in its entirety and if you don't like it feel free to retire from the bench" but that requires a POTUS who gives even the slightly gently caress about the country. How do you imagine DOJ continuing enforcement?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
A little grousing in this thread is unavoidable since the person who nominated her is a Democrat, after all. But yeah you can much more easily make the case she ruled against Lockheed since they (and some big shot plaintiff lawyers in line to make millions) were the ones who were asking her for a favor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2022 07:56
|
|