|
ActusRhesus posted:Please...tell me more about my emotional responses to court opinions. My point was, and remains, that there are rational arguments in support of the law, even if at the end of the day, the law will be largely found unconstitutional. And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. Thanks for this incredibly poignant, insightful point that has taken this discussion down a very productive and elucidating course. Reading this thread previously, I had no idea that lawyers on both sides of a case couch their positions in seemingly rational arguments. Perhaps this enlightened middle-ground you have found could be spread to some (even many!) other threads, for the greater good of course.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah you did. In terms of personal professional advancement they are, but they all have families and personal connections to maintain. Getting your children or extended family cush jobs is a lot easier when you're not consistently pissing off your golfing buddies. I don't think there's some sort of pay for play thing going on with any of them, but party politics is certainly an influence when the majority of your social network is deeply enmeshed in those politics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Because he’s not selfish? This is ridiculous. It's not selfish from his perspective because 1) if he takes the seat he knows exactly who will be making decisions instead of trusting that a future president will nominate someone he agrees with, 2) he doesn't know that someone younger will be nominated or confirmed, 3) even if someone younger is confirmed they could die in an accident at any moment, 4) even if he serves a decade less than some theoretical younger nominee the president who nominates his replacement could easily be just as in line with his judicial philosophy as Clinton or Obama. People suggesting he withdraw are basically asking him to trade guaranteed returns for some theoretical better that depends on a hundred unpredictable factors. It's absurd fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:And yet, there's a Clarence Thomas. Does he actually do that? His legal philosophy seems like arguably the most consistent out of any justice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Hey guys! At least we don't have to deal with an 8-person SCOTUS for four years! Guys! Guys? Hopefully we do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can we wait until one of the liberal justices actually dies or resigns before panicking about Trump's SCOTUS? The court has been doing an enormous amount of damage since O'Connor retired, so I don't see why that would be necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The appeals court okay'd it, and SCOTUS declined to review. Frank v Walker. There was another appeals decision on it last year but I don't know much. This account is worth reading, for the practical effects of Wisconsin voter ID. This guy spends hundreds of dollars trying to correct an error on his birth certificate in order to meet Wisconsin's requirements, only to eventually give up and move back to his home state. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-black-man-brought-3-forms-of-id-to-the-polls-in-wisconsin-he-still-couldnt-vote/
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:You could put a caveat to the effect of that seat will always be tied to that president. So if vacancy X opens up under President Y, that replacement is always his pick even if his term ends before it's filled. It would avoid another Garland travesty because the President, in this instance Obama, would always get claim to Scalia's seat in perpetuity the minute the old coot croaked. Then whatever future President is in office once our Hypothetical Justice Garland dies gets claim to Garlands seat until it's filled and so on. That would just lead to leaving the seat empty until that president dies instead of until they're termed out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I wonder if any Supreme Court justices watched the hearings today I was specifically thinking about John Roberts watching that Kavanaugh performance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What are you referring to? He's referring to Shelby County v. Holder, in which the court just decided the 15th amendment didn't count.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Oh. Well That doesn’t really seem to have anything to do with what I’m talking about. The legislature can just prevent the court from hearing certain cases. The 15th explicitly grants all powers described within it to the legislature, but the court still just ignored that. It seems like exactly what you're talking about. How does the legislature prevent the court from hearing certain cases?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The Congress can strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over all but a handful of constitutionally required topics. I don't see why the SC would be any more likely to respect legislation doing such a thing, when they've already ignored an amendment that does such a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
lol at this chart trying to paint Sotomayor as more liberal than Thomas is conservative, or Alito significantly less conservative than RBG is liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
She's getting confirmed before the election
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah the best way to explain court packing is to point out all the ways Republicans have been doing it for years. Merrick Garland, but there are also lots of examples of federal judiciary positions that McConnell held open for years to keep Obama from filling them. Refusing to fill seats until your guys are in office is functionally the same as creating extra seats for your guys to fill.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
myron cope posted:The way I see it the Democrats have no choice but to pack the courts (if they win next week). Just by talking about it, if the Republicans regain (or god forbid: keep) power they will do it themselves, as punishment. That's the good thing about this entire ACB shitshow. Without what just happened over the past month+, conservatives still had a 5-4 majority and there was zero chance Dems would seriously consider court packing. McConnell just galvanized a bunch of people so there is at least a *chance* that Dems consider it, he's left them no choice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Is the SCOTUS ruling on the Pennsylvania ballots actually insane, or does it make sense? Didn't the state supreme court rule on it, and it's state law how they handle their election process? What jurisdiction does the SC have? All they did was tell them to keep segregating the ballots pending their actual decision. It just gives them a chance to hear the case and make a real ruling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
So Roberts voted with the liberals but neither signed on to their dissent nor wrote his own dissent?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
Sydin posted:It would be really nice if we could get some non-Christians on SCOTUS. Nine people who are all some flavor of Christian constantly going "actually Christian churches can do anything they want under the first amendment, including just flat out ignoring non-discrimination laws" seems kinda like a conflict of interest! gently caress Sotomayor and Kagan just happily jumped on to Roberts' opinion stating as such without even bothering to put out a weak rear end concurrence. The take I heard is that the 3 liberal justices joined Roberts' opinion as an attempt to keep Alito's far worse interpretation from setting the precedent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
a.lo posted:Maybe Thomas will die first?? The GOP will just claim he's sleeping until the next GOP administration
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
This tweet thread doesn't include Roberts' equating our fetal viability standards to those of North Korea and China. Just calling balls and strikes, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Because 6-3 is not 7-2. Which could then become 8-1 and ultimately 9-0. If you think McConnell wouldn't pull the trigger himself to ensure a 9-0 conservative SCOTUS you haven't been paying attention. That is true of McConnell, but Collins and Romney and the like, let alone Manchin or Sinema, are not gonna stick their necks out to oppose a reasonable Biden pick when they've already solidly won the court.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How is Thomas feeling today? A little peckish and he's bummed about Maury Povich retirement, but he's gonna binge Love is Blind to help lift his spirits
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
The biblical punishment for murder was death but for destroying a fetus it was only a fine, so the bible implicitly does not support fetal personhoodExodus 21:22 posted:If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according to what the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The word "arms" is on page 180. Even that definition doesn't mention guns
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It’s really the same as arguing that the Bible doesn’t mention North America when some fundamentalist says “Jesus died to save America from its sins.” Ok. Sure. What is the point. The fundamentalist isn’t going to reevaluate his position and why would he when the point is meaningless. It’s not even a gotcha it’s just “why is this important” I think the point is that claiming a "strict textualist" reading of the amendment is absurd because if so you're against laws restricting weaponry of any sort, although I can't speak for Jaxyon
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah that was the tipping point too, if she hadn't said that there would be no student debt right now. If anything using a Pelosi quote just helps illustrate how partisan the ruling is
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas does seem like exactly the type of rear end in a top hat who would make his employees pay for their own alcohol at his xmas party
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
The Harriet Myers saga was 100% an enormous own goal by Democrats, but only in retrospect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
It's not that Miers was "good" it's that it's not possible for her to have a worse SC judicial record than Alito has had
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah for her to have been worse judicially, Alito would need some daylight between himself and the furthest-right his court has gone. Is there such an instance? Previously even the most conservative justices would have the occasional "reasoned myself into the liberal position" rulings, but I can't recall that ever happening with Alito.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I wonder why Clarence "I'll Retire Unless A Bunch Of Nice Strangers Give Me Millions Of Dollars He's a strict textualist, you see
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2023 18:10
|
|
" Thomas ruled that it's not a bribe unless you state on video that you're giving money for a corrupt purpose and you're fully aware it's a bribe
|
Lol Thomas splitting hairs to an incredible degree here He's saying that because no states at the time exercised this power over national elections, only over state elections, that this clearly wasn't the intent of the amendment Papercut fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Who the hell would enforce it then? Elections are managed by the states. They're basically saying that section 3 can allow the federal govt to refuse to seat someone who is ineligible, but doesn't allow states to remove that person from the ballot
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
Yeah it doesn't seem like it's gonna be a close decision based on this questioning
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:In 2021, Congress should have introduced a bill to rehabilitate Trump and have it fail to reach a 2/3 majority. (Narrow window to get it to the floor in both houses) In the oral arguments, most of the justices were drawing a line between objectively factual things like what country someone is born in or what date is listed on their birth certificate, vs much less objective things like the definition of an insurrection
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Is this frictionless perfectly spherical cow on an infinite plane theorizing or something? We can't even write legislation to keep the loving lights on without some rear end in a top hat demanding we disband the DoE. Which one? Yes. Legally possible is not the same thing as politically possible. The former happens to be the one more relevant to Supreme Court discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:So with this ruling, if hypothetically the Speaker led a coup that killed off the President and Vice President, they'd be the legal president unless Congress passed a law (which the newly anointed coup President can veto) saying it was an insurrection? I guess the same holds true for anyone in the line of succession. Congress could just impeach or override the veto, assuming there is the popular will to do so. If we're assuming there wouldn't be the popular will to do so under this scenario, then it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in this ruling or any other.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
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
|
|