|
mawarannahr posted:Are there any laws saying a judge must be alive to serve? Yes. The Constitution says that a vacancy occurs upon resignation, impeachment, or death. Technically, you could get into a gray area where he is missing and has not been declared legally dead.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes. The Constitution says that a vacancy occurs upon resignation, impeachment, or death. Thank you for the explanation 🙏
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Alito has the opportunity to do the funniest thing in history right now by weekend-at-Bernie's-ing the only justice more batshit than he is for 6 months
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The huge violent crime wave that started in late 2020 and continued through early 2023 seems to be abating. I believe the conservative "counterpoint" to this is "crimes just aren't being reported anymore that's why the data says crime is down, but it's actually up higher than ever"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:If Thomas dies Biden is ethically and professionally obligated to take the funniest option available to him and nominate Anita Hill. Uh, you might want to look up Biden's own history on that particular event.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes. The Constitution says that a vacancy occurs upon resignation, impeachment, or death. Well, if a legal declaration of death is all that's needed, Democrats should just pay off a couple of bureaucrats with a nudge and a wink, fast track some appointments, then let the not-actually-dead justices sue to try get their seats back. Underhanded sure, but way more humane than the other way to get an official death certificate for the conservative justices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Uh, you might want to look up Biden's own history on that particular event. That's exactly why it would be Biden's ethical, professional, and comedic obligation to nominate her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well, if a legal declaration of death is all that's needed, Democrats should just pay off a couple of bureaucrats with a nudge and a wink, fast track some appointments, then let the not-actually-dead justices sue to try get their seats back. Depending on the state, it usually takes about 7 years to be declared legally dead. That is why it would be a huge gray area if a Justice actually did go missing without warning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Have him erroneously declared dead, then fill the seat before the state-level bureaucracy sorts it out. They don't have the authority to remove his replacement
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Biden has the senate so if Thomas croaks it would get filled immediately. Is it possible Sinema tanks it out of spite and just being "independent?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Is it possible Sinema tanks it out of spite and just being "independent?" Yes, and Manchin has already said he will not vote for any more nominees without 'Bipartisan' support. So if Thomas does croak she's the fulcrum for his replacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
I'd bet a large sum of money that the entire D caucus would unanimously vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
Ketanji Brown Jackson got three Republican votes, I don't think confirming a replacement will be that hard as long as the majority leader is a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
The bipartisan replacement would not be the 25-year-old militant socialist everyone ITT wants, but a jurist who is serious about fairly and even-handedly applying the current state of the law would still be a massive improvement over Thomas
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Thomas most likely didn't skip the opening arguments because he is unexpectedly dying, so it is all kind of moot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Thomas most likely didn't skip the opening arguments because he is unexpectedly dying, so it is all kind of moot. but there is a chance you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Thomas most likely didn't skip the opening arguments because he is unexpectedly dying, so it is all kind of moot. don't poo poo on my dreams
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:but there is a chance you're saying? It's not impossible, but the court said he would be "participating fully" in the case and he would just not present be today. Doesn't seem like he got in a car accident this morning and if it was some sort of health diagnosis serious enough to prevent him from working, then he probably wouldn't have cancelled the day before. Clarence Thomas would also not allow his soul to leave his mortal coil while there is a Democratic President and Senate. Especially when he just needs to wait 9 months for a likely Republican Senate and a 50/50 shot at a Republican President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
That R&D Tax Credit + Expanded Child Tax credit deal that passed the House earlier this month died in the Senate before it could be applied to this tax season. It still isn't scheduled for a vote because Senate Republicans have threatened to filibuster this version. Politico reports that Senate Republicans felt that they would have a better chance next year to pass larger business tax cuts without making a $40 billion child tax credit expansion permanent. This saves them $40 billion in their tax cut budget and prevents them from having to take an uncomfortable vote to repeal it. Publicly, the Senate Republicans are saying that they haven't decided to oppose it yet, but are "concerned" that some provisions might disincentive parents from working. Specifically, the new "look back" provision that allows you to qualify for the tax credit if you had income that qualified either this tax year or the previous year. Reminder: This compromise version was ~$400 more per year per child. So, apparently, the theory is that some parents might stop working to get an extra $400 to $800 in tax credits at the end of the year. If some version does pass, they can still make it retroactive and have the IRS automatically recalculate everyone's returns. https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1779915876663242951 quote:Tax Day is here, but the expanded Child Tax Credit never materialized Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Thomas most likely didn't skip the opening arguments because he is unexpectedly dying, so it is all kind of moot. Can't believe he actually took John Oliver's offer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Biden has the senate so if Thomas croaks it would get filled immediately. The trouble would be if Biden wins but loses the senate and Thomas croaks after, because I think they’d let the seat be open 2-4 years. the piece of poo poo from WV says he'll only vote if atleast 1 R supports a the D stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:the piece of poo poo from WV says he'll only vote if atleast 1 R supports a the D stuff. For lower courts. This is a different ballgame. You'd have 51 D caucus votes for a Thomas replacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's not impossible, but the court said he would be "participating fully" in the case and he would just not present be today. Scalia swore upon his rotten soul to the do the same, but his unending desire to poison the country was only successful thanks to Satan tapping another of his thralls to assist. The Reaper gonna reap, and not even your million dollar motor coach can out run him. The pillow found Scalia in his rich rear end in a top hat resort on the other side of the continent after all. Edit: Unfortunately is more likely that Thomas was just on an all nighter with his boy Donny and only one of them decided to skip court. Gyges fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Can't believe he actually took John Oliver's offer. We need to give John Oliver a honorary tri corner hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
Elon says they are going to charge to post on Twitter going forward. This applies to new accounts only. Existing accounts will not be charged to post. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1779930065469383166
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Elon says they are going to charge to post on Twitter going forward. Project Go Away 2: Go More Away
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
peh, who needs new users? something awful hasn't had new users in years, and look how vibrant and thriving we are!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Let me know when I can pay to change someone else’s profile pic
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
Thomas is just doing a practice run for when they rule that all crime is legal for presidents and ex-presidents and he has to go into hiding from Biden's commando squads
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:peh, who needs new users? something awful hasn't had new users in years, and look how vibrant and thriving we are! Elon's trying to corner the insane rereg guy market
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I believe the conservative "counterpoint" to this is "crimes just aren't being reported anymore that's why the data says crime is down, but it's actually up higher than ever" its certainly what the Freepers are saying. the notion that homicides were down in NYC was adjudged as conspiracy to conceal the truth by the federal government
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
The article linked earlier didn't say this, but the CNN article on Thomas taking a mental health day today contains a little nugget of info that I think explains it: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court/index.html quote:The first centered on a payment the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, received from a city contractor and whether that payment violated a federal anti-corruption statute. Would have been absolutely awkward/hilarious as gently caress if he'd been sitting there while the Court heard arguments on whether an official accepting favors was a federal crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Would have been absolutely awkward/hilarious as gently caress if he'd been sitting there while the Court heard arguments on whether an official accepting favors was a federal crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Elon says they are going to charge to post on Twitter going forward. Can we pay to prevent Elon from posting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:That would require him to be capable of feeling shame though I meant for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Can we pay to prevent Elon from posting? If we're lucky he'll follow in the footsteps of the other guy who charged people to post
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
I saw on BBC that 60 out of 96 potential jurors immediately got out of it by saying they could not be impartial. How is it possible for anyone to be impartial when the defendant is a former president and the US has de facto only 2 political parties? I can't see how even the most independent of "independents" could say with a straight face that they can be impartial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I saw on BBC that 60 out of 96 potential jurors immediately got out of it by saying they could not be impartial. In theory, impartial doesn’t mean can’t have a strong political opinion. It just means you’ll be fair based and decide based only on the evidence the judge allows to be presented. And a lot of people’s political beliefs aren’t that strong in the first place, if they even vote at all. Finally, remember the question they are being asked is “did Trump conspire to falsify documents in order to break the law?” A lot of people haven’t really thought about that or really heard about it, as opposed to “Trump, bad or great?” Really it comes down to whether someone with opinions can compartmentalize well enough, although you can make a fair argument about how much it’s really possible to set aside bias for or against anyone, let alone a presidential candidate. E: but, if you say there’s no way anyone’s impartial you also have to accept the same is true of any judge ever who is being asked to rule on a legal issue with any political significance. Some would say they shouldn’t be have that power, but most would say either it’s possible to be unbiased *enough* or set aside your biases or however you want to phrase that. And if it’s not possible for anyone, most people would say fine, but we still want a court system for all the reasons everyone’s got one. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I saw on BBC that 60 out of 96 potential jurors immediately got out of it by saying they could not be impartial. I could 100% be impartial. It's not like Donny didn't do it, and I can't vote extra guilty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 02:21
|
|