Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] : Gorsuch confirmed by GOP after filibuster nuked

So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
As previously noted:
Expectations for this thread

1. This is not the general politics or lol this party sucks thread.
2. This is a thread about the US Supreme Court, if it doesn't have anything to do with SCOTUS, it doesn't belong here.
3. Not all things about SCOTUS belong here. Some cases dealing with certain issues, already have a thread or their own god damn separate thread that is more appropriate to discuss a certain SCOTUS rulings or cases.
4. In the event that a tangent regarding something involving SCOTUS has it's own thread created after the discussion starts in this thread, then move the discussion over to the new thread. (Also appreciated if people link to the new thread to help others out).
5. In the event that we get a SCOTUS vacancy in the lifetime of this thread, this would probably be the best place to discuss such an appointment given how low traffic this thread is likely to be. (leaving this for posterity and lols - SIG)

Read SCOTUSBlog for all the latest and greatest info you could ever need about our highest court: http://www.scotusblog.com/

Let's keep it on topic, folks.

/bangs gavel

So It Goes on
ForarsyndalisChanusElkijoshofalltradesspool32ArdolCommander ZoomToxHakkekageJoeUserchrono_travellerFencingsaxShadowfireTofystedeth
«13456760

Posts

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Geth, kick @AngelHedgie from the thread.

  • TinklesTinkles YAY! Never Past Bedtime LandRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative So It Goes. @AngelHedgie banned from this thread.

    1gVsb9o.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Leaving Rule 5 is hilarious. And sad. And yet still hilarious.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    ChanusSo It GoesForarskyknytPolaritiespool32Edith UpwardsArdolCommander ZoomToxHakkekageJoeUserFencingsaxKetBrafightinfilipinomonikerElldren
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    edited February 28
    spool32 wrote:

    Resist and obstruct, the end?

    That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?


    The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

    First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

    Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


    The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


    Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

    Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


    Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


    A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

    Label on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Label wrote: »
    spool32 wrote:

    Resist and obstruct, the end?

    That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?


    The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

    First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

    Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


    The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


    Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

    Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


    Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


    A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

    oh it's absolutely their job. I continue to be disgusted by the GOP Senate's failure to at least bring Garland to the floor for an insulting no vote.

    LabelGnome-InterruptusKamarJuliusvalhalla130Tofystedeth
  • PolaritiePolaritie Oh I didn't see this box. Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Label wrote: »
    spool32 wrote:

    Resist and obstruct, the end?

    That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?


    The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

    First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

    Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


    The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


    Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

    Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


    Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


    A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

    oh it's absolutely their job. I continue to be disgusted by the GOP Senate's failure to at least bring Garland to the floor for an insulting no vote.

    But if they vote him down Obama just nominates another moderate. And it becomes harder to spin as anything but trying to steal the seat.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Leaving Rule 5 is hilarious. And sad. And yet still hilarious.

    In my defense, it was a different time when I wrote that and the big things usually got spun off.

    As for the last part of the former thread. I strongly disagree with this sports trading bullshit that people are pushing. We do not have liberal, conservative, pastafarian ect seats. The republicans should have done their damn job and given Garland a vote. They were just too damn chicken shit to do so because voting yes, would proven they were full a shit and that Obama was picking qualified candidates and it would piss off their voters. Voting no would have also shown they were shit because Garland was from a list that the GOP said they didn't have any problems with and could have gotten some of them booted last year.

    I don't care if they offer up two liberal seats and pass some binding law that prevents them from failing to follow through. SCOTUS seats should not be traded like players for a sports team. Not only does that shit legitimize the GOP's blatant obstruction, laziness and cowardice, but he continues to reinforce the harmful view that many Americans have, where politics is a team sport and real policies be damned.

    Steam ID
    battletag: Millin#1360
    PolaritieLoisLaneTofystedeth
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Udall's plan is something that I hope is dropped like a hot potato. There is nothing to be gained by moving from a pretty simple message of opposition based a principle to anything that looks like horse trading. Once you're trading you can't claim there are principles involved. And it's not even a good trade.

    NPLhC7Z.png
    So It GoesEdith UpwardsPolaritieIlpalaLabelshrykeBlackDragon480Toxemp123Phoenix-Ddispatch.oMegaMekHakkekageJoeUserNobodyChanusRozArbitraryDescriptorMatevAstaerethMillGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsKamarShortykimeLord_AsmodeusmonikerLoisLaneTofystedeth
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    edited February 28
    If a conservative justice wants to step down while trump is in office, that's their decision.

    That entirely separate seat has nothing and should have nothing to do with Merrick Garland, or the attack on our constitutional processes surrounding his nomination.

    Label on
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Label wrote: »
    If a conservative justice wants to step down while trump is in office, that's their decision.

    That entirely separate seat has nothing and should have nothing to do with Merrick Garland, or the attack on our constitutional processes surrounding his nomination.

    I would extend this notion to any seat vacated before (at the earliest) election day, 2020.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Label
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Fantastic Registered User, Moderator mod
    Requesting the title be changed to Eight is Enough

    U9Syuit.png
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Eight is (Not) Enough
    ?

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    So, in the off chance that Trump actually gets around to appointing people for the other federal court vacancies, and they're divisive enough to make national news, which thread would that conversation go in?

    steam_sig.png
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Not this one.

  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    So a SCOTUS thing today

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-06/jury-s-racial-bias-can-be-probed-after-trial-high-court-rules
    The ruling could mean a new trial for Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez, who was convicted of harassing two teenage girls and groping one of them in a women’s bathroom in 2007. Rodriguez, who worked at the Colorado racetrack where the incident occurred, says he was misidentified.

    The jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of three misdemeanor counts. After trial, two jurors submitted sworn statements saying another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward Pena Rodriguez and an alibi witness who testified on his behalf.

    Among other comments, the juror allegedly said Pena Rodriguez "did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want."

    It turns out one of the guys I work with is related to one of the jurors who brought that statement to the judge's attention

    Good for someone standing up for injustice

    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    shrykeJoeUseremp123DarkPrimusMan in the MistsMatevAstaerethEdith UpwardsZomroBlackDragon480ArdolKayne Red RoberockrngerGnome-InterruptusLord_AsmodeusfightinfilipinoToxHefflingvalhalla130Martini_Philosopherdispatch.oCalicaSquigie
  • PolaritiePolaritie Oh I didn't see this box. Registered User regular
    edited March 6
    So a SCOTUS thing today

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-06/jury-s-racial-bias-can-be-probed-after-trial-high-court-rules
    The ruling could mean a new trial for Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez, who was convicted of harassing two teenage girls and groping one of them in a women’s bathroom in 2007. Rodriguez, who worked at the Colorado racetrack where the incident occurred, says he was misidentified.

    The jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of three misdemeanor counts. After trial, two jurors submitted sworn statements saying another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward Pena Rodriguez and an alibi witness who testified on his behalf.

    Among other comments, the juror allegedly said Pena Rodriguez "did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want."

    It turns out one of the guys I work with is related to one of the jurors who brought that statement to the judge's attention

    Good for someone standing up for injustice

    SCOTUSblog link:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opinion-analysis-divided-court-rules-defendant-juror-bias-case/

    Edit: I think this is a good ruling overall - I'm not a fan of the idea that testimony that demand a mistrial if it came out during the trial shouldn't warrant the same if it comes to light after.

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

    Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

    DarkPrimusMatevMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusLord_AsmodeusToxmonikerspool32dispatch.o
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

    Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

    So I gather from that link that the SCOTUS declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, is that correct?

    Hope that moves through quickly then. Criminetly.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Label wrote: »
    In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

    Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

    So I gather from that link that the SCOTUS declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, is that correct?

    Hope that moves through quickly then. Criminetly.

    They denied cert. So they won't be hearing any appeal. The lower court decision stands.

  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    The lower court ruled against her, but
    But because Lisa Olivia Leonard "raises her due process arguments for the first time in this Court," Thomas concluded, the Supreme Court has no business weighing in until the lower court has properly considered those arguments first.

    That's bad news for Lisa Olivia Leonard. But there is a silver lining for all critics of civil asset forfeiture. When the right case does finally come along, Justice Thomas insisted today, SCOTUS should tackle the unconstitutional practice head on.

    Steam = VishnuOwnz
    Dota2 = Glitchmo
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    Oh I see.

    FUCKING FUCK GOD DAMNIT.

    Martini_Philosopher
  • MatevMatev Cero Miedo Registered User regular
    Argh, frustrating that it didn't get heard, but the fact that even Thomas thinks it's pants on head means that it probably isn't terribly long for this world.

    "Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
    Hail Hydra
    spool32Martini_Philosopherdispatch.oSleep
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Yup this is more of a wrong case but likely on the right track.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    It's usually not a winning strategy to raise Constitutional appeal claims only once you are trying to get certified to the Supreme Court. I'm not surprised in the denial of cert.

    You should plead all possible claims when appealing the first time, then there's a solid record from the courts below to actually appeal from.

    emp123Fencingsaxspool32Julius
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    It's usually not a winning strategy to raise Constitutional appeal claims only once you are trying to get certified to the Supreme Court. I'm not surprised in the denial of cert.

    You should plead all possible claims when appealing the first time, then there's a solid record from the courts below to actually appeal from.

    Yeah, appeals courts do not take new cases, so if there was no previous appeal, later courts can't rule on that part of it.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    McConnell is saying he plans to get Gorsuch approved before the April recess, which seems crazy

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That would be a basically normal waiting period before Garland.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    davidsdurionsshrykespool32
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

    I just read this stuff a couple nights ago. It's summarized on the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
    According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).

    Garland was on the docket but never considered for 293 days.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    They've also promised to vote on healthcare in that time frame.

    Steam = VishnuOwnz
    Dota2 = Glitchmo
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

    I just read this stuff a couple nights ago. It's summarized on the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
    According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).

    Garland was on the docket but never considered for 293 days.

    Oh yeah, over this past year I got familiar with overall time frame of confirmation. I was the one posting milestones in here.

    I'm not sure how long committee hearings typically take. I think a month or so from memory but ya see, it never came up with Garland...

    *rage intensifies*

    MrVyngaard
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Unlike Garland, Gorsuch won't get...strung along.

    8-)



    (I made myself sad.)

    Gnizmospool32N1tSt4lkerCalicaGnome-InterruptusSleepLovelyMorganV
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

    Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

    Thomas actually believes the stuff he says. Some of it might be crazy and a century out of date, but he means it and will vote that way regardless. Which I do respect. He is wrong about damn near everything, but he isn't a hack. Unlike Alito, Roberts, or Scalia was.

    Commander ZoomshrykeGnizmoArdolKamarToxEncDoctorArchdispatch.oKraint
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    edited March 14
    So according to this, Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee doesn't get it.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-supreme-court-democrats-confirmation-235941
    “Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”


    fucking hell... Can we get some noise about primarying her RIGHT THE FUCK NOW?

    Your job, Ms. Feinstein, is to defend our democracy. NOW.

    The filibuster is a weapon doing damage to our democracy, and that will not stop until we force congressional republicans to repair the damage or remove the weapon.

    Label on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    1) It's a jungle primary in California.
    2) It's her long time policy to never comment on a nomination before the vote. Which is silly, but not new.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Feinstein is probably retiring after this term, any ways

    DoodmannSpoitFencingsaxNijadispatch.oemp123SleepMan in the Mists
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    She's 85, but the rumor is she's going to run again. Hopefully California elects someone more reflective of the state's views regardless.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    shryke
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    I don't get the anger?


    She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    spool32dispatch.oEncArbitraryDescriptor
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    I don't get the anger?


    She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

    He should get a confirmation hearing only after Garland does.

    LabelskyknytJohnny ChopsockyEdith UpwardsMatevJoeUserToxMan in the MistsMagell
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Khavall wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    I don't get the anger?


    She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

    He should get a confirmation hearing only after Garland does.

    Indeed, the problem we have is that Gorsuch is probably perfectly confirmable. He's not who I would pick, but if Clarance Thomas quit tomorrow then Trump would be perfectly fine to nominate Gorsuch as far I can tell.

    Gorsuch is not the problem, and having a confirmation hearing on him just exaggerates the problem. Noone can serve. There is NO candidate other than Garland who can fill that seat. Noone Trump could nominate is OK, until, at the VERY least, the Senate has voted on Garland.

    Any justice, no matter how respected, who is nominated by Trump to that seat is there improperly. Perhaps if a vote is held on Garland, and he loses that vote, then MAYBE just MAYBE our democracy can survive this nomination.

    Gorsuch will serve for probably 30 years. Do you genuinely think he can command respect in ANY case in which he disagrees with the plaintiff? That any decision swayed by him should command public respect? His appointment is corrupt. He cannot cleanse that corruption with his own actions. You can't clean a car with a filthy sponge and a bucket of mud.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    LabelDarkewolfespool32So It GoesmonikerMillEdith UpwardsMatevGnome-InterruptusdavidsdurionsJoeUserHakkekageSleepkimeVeaglewanderingToxHexmage-PAMan in the MistsKamarDisruptedCapitalistShadowfireElldren
«13456760
Sign In or Register to comment.