If Thomas were to retire, for example, could a 4-3 court begin passing judgments that set precedent again?
Yes, 4-3 would be valid.
The problem is the most likely person to make it like that is RBG
+4
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The republicans need to be sat down at some university's lecture theatre and watch a few hours of schoolhouse rock, followed by a 9th grade civics lesson.
although 9th grade might be too complex.
I get the sentiment for burning it all down and throwing water balloons at the congressional republicans. I'm still so far beyond angry at them for the last year (at minimum). They've decided that the 'gentlemans agreement' that's all that's been keeping this nation running is not needed.
And the American public rewarded them. And it's going to have long and lasting effects on the jurisprudence of the nation, not just the very real lives of the people living in it.
And yet, most people just didn't see that. Or didn't care. Or they want those changes.
The republicans need to be sat down at some university's lecture theatre and watch a few hours of schoolhouse rock, followed by a 9th grade civics lesson.
although 9th grade might be too complex.
I get the sentiment for burning it all down and throwing water balloons at the congressional republicans. I'm still so far beyond angry at them for the last year (at minimum). They've decided that the 'gentlemans agreement' that's all that's been keeping this nation running is not needed.
And the American public rewarded them. And it's going to have long and lasting effects on the jurisprudence of the nation, not just the very real lives of the people living in it.
And yet, most people just didn't see that. Or didn't care. Or they want those changes.
God I'm still so very very angry.
It was pure power. Naked as anything. This does not bode well for the future. Beyond even just the short-medium term, like our lifetimes.
I am growing fond of the framing that McConnell was Sulla. But the next boot over the Rubicon won't be Ceaser's.
Obama should just take the people who said that they would support Garland's Statements as "advice and consent" and put him on SCOTUS. There is no counter the GOP has for that. It is the only way to save lives, rights, and people. Garland and the rest of the liberal Supreme Court will ensure that Trump cannot become whatever an Imperial Executive is. This is a one time shot that only works because of the current situation, it is absolutely nothing that another President could replicate.
Obama should just take the people who said that they would support Garland's Statements as "advice and consent" and put him on SCOTUS. There is no counter the GOP has for that. It is the only way to save lives, rights, and people. Garland and the rest of the liberal Supreme Court will ensure that Trump cannot become whatever an Imperial Executive is. This is a one time shot that only works because of the current situation, it is absolutely nothing that another President could replicate.
No, he shouldn't. But the precedent this year has set is now part of our governance. It does not bode well for the Republic.
The republicans need to be sat down at some university's lecture theatre and watch a few hours of schoolhouse rock, followed by a 9th grade civics lesson.
although 9th grade might be too complex.
I get the sentiment for burning it all down and throwing water balloons at the congressional republicans. I'm still so far beyond angry at them for the last year (at minimum). They've decided that the 'gentlemans agreement' that's all that's been keeping this nation running is not needed.
And the American public rewarded them. And it's going to have long and lasting effects on the jurisprudence of the nation, not just the very real lives of the people living in it.
And yet, most people just didn't see that. Or didn't care. Or they want those changes.
God I'm still so very very angry.
It was pure power. Naked as anything. This does not bode well for the future. Beyond even just the short-medium term, like our lifetimes.
I am growing fond of the framing that McConnell was Sulla. But the next boot over the Rubicon won't be Ceaser's.
I kind of think Gerald Ford was Sulla. It all starts with the Nixon pardon.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Supreme Court justices expressed unqualified disgust Tuesday after ruling that fornication with the American flag is an act of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Writing that the 8-1 decision was "necessary, but it's really just unbelievable that it's come to this," Chief Justice John Roberts concluded in his majority opinion that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression necessarily extends to individuals "committing unspeakable and abominable acts" with the flag. "It is incumbent upon this court to protect all forms of speech, regardless of their popularity, and regardless of whether they involve some sick, twisted human being defiling the enduring symbol of our great nation," Roberts wrote.
With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.
“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”
It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.
Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly whether he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.
I don't have a transcript, but Sean Spicer just responded to a question about the Dem filibuster by complaining the the Dems are set to oppose anyone Trump nominates, and he is sad that there is a culture of "always No" being signaled right now. He says the President has a right to have his nominee taken up.
I then died of irony. RIP me.
So It Goes on
+18
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
reminder that the GOP does not live in a world where intellectual consistency is expected
I don't have a transcript, but Sean Spicer just responded to a question about the Dem filibuster by complaining the the Dems are set to oppose anyone Trump nominates, and he is sad that there is a culture of "always No" being signaled right now. He says the President has a right to have his nominee taken up.
I then died of irony. RIP me.
That would be an okay comment if he said that Obama should have had his nominee taken up as well, and fie on the Senate for not doing so. Hell, something like that would be a near-perfect way to shame the Dems to dissuade them from actually doing it (after denying the almost certain case of Trump being OK with what happened last year.)
Something tells me Spicer didn't have the wherewithal to make that statement.
reminder that the GOP does not live in a world where intellectual consistency is expected
Yeah, they got plenty of practice with the whole "do as I say not as I do" philosophy during Obama's presidency. Like when they shut the government down to throw a tantrum about the ACA and tried to blame how long the shutdown lasted on Democrats not compromising.
Hey SCOTUS thread, I have a question - I think I remember hearing about a case coming up to the Supreme Court this term about gerrymandering, but not just a normal case, one specifically about using an algorithm to determine the fairness of individual districts, and whether state governments have to use that as a baseline for fairness. But I can't seem to find it - am I crazy, or does that really exist? Or maybe it's not to the supreme court yet?
Hey SCOTUS thread, I have a question - I think I remember hearing about a case coming up to the Supreme Court this term about gerrymandering, but not just a normal case, one specifically about using an algorithm to determine the fairness of individual districts, and whether state governments have to use that as a baseline for fairness. But I can't seem to find it - am I crazy, or does that really exist? Or maybe it's not to the supreme court yet?
It's not to the SC yet; there are multiple cases winding through the courts.
If they consider, they send the signal that they won't be any consequences for the republicans' obstruction.
Meaning that only republican presidents get to appoint judges from now on.
If trump had half a brain hee would nominate garland. He's already seen that the republicans in congress are foolish enough to not see the nightmare he is creating out of his stupidity. Nominating garland would make passive many of his opponents since they would believed they were safe, allowing him to continue centralizing power and then just ignore the supreme court at the end of it. It then makes it impossible for the democrats to just oppose everything in congress and the Senate, because, after all he put up garland.
But, trump is an idiot as are all the advisors he seems to be listening to, so I expect it to be one of his children.
If trump had half a brain hee would nominate garland. He's already seen that the republicans in congress are foolish enough to not see the nightmare he is creating out of his stupidity. Nominating garland would make passive many of his opponents since they would believed they were safe, allowing him to continue centralizing power and then just ignore the supreme court at the end of it. It then makes it impossible for the democrats to just oppose everything in congress and the Senate, because, after all he put up garland.
But, trump is an idiot as are all the advisors he seems to be listening to, so I expect it to be one of his children.
This was my thinking.
Garland is a choice that could not be reasonably opposed, and Bannon is probably planning to ignore the courts entirely within a month or two. Some reports indicate they're doing that already.
If trump had half a brain hee would nominate garland. He's already seen that the republicans in congress are foolish enough to not see the nightmare he is creating out of his stupidity. Nominating garland would make passive many of his opponents since they would believed they were safe, allowing him to continue centralizing power and then just ignore the supreme court at the end of it. It then makes it impossible for the democrats to just oppose everything in congress and the Senate, because, after all he put up garland.
But, trump is an idiot as are all the advisors he seems to be listening to, so I expect it to be one of his children.
This was my thinking.
Garland is a choice that could not be reasonably opposed, and Bannon is probably planning to ignore the courts entirely within a month or two. Some reports indicate they're doing that already.
That's why i think he might go with Hardiman, something that doesn't lead to a showdown with Democrats because i don't think the Trump Admin is all that interested in lawfare, they'd rather just cut the courts out of the equation altogether.
Judging by Trump's ironic picks to head departments, I fully expect a SCOTUS pick who is opposed to judicial review.
I mean, what is the endgame here? It's the entire administration just strictly russian agents here to completely destroy America? If he nominates someone utterly awful, people steer just going to get angrier, I'm already concerned that unless the Senate takes action to say "we are in charge, all executive orders must go through us, and wait for 3 months of public comment to be enacted" that we may be too far gone to safely walk this back to normalcy.
I don't have a transcript, but Sean Spicer just responded to a question about the Dem filibuster by complaining the the Dems are set to oppose anyone Trump nominates, and he is sad that there is a culture of "always No" being signaled right now. He says the President has a right to have his nominee taken up.
If trump had half a brain hee would nominate garland. He's already seen that the republicans in congress are foolish enough to not see the nightmare he is creating out of his stupidity. Nominating garland would make passive many of his opponents since they would believed they were safe, allowing him to continue centralizing power and then just ignore the supreme court at the end of it. It then makes it impossible for the democrats to just oppose everything in congress and the Senate, because, after all he put up garland.
But, trump is an idiot as are all the advisors he seems to be listening to, so I expect it to be one of his children.
Trump has the self awareness to know Garland wouldn't approve of his shit on a functional Supreme Court.
Judging by Trump's ironic picks to head departments, I fully expect a SCOTUS pick who is opposed to judicial review.
I mean, what is the endgame here? It's the entire administration just strictly russian agents here to completely destroy America? If he nominates someone utterly awful, people steer just going to get angrier, I'm already concerned that unless the Senate takes action to say "we are in charge, all executive orders must go through us, and wait for 3 months of public comment to be enacted" that we may be too far gone to safely walk this back to normalcy.
Im not sure we have any angry headroom left.
Bannon is a self-described Leninist who wants to completely tear down the institutions of government and rebuild them in his white nationalist image. He has said this. There are no secrets, this is what they promised. But nobody paid any fucking attention because Hillary's fucking e-mails were the greatest scandal in human history.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Judging by Trump's ironic picks to head departments, I fully expect a SCOTUS pick who is opposed to judicial review.
I mean, what is the endgame here? It's the entire administration just strictly russian agents here to completely destroy America? If he nominates someone utterly awful, people steer just going to get angrier, I'm already concerned that unless the Senate takes action to say "we are in charge, all executive orders must go through us, and wait for 3 months of public comment to be enacted" that we may be too far gone to safely walk this back to normalcy.
Im not sure we have any angry headroom left.
Bannon is a self-described Leninist who wants to completely tear down the institutions of government and rebuild them in his white nationalist image. He has said this. There are no secrets, this is what they promised. But nobody paid any fucking attention because Hillary's fucking e-mails were the greatest scandal in human history.
Do the republicans in congress and the Senate think there will be a winner in civil war 2? The USA will just crumple, taking much of the world with it. Are they really looking out their widow right now and going 'this is fine, trump is right, this protest isn't very big, I think that we can make people even angrier and cone out of this great!'
I mean, the Senate can still put a stop to this nonsense, so could people like the koch brothers or all the other republican super doners. Are they so afraid of democrats that they are happy to die to see them fail?
Judging by Trump's ironic picks to head departments, I fully expect a SCOTUS pick who is opposed to judicial review.
I mean, what is the endgame here? It's the entire administration just strictly russian agents here to completely destroy America? If he nominates someone utterly awful, people steer just going to get angrier, I'm already concerned that unless the Senate takes action to say "we are in charge, all executive orders must go through us, and wait for 3 months of public comment to be enacted" that we may be too far gone to safely walk this back to normalcy.
Im not sure we have any angry headroom left.
Bannon is a self-described Leninist who wants to completely tear down the institutions of government and rebuild them in his white nationalist image. He has said this. There are no secrets, this is what they promised. But nobody paid any fucking attention because Hillary's fucking e-mails were the greatest scandal in human history.
Do the republicans in congress and the Senate think there will be a winner in civil war 2? The USA will just crumple, taking much of the world with it. Are they really looking out their widow right now and going 'this is fine, trump is right, this protest isn't very big, I think that we can make people even angrier and cone out of this great!'
I mean, the Senate can still put a stop to this nonsense, so could people like the koch brothers or all the other republican super doners. Are they so afraid of democrats that they are happy to die to see them fail?
No, they think they'll get away with it 100%. And frankly, given how they were rewarded for their behavior during the Obama administration, they have every expectation of winning on all fronts.
+11
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
What we're seeing is in part the payoff of decades of propaganda. Fox News, talk radio, etc; the party deliberated created a false reality, not realizing that over time their ranks would naturally become filled with those who had succumbed to it. Now we have Trump, who literally watches Fox or reads Breitbart and parrots their made-up talking points, empowered by an electorate that is provably delusional.
It's not that they believe more protesters will help them, or even necessarily that they believe they can safely ignore the protesters. They may actually believe that the protests are media exaggerations, because that's what they're being told, and it fits the narrative they've been told for 20 years.
I mean, ignoring the protesters worked great for diffusing OWS' attempts at actually affecting any real change (though they're not entirely blameless for their own ineptitude). Especially when they're able to distract the news coverage with the 'grassroots' 'protests' from the teapers
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So Gorsuch is the pick. He doesn't really tip the court if he's as bad as Scalia was.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Oh good. If it had been Hardiman I might have been more open to him, since he's apparently closer to Kennedy than Scalia on a lot of stuff.
But now I can be perfectly fine with all-out obstruction.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Posts
Yes, 4-3 would be valid.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The problem is the most likely person to make it like that is RBG
although 9th grade might be too complex.
I get the sentiment for burning it all down and throwing water balloons at the congressional republicans. I'm still so far beyond angry at them for the last year (at minimum). They've decided that the 'gentlemans agreement' that's all that's been keeping this nation running is not needed.
And the American public rewarded them. And it's going to have long and lasting effects on the jurisprudence of the nation, not just the very real lives of the people living in it.
And yet, most people just didn't see that. Or didn't care. Or they want those changes.
God I'm still so very very angry.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It was pure power. Naked as anything. This does not bode well for the future. Beyond even just the short-medium term, like our lifetimes.
I am growing fond of the framing that McConnell was Sulla. But the next boot over the Rubicon won't be Ceaser's.
No, he shouldn't. But the precedent this year has set is now part of our governance. It does not bode well for the Republic.
I kind of think Gerald Ford was Sulla. It all starts with the Nixon pardon.
Don't take one person's statement as general endorsement by the members of this forum.
http://www.theonion.com/article/disgusted-supreme-court-cant-believe-it-has-to-rul-20719
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368
Fuck yes it is
I then died of irony. RIP me.
That would be an okay comment if he said that Obama should have had his nominee taken up as well, and fie on the Senate for not doing so. Hell, something like that would be a near-perfect way to shame the Dems to dissuade them from actually doing it (after denying the almost certain case of Trump being OK with what happened last year.)
Something tells me Spicer didn't have the wherewithal to make that statement.
Yeah, they got plenty of practice with the whole "do as I say not as I do" philosophy during Obama's presidency. Like when they shut the government down to throw a tantrum about the ACA and tried to blame how long the shutdown lasted on Democrats not compromising.
It's not to the SC yet; there are multiple cases winding through the courts.
That's witty enough, but I'd rather consider and reject. Unless it's Garland, then by all means confirm.
Meaning that only republican presidents get to appoint judges from now on.
But, trump is an idiot as are all the advisors he seems to be listening to, so I expect it to be one of his children.
This was my thinking.
Garland is a choice that could not be reasonably opposed, and Bannon is probably planning to ignore the courts entirely within a month or two. Some reports indicate they're doing that already.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
the GOP already has all the votes they need
e: trump is going to pick the worst piece of shit he can find, just like he did for every other position, because there isn't any reason not to
That's why i think he might go with Hardiman, something that doesn't lead to a showdown with Democrats because i don't think the Trump Admin is all that interested in lawfare, they'd rather just cut the courts out of the equation altogether.
I mean, what is the endgame here? It's the entire administration just strictly russian agents here to completely destroy America? If he nominates someone utterly awful, people steer just going to get angrier, I'm already concerned that unless the Senate takes action to say "we are in charge, all executive orders must go through us, and wait for 3 months of public comment to be enacted" that we may be too far gone to safely walk this back to normalcy.
Im not sure we have any angry headroom left.
It's not bad when Republicans do it.
Trump has the self awareness to know Garland wouldn't approve of his shit on a functional Supreme Court.
Bannon is a self-described Leninist who wants to completely tear down the institutions of government and rebuild them in his white nationalist image. He has said this. There are no secrets, this is what they promised. But nobody paid any fucking attention because Hillary's fucking e-mails were the greatest scandal in human history.
Do the republicans in congress and the Senate think there will be a winner in civil war 2? The USA will just crumple, taking much of the world with it. Are they really looking out their widow right now and going 'this is fine, trump is right, this protest isn't very big, I think that we can make people even angrier and cone out of this great!'
I mean, the Senate can still put a stop to this nonsense, so could people like the koch brothers or all the other republican super doners. Are they so afraid of democrats that they are happy to die to see them fail?
No, they think they'll get away with it 100%. And frankly, given how they were rewarded for their behavior during the Obama administration, they have every expectation of winning on all fronts.
It's not that they believe more protesters will help them, or even necessarily that they believe they can safely ignore the protesters. They may actually believe that the protests are media exaggerations, because that's what they're being told, and it fits the narrative they've been told for 20 years.
But now I can be perfectly fine with all-out obstruction.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades