Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.
Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.
I look forward to the supreme court being placed under a temporary stay by a lower court review of the 'Is it OK for the supreme court to have more than 9 justices' case, meaning that the supreme court is prevented from hearing cases until it has heard the case...
Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.
Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.
I look forward to the supreme court being placed under a temporary stay by a lower court review of the 'Is it OK for the supreme court to have more than 9 justices' case, meaning that the supreme court is prevented from hearing cases until it has heard the case...
lower courts have no power here. SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction almost certainly.
SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."
SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."
I think it would be wholly appropriate to get a Supreme Court judgment. Just that that judgment would include the new justices which we had appointed and had already taken their seats.
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
So cross-thread but Biden was asked about this tonight during the town hall and he did say that he's not talking about what he's going to do right now because the focus should be on what the GOP is doing. George said the voters have a right to know before they decide and Biden said they would, and that he'll answer the question after this (the confirmation) is done, before it (the election) is all over.
The answer is you're going to push the court, but you can't say you're going to do that because people associated that with FDR's plan and that is universally said to be bad in history books. One of the like, half dozen things you're supposed to know about the 20th century.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Sara Gideon, asked about making the judiciary less politicized in the Maine Senate debate, says she thinks "we should go back to having a filibuster in place for judicial nominees."
In the Maine Senate debate, Democratic candidate Sara Gideon (one of the most likely potential new senators) has a suggestion about the court, and it’s to bring back the judicial filibuster just in time for the Democrats potentially having power.
As someone who likes to poke fun at Democrats, I don’t like it when they push so hard into parody territory. I don’t know how I’m supposed one-up suggestions like this.
The answer is you're going to push the court, but you can't say you're going to do that because people associated that with FDR's plan and that is universally said to be bad in history books. One of the like, half dozen things you're supposed to know about the 20th century.
One of the numerous problems with the history textbooks, since that court was monstrous in terms of "get fucked plebs".
Sara Gideon, asked about making the judiciary less politicized in the Maine Senate debate, says she thinks "we should go back to having a filibuster in place for judicial nominees."
In the Maine Senate debate, Democratic candidate Sara Gideon (one of the most likely potential new senators) has a suggestion about the court, and it’s to bring back the judicial filibuster just in time for the Democrats potentially having power.
As someone who likes to poke fun at Democrats, I don’t like it when they push so hard into parody territory. I don’t know how I’m supposed one-up suggestions like this.
I suppose it's at least possible she's just lying for the moderate points/to shame the GoP, but I'm increasingly worried that we'll end up with a trifecta that still can't fucking do anything because so many Senators are morons (meanwhile, the 6/3 SCOTUS will be hard at work).
I think that a lot of Democratic senators are doing a lot of work either showing the process is a sham or that ACB is a conservative hack, but simultaneously that a lot of Democratic senators/potential senators are dumb as rocks. Gideon can't be worse than DiFi, but we can't afford that many people who want to play with both hands tied behind their backs.
There's probably a certain amount, also, of "look, you all know this is useless and inevitable, just give up and stop wasting time and let me have that seat before it gets cold."
That’s the real arrogance of it all. At least Kabanagh came prepared. With her, there is such an attitude of I don’t give a shit about these hearings, I have the votes in the bag.
The best people. She takes after her boss, after all.
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."
More likely we will seat our judges and then the court can hear the case.
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i know you can't bind future congresses but can you bind past congresses?
The only way it is permanent is via a Constitutional Amendment. Which is not necessarily a terrible idea but I think more comprehensive changes would be necessary and prudent because you might just end up with an opposite problem of being unable to fill vacancies.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
ElJeffe for SCOTUS. I like the way you think.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
to be fair, all the Constitution says about judicial terms is a single sentence in Article III
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
it doesn't explicitly say they hold their seats for life and it doesn't define what constitutes "good behavior"
i can think of a few justices it would be easy to remove under a not-even-all-that-loose interpretation
Thomas for repeated direct conflicts of interest comes to mind as an easy one
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
You could always avoid the constitutional issue and just make serving for more than 12 years on the Supreme Court a capital offense...
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i mean in the real world no justice is being removed but
The only thing that's "fair" is to take what may be the last good opportunity the US will have for the foreseeable future to ram as much pro-democracy policy through as you can. Which includes doing something about the courts because at this point they are probably the biggest threat to US democracy. The proposed alternatives are just about optics and don't accomplish shit.
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
to be fair, all the Constitution says about judicial terms is a single sentence in Article III
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
it doesn't explicitly say they hold their seats for life and it doesn't define what constitutes "good behavior"
i can think of a few justices it would be easy to remove under a not-even-all-that-loose interpretation
Thomas for repeated direct conflicts of interest comes to mind as an easy one
From what I've heard of proposals, term limits for justices should be constitutional. I'm not sure if retroactive term limits are though.
The biggest reason for a 6-3 SCotUS to stay out of the election is as a peace offering to the Dems. Literally the thing that kept FDR from being able to push through a SCotUS expansion was the Court siding with him on some key rulings. Roberts &co may try the same tactic if they're reasonably certain it'll kill the political will to expand the Court. The media will say it's Roberts protecting his legacy, but it's really them protecting their majority.
Of course, that doesn't account for if they think they can get Trump re-elected, nor does it account for Barrett, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Thomas deciding to grant Cert anyway because eff it.
Those are the nightmare scenarios, both for the election and in general going forward. BACT can basically force the Court to hear any case they want now. Conversely, the 3 liberals need Roberts to vote with them just to get a case before the Court.
The biggest reason for a 6-3 SCotUS to stay out of the election is as a peace offering to the Dems. Literally the thing that kept FDR from being able to push through a SCotUS expansion was the Court siding with him on some key rulings. Roberts &co may try the same tactic if they're reasonably certain it'll kill the political will to expand the Court. The media will say it's Roberts protecting his legacy, but it's really them protecting their majority.
Of course, that doesn't account for if they think they can get Trump re-elected, nor does it account for Barrett, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Thomas deciding to grant Cert anyway because eff it.
Those are the nightmare scenarios, both for the election and in general going forward. BACT can basically force the Court to hear any case they want now. Conversely, the 3 liberals need Roberts to vote with them just to get a case before the Court.
If the supreme court attempts to 'decide the election' as anything other than "Biden wins" then we live in a dictatorship.
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 reduced the count of the Supreme Court by 3, with the current members serving until retirement or death and no replacements being made until the count was reduced by 3. So there is a historical precedence.
"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.” https://t.co/8Jyzqvcbnh
Posts
I look forward to the supreme court being placed under a temporary stay by a lower court review of the 'Is it OK for the supreme court to have more than 9 justices' case, meaning that the supreme court is prevented from hearing cases until it has heard the case...
Is there video of him actually questioning her yet? Because yeah, that was a great watch and I'm curious to see how he plans on following it up.
it's certainly already on C-Span
lower courts have no power here. SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction almost certainly.
I think it would be wholly appropriate to get a Supreme Court judgment. Just that that judgment would include the new justices which we had appointed and had already taken their seats.
So cross-thread but Biden was asked about this tonight during the town hall and he did say that he's not talking about what he's going to do right now because the focus should be on what the GOP is doing. George said the voters have a right to know before they decide and Biden said they would, and that he'll answer the question after this (the confirmation) is done, before it (the election) is all over.
So that's a thing.
In the Maine Senate debate, Democratic candidate Sara Gideon (one of the most likely potential new senators) has a suggestion about the court, and it’s to bring back the judicial filibuster just in time for the Democrats potentially having power.
As someone who likes to poke fun at Democrats, I don’t like it when they push so hard into parody territory. I don’t know how I’m supposed one-up suggestions like this.
One of the numerous problems with the history textbooks, since that court was monstrous in terms of "get fucked plebs".
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I suppose it's at least possible she's just lying for the moderate points/to shame the GoP, but I'm increasingly worried that we'll end up with a trifecta that still can't fucking do anything because so many Senators are morons (meanwhile, the 6/3 SCOTUS will be hard at work).
100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.
No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.
The best people. She takes after her boss, after all.
Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.
If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.
Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.
More likely we will seat our judges and then the court can hear the case.
I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.
When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.
How can you note bind past congresses. Anything you do "binds past congresses"
Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.
I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.
ElJeffe for SCOTUS. I like the way you think.
to be fair, all the Constitution says about judicial terms is a single sentence in Article III
it doesn't explicitly say they hold their seats for life and it doesn't define what constitutes "good behavior"
i can think of a few justices it would be easy to remove under a not-even-all-that-loose interpretation
Thomas for repeated direct conflicts of interest comes to mind as an easy one
You could always avoid the constitutional issue and just make serving for more than 12 years on the Supreme Court a capital offense...
The only thing that's "fair" is to take what may be the last good opportunity the US will have for the foreseeable future to ram as much pro-democracy policy through as you can. Which includes doing something about the courts because at this point they are probably the biggest threat to US democracy. The proposed alternatives are just about optics and don't accomplish shit.
From what I've heard of proposals, term limits for justices should be constitutional. I'm not sure if retroactive term limits are though.
Of course, that doesn't account for if they think they can get Trump re-elected, nor does it account for Barrett, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Thomas deciding to grant Cert anyway because eff it.
Those are the nightmare scenarios, both for the election and in general going forward. BACT can basically force the Court to hear any case they want now. Conversely, the 3 liberals need Roberts to vote with them just to get a case before the Court.
If the supreme court attempts to 'decide the election' as anything other than "Biden wins" then we live in a dictatorship.
The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 reduced the count of the Supreme Court by 3, with the current members serving until retirement or death and no replacements being made until the count was reduced by 3. So there is a historical precedence.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
So, so tired.
robbing banks falls outside of my job duties