U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150625123238-will-mullery-justice-scalia-large-169.png

aaaaand here we go:

President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.

Mr. Obama is adamant that he will name a nominee to the court, most likely in the next few weeks. Republicans remain just as adamant that they will not even meet with Mr. Obama’s nominee, let alone hold confirmation hearings.

Then again, the meeting on Tuesday will bring together six men who have rarely been accused of keeping their remarks brief. Besides Mr. Obama, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Grassley, the invited participants include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Thomas speaks!

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.

“O.K.,” he said. “So, can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”

Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”

The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.

Chris Christie says there should be hearings. So you can all exhale now.

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

wish I could see video of Eisenstein's reaction to this

Ha! Yeah, jaw must've hit the floor.

"Shit, I thought this was going well - I'm dreaming, aren't I?"

Dust and cobwebs covering Thomas' mike.

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

http://i.imgur.com/jrbn9oI.gif

"Wha? Who said that!"

and of course the motherfucker asks a question to which any non-lawyer could have given a reasonable answer: yeah, many constitutional rights have had court-imposed limits.

The cause that inspired Thomas to break a ten year silence: men convicted of domestic violence who wish to own guns.

Voisine v. United States involves a fairly technical question of whether two men with previous domestic assault convictions are subject to federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Justice Thomas, however, appeared deeply troubled by the idea that these men may not be able to carry a firearm.

Noting that the right to carry a gun is ordinarily “a constitutional right” under existing law, Thomas began his questioning by asking if Ilana Eisenstein, the attorney arguing the case on behalf of the federal government, could “give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right.”

There are many possible answers to this question. The Supreme Court has long recognized that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel within the United States, yet a person convicted of a misdemeanor could be arrested and jailed for up to a year. Similarly, the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association” with other individuals, but such an association may be difficult to maintain while an individual is incarcerated. The Constitution also provides fairly robust protections for property rights, but someone convicted of a misdemeanor may lawfully be fined.

In any event, Thomas continued to press Eisenstein for several pages of the argument transcript. At one point, he appeared bothered by the fact that domestic abusers have their right to own a gun suspended indefinitely. At another point, he seemed to suggest that the particular domestic abusers at issue in this case should not lose their ability to carry guns because they’ve never actually “use[d] a weapon against a family member.”

Thomas appeared unmoved when Eisenstein pointed out that “individuals who have previously…­­ battered their spouses, pose up to a six­fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.”

Justice Thomas has a record of near absolutism on the Second Amendment. Last December, while the nation was still mourning the mass killing of more than a dozen people at a facility for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino, California — a crime that was committed with assault rifles — Thomas penned a dissenting opinion suggesting that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.

Indeed, it now appears that Thomas believes that the Second Amendment should be read so broadly that even domestic abusers must be allowed to own guns. And that he is so committed to this cause that it is the only thing that he’s spoken about in ten years of Supreme Court hearings.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754773/justice-thomas-just-broke-his-ten-year-silence-to-complain-that-domestic-abusers-cant-have-guns/

The Notorious RBG at work:

That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.

“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

However, per the NY Times, if the court deadlocks 4 to 4, the stringent Texas law upheld by the conservative Appeals Court could stay in effect:

Although Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month may have muted the prospect of truly bold action in the case, even a 4-to-4 tie would have enormous consequences because it would leave in place the appeals court decision, which challengers say could drive down the number of abortion clinics in Texas to about 10 from roughly 40. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s death means the court is very unlikely to weaken constitutional standards affecting abortion in the rest of the nation, as the four liberal justices would not go along.

yeah this is not a good outcome

TPM publishes one of those speculative pieces:

The current situation has put the chief justice in an awkward position. Senate Republicans have picked this fight with the White House in the hopes that a future GOP president can ultimately pick a Scalia successor, restoring the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they also embroiled the court in the very partisan contentiousness from which Roberts tries to insulate the court.

“He’s in an interesting place, personally, because on the one hand, I’m sure he would like a reliable conservative vote, and on the other hand, I can’t imagine he wants to operate with a court of eight for two terms, which is what it effectively would be,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM. “My guess is he would rather have the position filled and get the court out of this particular spotlight.”

Unless Roberts makes the unlikely decision to speak out about the hardball Senate Republicans are playing, we won’t know how he feels about it. And even if he did object to their refusal to restore the full bench, at least for another year, saying so publicly might only make matters worse. But a review of Roberts’ record suggests the current standoff presents competing interests for the chief justice, and legal experts argue, at the very least, he would be torn.

“In his heart of hearts, he probably has views on these things. It would be very hard not to,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said in an interview with TPM. "He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

the TRAP laws case is so very infuriating to me; these fuckers trying to pretend their objection is not entirely moral but is about "helping women" is the most hypocritical load of bullshit

"He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

Well, what fun is it to be the Chief Justice of a despised and disrespected institution? People just spit on you in public or chant your name in a funny voice.

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes
housing/feeding/clothing the child and the mother however is SOCIALISM and not the state's business. these bastards are willing to put actual lives in danger in practice rather than risk their principals not being fully executed
so angry

Don't we all do that? I mean, don't some of us trade security for freedom/privacy?

it's a bit different when you're risking lives of people that you're not even remotely connected to because you want to save their miraculous soul babies but don't give a damn about what happens post partem

Sadly, George Clinton can no longer make Richard Pryor minister od education

Oops, wrong thread

true though

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes

OTM -- these people see themselves as fetus Harriet Tubmans and John Browns.

with respect to the case, it's not a "good outcome" but it doesn't strike me as a worse outcome than you'd likely get if Scalia were alive.

i saw this a few weeks ago and some of the actual cases these laws impact are utterly heartbreaking
http://www.trappeddocumentary.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjgVPPEoFt8

Same director as the outstanding 'Gideon's Army'; she spent months at the clinics in question to see what the actual work that they're doing is about and it's utterly damning to the "for the safety of women" argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIvZuypso4

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-adoption-idUSKCN0W91N5?utm_source=twitter

omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch

Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

that actress looks like Ginny!

that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit

I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino

right?

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Supreme-Court-upholds-same-sex-adoptions-6875630.php

that is the same story that DJP linked, no?

ah sorry

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-five-judges-the-white-house-is-considering-for-the-supreme-court/2016/03/06/2e785858-e0a4-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

One of my wife's classmates from undergrad (Ketanji Brown Jackson) made the shortlist.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by an anti-Muslim group who wanted to post ads on buses in Washington state showing photos of wanted terrorists

the Scalia Effect in full effect

hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward

were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?

I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man

*crumples sketch, fumes*

(xpost)

The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.

(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).

It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-pinata-scotus-nom

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata."

"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.

When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."

"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.

I urge President Obama to nominate a properly-decorated, sufficiently brightly-colored, amply candy-filled judge.

http://pinataboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/155-682x1024.jpg

that's a vulture. Would Cornyn-shaped maggots ooze out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isye5-k6P8I

Encouraging:

For Democrats, the Supreme Court fight is “a godsend,” asserted one senior Democratic aide. Senate Democrats aren’t talking about the Iran nuclear deal they greenlighted, or the controversial trade agreement they authorized the president to negotiate. The challenges facing the U.S. economy or growing budget deficit? Off the radar.

For Senate Democrats at this moment, it’s all about the Supreme Court vacancy — and why Republicans claim they should be able to keep open the seat that Scalia once held, for at least another year.

“The Republican Committee members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide that this committee — and the Senate as a whole — will simply refuse to consider a Supreme Court nominee this year,” the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), said at a panel hearing Wednesday. “This is not only a dereliction of our constitutional duty, but also denies the American people the chance to participate in the public consideration of the nominee.”

Senior Senate Democrats are holding daily calls with White House officials to coordinate their message, according to Democratic staffers. Two former top White House aides, Stephanie Cutter and Katie Fallon, have been working with outside groups as they try to hammer Republicans.

oh well:

But those familiar with the thinking of White House officials said Obama is disinclined to name an outspoken progressive as a probable sacrificial lamb. Instead, they said, the White House thinks it may be able to apply the greatest pressure on resistant Republican senators by choosing a highly qualified federal judge regarded as moderate and non-ideological.

Even one of the moderate candidates, administration officials think, could significantly shift the balance of the court after Scalia, the outspoken anchor of the court’s conservative wing for three decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-five-judges-the-white-house-is-considering-for-the-supreme-court/2016/03/06/2e785858-e0a4-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

lol that is totally predictable. why sacrifice somebody. and a swing voter is still better than hardcore ideologue. Since no one's gonna be confirmed anyway it makes sense to just play the politics angle of it, make it as difficult/embarassing/costly for the GOP as possible.

has something changed on that link since I posted it 2 days ago?

Ha, I thought the Post did do an update but couldn't find the link. I think they have narrowed the picks even more. Posted that bit from it for those who didn't read the link, and didn't see what the White House approach is on this.

Even one of the moderate candidates, administration officials think, could significantly shift the balance of the court after Scalia

here is how soft I've gotten: a moderate's fine with me, I actually don't want Obama to nominate some heavy progressive who'll give ammo to the GOP. just pick somebody who'll reopen the clinics and I'm cool

What nominee of Obama's, whatever their ideological stance, WON'T infuriate the GOP?

curious as to how the GOP doing what they have successfully been doing for 8 years going to suddenly work against them

Senate has not been v successful fyi

Now that they've announced their position, the less that Senate republicans say about it, the better off they'll be. The more the democrats can goad them into defending themselves, the better off the democrats will be.

If the nominee appears as someone who should be perfectly acceptable to both sides, then voters in the mushy middle, when forced to think about it, will become angry at Republican intransigence. The only voters who'll agree with this stonewall nonsense are voters who already hate Obama and are beyond reach.

Voters are already mad at gop about this, including yr mushy middle independents

A majority of those surveyed — 54 percent — said they believed Obama would nominate a liberal justice and that his pick would tip the balance of the Supreme Court. And nearly 56 percent said justices should follow the original intent of the Constitution, in the mold of Scalia.

"Our findings show that a majority of U.S. voters share the concerns of the GOP in regard to tipping the ideological balance of the Court and the need for the next Justice to strictly interpret the Constitution," the memo reads.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/senate-supreme-court-scalia-220552

"The survey found almost unanimous awareness of the death of Justice Scalia"

Wait, who the fuck did they ask?

Strimple found that 54 percent of those surveyed were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia

It does seem like a high number...

Cornyn, like the vast majority of his 54-member conference

... they just asked senators, didn't they?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/antonin_scalia_s_death_has_changed_the_way_the_supreme_court_and_conservative.html

Reuters reported Friday that President Barack Obama has selected three top candidates to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

According to Reuters, Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

from the Slate article:

In an incredibly short time frame we have seen, for instance, a major antitrust appeal from Dow Chemical settled for $835 million last month, when the company determined that it wasn’t worth the risk to spin the wheel at a 4–4 court. Having only last month granted a completely unprecedented stay in a challenge to President Obama’s new environmental regulations—before the case had even been adjudicated in a lower court—Roberts batted away a similar request challenging a different pollution regulation without comment last week. Not here, he seemed to be cautioning Michigan and the other states that wanted to challenge the law. Not anymore.

Consider, too, that in New York this week a key gun rights group opted to drop its challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s SAFE Act—the big post–Sandy Hook gun control initiative—out of a concern that it could not prevail at the high court without Scalia on the bench. According to the New York Daily News, a National Rifle Association board member explained that the challenge had been halted en route to the court because “it’s just the wrong time.” His lawyers advised that “going forward could damage the case because the High Court at the very least would likely deliver a split 4-4 decision that would leave the law in place.”

Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP.

I want Sri to get the nod so I can hear senators try to pronounce 'Srinivasan' during the hearing

and their undoubtedly ridiculous questions about hinduism

"Where were you on Christmas Day?"

I'd give him points if he recycled Kagan's answer.

i guess i'm in the tank for watford, though he seems the least likely of the final three

"again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP."

Srinivasan sure, not so sure the other two fit that mode.

Kelly for example strikes me as a lot more likely to be embarrassing (esp. given her Grassley connection) than Garland or Watford does.

An analysis of the ways in which libs need to dampen the enthusiasm for Ginsberg

Last term, in the mostly unrelated case of Davis v. Ayala, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a lengthy concurrence condemning solitary confinement. He described the new and growing awareness that solitary confinement caused massive harm and closed by inviting a challenge to the practice: “In a case that presented the issue, the judiciary may be required, within its proper jurisdiction and authority, to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.” Most notably, Justice Kennedy made no reference to any particularly vulnerable group, instead suggesting that long-term solitary confinement may be unconstitutional for all. Justice Ginsburg did not join the concurrence.

Kennedy was the only justice on this concurrence--Ginsburg joined Sotomayor's dissent. The case wasn't even about solitary. What a weird thing to accuse her of. The only remarks about solitary in the entire opinion are his.

I like Ginsberg fine as a justice, but Stevens was the best liberal justice we've had in the relatively short time I've followed the court at all. I reflexively hate (1) hero worship (2) ironic hero worship (3) SCOTUS fanboyism (4) white dorks using hip-hop references in a simultaneously smug and self-deprecating way, and (5) brown-nosey mainstream democrat types trying to make it seem really cool and radical to just be a moderately progressive person. So the Notorious RBG stuff rubs me the wrong way.

otm

booming post

(and ginsburg is great, in a vacuum)

I don't think Stevens' jurisprudence has gotten the attention it deserves; I'd love to read a long-ass article.

Yeah, totally would read. In law school he was the guy whose opinions had me writing otm in my margin notes the most.

I like Ginsberg fine as a justice, but Stevens was the best liberal justice we've had in the relatively short time I've followed the court at all. I reflexively hate (1) hero worship (2) ironic hero worship (3) SCOTUS fanboyism (4) white dorks using hip-hop references in a simultaneously smug and self-deprecating way, and (5) brown-nosey mainstream democrat types trying to make it seem really cool and radical to just be a moderately progressive person. So the Notorious RBG stuff rubs me the wrong way.

Well said. She's great and all but stuff like this just furthers the overall cluelessness abt USSC matters among the general public.

I should probably take some time to get to know Kagan's and Sotomayor's jurisprudence a little better, but as I've noted I find Supreme Court nerdery to be a drag, although it's probably in my professional interest to act otherwise.

did you read Ginsburg's eulogy for Scalia? one of his assets was preferring her over Mario Cuomo for the seat.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273166-obama-may-announce-scotus-nominee-wednesday-report

ffs, not the 63-year old, please

Obama should just nominate a baby -- long career ahead, limited judicial record to pick apart.

Noted elsewhere - everywhere? here? - but one upside to Trump winning the nomination is it pretty much sweeps the legs out from intransigent GOP SC opposition.

Obama should nominate 12 different potential Supreme Court justices, then make them run around in a room talking at once. The GOP won't know who to oppose!

xp: why, Trump couldn't be convinced to nominate a conservative Justice? Or you mean because he can't win.

Trump would probably pull a Blagojevich and auction off the SC seat to the highest bidder.

Also, because of the gloom and doom about what a Trump nom would do to the GOP down ticket.

In seriousness, I think Trump would probably agree to nominate a "true conservative" in exchange for the right endorsements/backing, because I truly do not think he gives a fuck as long as he wins.

Oh he'd totally nominate a Miguel Estrada.

or Erik Estrada

reuters tweets that it's Srinivasan

Cnn is saying Garland.

FOX is saying Bork.

AP, NYT, WaPo all say Garland. Too old!

My people are telling me Clarence Clemons:
http://i.imgur.com/I3FLJYm.png

Called it.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Anyway, what's the story with Garland?

I mean, I am going to vigorously oppose him, but please lay out a case.

another member of the tribe on the court

Hmm:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.

Of the three principal candidates "“ the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood "“ Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.

To the extent that ideology plays a role in the nomination "“ and it obviously plays a material role "“ the other side of the coin of the factors that would in part drive Judge Garland's likely influence is the fact that, on questions on which the three principal candidates would disagree, he would generally be the least liberal.

from 2010 obv

if republicans have a brain cell between the bunch of them they'll take garland as a gift and confirm him immediately

and then we all can abstain from the presidential election happily

The Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995 helped shape Judge Garland’s professional life. He coordinated the Justice Department’s response, starting the case against the bombers and eventually supervising their prosecution.

Judge Garland insisted on being sent to the scene even as bodies were being pulled out of the wreckage, said Jamie S. Gorelick, then the deputy attorney general.

“At the time, he said to me the equivalent of ‘Send me in, coach,’” Ms. Gorelick said. “He worked around the clock, and he was flawless.”

oh yay another judge from Harvard

It's possible he set Garland up as a moderate fall guy knowing HRC may nominate someone else

I'm going to have Judge Judy Garland in my head for the next three months.

It's not exactly a pick that will excite the more liberal wing of the party. Oddest thing is how old dude is.

also: he's not Scalia

That scotusblog post takes pains to note that while he would be the least liberal of those listed (back then), that by no means means he's conservative. Just not progressive. But at least he does not seem to be blindly agenda driven, which puts him at odds with at least Alito and Thomas.

his track record on detainees seeking redress seems less than ideal to me but honestly if Obama thinks he'll be good on the SC I'm inclined to trust the guy who knows more about the law than I do

I guess Hatch is a fan, and pushed for him here.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

Who is playing the longer game of thrones con?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/

To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote. Nevertheless, as Goldstein wrote in 2010 when Garland was under consideration to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, “to the extent that the President’s goal is to select a nominee who will articulate a broad progressive vision for the law, Judge Garland would be a very unlikely candidate to take up that role.”

I think this largely all depends on whether senate can be forced to consider and vote on a candidate. If they are then Garland offers GOP both a fig leaf and perhaps a less bad outcome than they might expect post election. If they won't consider anyone I'm not sure it matters too much who Obama's nominee is although someone like Garland will probably get a little more beltway support (but it's not like any of proposed candidates were likely to meet much resistance there).

With Republican nominee likely to be Trump and there being a good chance that the GOP might crumble in response their "let's wait and see til post election" intransigence loses its luster if they think they'll lose in landslide.

ffs, not the 63-year old, please

― k3vin k., Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for real, this is kind of a bummer

i mean i don't really know much about srinivasan either but still

I don't know, for a position that's for life, I'm not sure I necessarily have a problem with someone older. Especially since an open seat on the court is so galvanizing.

BTW, which justices nominated by a Democratic president "ended up being conservative" on the Court?

Obviously best to have the best (which obv in my opinion is most progressive) justice for the longest time possible, but it's not like human longevity is not really predictable and there are other calculus at play for Obama. Assuming they thought Garland would be more difficult to oppose than Kelly/Srinivasan for GOP.

BTW, which justices nominated by a Democratic president "ended up being conservative" on the Court?

― Thomas H. Handy (dandydonweiner)

Frankfurter

iirc supreme court justices almost always move further to the left over their career xxp

he believed in a kind of judicial restraint that went out with OWH, Jr.

Obama intro in progress pretty airtight.

his track record on detainees seeking redress seems less than ideal to me but honestly if Obama thinks he'll be good on the SC I'm inclined to trust the guy who knows more about the law than I do

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:32 AM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'll take posts i'd never thought i'd read for $800

i like tune-yards fine but never really pictured her on the supreme court

lol obama says he nominated a serious man

prefer rabbi who was into the Airplane

lol

Between that article on Ginsburg's centrist tendencies that Soto posted on the 13th, and this nomination, I guess dreaming of a T. Marshall, Brennan type ever being on the court again will just stay a dream (for awhile at least). Will have to dream of a Dem victory for President and in the Senate, and then hope eventually we will get there, even via a centrist corporate Dem Pres or later via their successor. Maybe such a person could even be the first Black female on the court.

if McConnell thinks Trump will actually win (which he won't), he won't approve Garland. Then Hillary will win, the Dems will win the Senate, and Hillary will most likely nominate someone more lefty than Garland (and probably another woman, I wouldn't be surprised). But if McConnell is smart enough to accept that Trump is gonna lose, he'll cave on approving Garland. Dems win either way.

dreaming of a T. Marshall, Brennan type ever being on the court again will just stay a dream

worth remembering that Brennan could be Brennan because SCOTUS had more swing justices (Stewart, Powell, later O'Connor)

I need some convincing that Dems "win" if Garland gets approved, I guess. If there's no likely scenario in which a conservative justice gets nominated either under Obama or the next president, then the "win" for us is getting a more liberal justice.

if McConnell thinks Trump will actually win (which he won't), he won't approve Garland. Then Hillary will win, the Dems will win the Senate, and Hillary will most likely nominate someone more lefty than Garland (and probably another woman, I wouldn't be surprised). But if McConnell is smart enough to accept that Trump is gonna lose, he'll cave on approving Garland. Dems win either way.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:54 AM (5 minutes ago)

the latter is sort of a qualified victory in that more or less takes place on the GOP's playing field. you're so easily impressed by obama's chess skills but someone on the other side could just as accurately say that the GOP threat of obstruction forced obama to choose a more centrist justice than he would have otherwise. in a sense, since scalia was never going to be replaced by someone of his ideological orientation anyway, that's a win for them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/initial-thoughts-on-president-obamas-decision-to-nominate-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?postshare=9521458141503218&tid=ss_tw

this conservative thinks garland gets quickly taken up and confirmed after hillary beats trump in the general. (or maybe as it becomes obvious that trump will be the eventual (losing) nominee)

kevin otm, unless Obama also knows that Garland is secretly more left than he lets on or something.

You're assuming that any part of Obama thinks this nominee is going to go through rather than just sitting there making the GOP look terrible. "They could look better to some people (and worse to others) by not being obstructionist shitbags" was on offer for the last 7 years - the odds on it haven't changed.

#NoBorking.

^^^ piss off

that's all true, I just consider it a win in that any Dem nominee is *not* Scalia - the balance of the court shifts in favor of the left.

i don't think the two are mutually exclusive xxp

BUT DID HE GO TO AN IVY YES OR NO

that's all true, I just consider it a win in that any Dem nominee is *not* Scalia - the balance of the court shifts in favor of the left.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:11 AM (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fate smiled on us when Scalia died, but failing to make the best of the situation is not a win. Getting another Kennedy when we could get a liberal is not a great outcome -- these guys sit for life and the political pendulum swings back and forth faster than they die off.

hatch on garland 6 years ago http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-hatch-idUSTRE6456QY20100506

Bad move if you care about criminal defendant's rights. Most don't.

I hate the phrase “impeccable credentials.”

anyone left of scalia shifts the median judge a ton, even if they're not super liberal

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html

Οὖτις and AFarrell speak truth imo. If Senate Rs truly will not budge even an inch on an Obama nominee, then it doesn't matter whether Obama nominates Kanye West, Ted Cruz, or a leftover pork taco.

If Senate Republicans DO bother with hearings, and potentially even vote an Obama nominee out of committee, then those Senators will be massacred by rabidly frothing hardliners from their right, who regard any capitulation to the Hated Kenyan as treason. For various reasons it's better PR if they choose to self-immolate over a centrist choice like Garland than over, say, Lynch.

The next D president gets to nominate for Scalia's seat, the seat of the retiring RBG, or both. Hence the win/win prediction.

The next D president gets to nominate for Scalia's seat, the seat of the retiring RBG, or both. Hence the win/win prediction.

Alternatively, they never vote.

I hate the phrase “impeccable credentials.”
― Allen (etaeoe), Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"incredible pectorals"

Re: "Never vote," as in never this year, never for the next five years, or never for the next nine years?

I know there's a right-wing talking point that nine is not a magic number, the court has done fine with eight or seven justices in the past.

But I'm trying hard to imagine the spectacle of one, two, three empty chairs on the court, with Republican obstruction the only obstacle - and that has no political consequences for the obstructers?

It partly depends how much you take the hated Kenyan stuff at face value. Sometimes it's hard to discern whether some portion of the GOP is still a sentient being or whether it's all just a mass of flailing, disembodied squid tentacles. I think it's dangerous to assume the latter though.

unless Obama also knows that Garland is secretly more left than he lets on or something.

OOOOH MORE VULCAN CHESS

It's worth noting that the three oldest justices on the Court now are two liberals and a centrist, and that the oldest conservative justice is only 67. This nomination is pretty much the only chance we have for a long time of a liberal majority court. And I think Clinton if she wins has a very good chance of only one term.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mcconnell-rejects-garland-nomination-scotus

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) flatly rejected President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, saying there was no point in the Senate “endlessly debating an issue where we don’t agree.”

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say—their say—on this issue,” McConnell said from the Senate floor shortly after Obama’s announcement. “So let's give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide.”

“The American people may well elect an American president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” McConnell continued. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.”

McConnell suggested that the Senate would be better served working on issues that have some bipartisan consensus than what has become a fiercely partisan battle over the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant Supreme Court seat.

“Instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can’t agree, let’s work towards the issues where we can,” the majority leader said.

someone slap that jackass

So we're back to plan Nominate Kanye.

Also flailing, disembodied squid tentacles seems about right imo.

let's all pitch in and sign him up for the same hunting club as Scalia

seems like a win for Obama - nominate a centrist and make the senate republicans look like the obstructive losers they are by rejecting him out of hand

JiG: precisely

But I'm trying hard to imagine the spectacle of one, two, three empty chairs on the court, with Republican obstruction the only obstacle - and that has no political consequences for the obstructers?

I doubt it’d be a spectacle. We’re in an election season and it’s been a minor and inconsequential issue! Moreover, US Court of Appeals has nine vacancies and US District Courts have 64 post-Gang of 14.

"Getting another Kennedy when we could get a liberal is not a great outcome"

Uh this guy is not a Kennedy. He's William O Douglas and he's might be slightly to the right of the four liberal justices, but it's not like Obama is nominating an actual conservative.

William O. Douglas might've been the most liberal justice of the 20th century. Garland looks like a Souter type.

wow i thought i couldn't hate republicans more than i do but that mcconnell quote made me see red for a second. what a piece of shit.

yea

Is it wrong that I am hoping this obstruction continues so that they end up nominating one of my wife's classmates?

nah that's a o k

phew! #TeamKetanji

Sorry I meant not William O Douglas either.

It's ok if you humblebrag DJP, yes

saying there was no point in the Senate “endlessly debating an issue where we don’t agree.”

they've been endlessly debating obamacare for 6 fucking years

"[SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland] put himself through Harvard Law School by working as a tutor, by stocking shoes in a shoe store, and in what is always a painful moment for any young man, by selling his comic book collection," Obama said. "It's tough. [I've] been there."

ha

sometimes I love Obama

i once read an extremely soft, access-besotted RS interview w obama, and one of the hardhitting questions was what would you do if you had a day off being president and having been president, and he said he'd go to the beach and sit on the hood of his car and "drink juice out of a can" and i almost cried in blindsided empathy

they've been endlessly debating obamacare for 6 fucking years

and they don't agree! what are you a totalitarian

I had an argument with my dad about having the hypothetical chance to meet Obama; my dad was all "I don't need to meet him, he has far too many important things to do than meet me" and I was like "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE EMBEDDED INTO MY FRIEND CIRCLE IMMEDIATELY"

It seemed like the clearest definition of a generation gap I'd ever experienced within my family.

would totally hang out and talk old comics with the president

if I met Obama I'd advise him to stop reading so much Marilynne Robinson

shh quiet everyone – John Yoo has words.

President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court demonstrates a desire to compromise with the Senate, but it should not change the calculus of the Republican majority to keep Justice Scalia’s seat open. Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, commonly described as the second-most important court in the land after the Supreme Court (and the bench on which Justice Scalia served first, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Thomas). He has a reputation as a left-of-center judge, likely more moderate that the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court.

Choosing Garland indicates that President Obama hopes a moderate choice can get through the Senate. He has put aside the opportunity to choose a nominee who had no chance, but could be a convenient point of attack in the presidential campaign.

Nevertheless, Senate Republicans should keep Justice Scalia’s seat open at least until the November elections. The Senate has rarely confirmed Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year, especially when opposite parties have controlled the Senate and the White House. The Constitution does not require the Senate to confirm anyone; it only requires the Senate’s advice and consent before the president can appoint a justice to office. The Republicans can await the outcome of the elections

sometimes I love Obama

yeah, if only he didn't hold office

y'know the one under which his DOJ has more than once reaffirmed John Yoo's sense of jurisprudence

would totally hang out and shotgun some

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Inuxx/hawaiian-sun-drinks1_zpspy7xt3x2.jpg

with the president while haranguing him about john yoo

i like marilynne robinson! what's your beef w/ her, alfred?

I do too but he and Robinson held up three issues of the NYROB so they could share OK insights.

btw the aptly named Hot Air proffers these scenarios:

The conventional wisdom on Trump right now is that he’s a dead duck in the general election barring some sort of national crisis. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not out of left field: His favorable rating, for instance, is toxic and it’s an open question whether he could organize a national campaign capable of matching Hillary’s. If McConnell agrees with that CW, that Hillary’s a prohibitive favorite to win and that the backlash to Trump will hand Democrats the Senate, then refusing to confirm Garland now clears the path for Democrats to nominate and confirm a young hyper-liberal justice next year. Garland is already in his 60s and is no far-lefty; if Hillary wins big, liberals will insist that she exploit her mandate by engineering a new Warren Court. (Garland, ironically, clerked for the most liberal member of the Warren Court but he hasn’t followed the same trajectory as a judge.) So what do you do if you’re Mitch the Knife? Accept a quarter-loaf here by confirming a guy whose centrist credentials will be used to show just how unreasonable and obstructionist the GOP is in blocking him? Or risk having no loaf at all when Democrats win this fall and ram through whoever they want?

Another possibility: What if Trump wins the presidency but Democrats reclaim the Senate? Normally that would seem like an improbable outcome, but Trump could theoretically get enough Democrats and independents to cross over for him that he ends up beating Hillary even as those same Dems and indies hand a Senate majority to Chuck Schumer. In that case, even if Trump’s inclined to nominate a solid conservative, the nominee’s apt to get Borked. Trump may have no choice but to float a center-right justice, someone not wildly more conservative than Garland himself. And this assumes Trump’s true to his word that he’d aim for right-wing nominees for the Court. It may be that he wins the election and governs essentially as an independent, a la Mike Bloomberg in New York. How much better would his nominee be than Garland in that case, especially with Schumer exercising veto power?

This is why, contra my esteemed colleague, I think Garland will be confirmed. The question is when. At a minimum, McConnell won’t move on it until Trump’s nomination is assured; like I said up top, there’s too much risk of a voter backlash in the primaries to do it before then. He could move on it this summer, after Trump has clinched. Republican voters would still be outraged, but at that point the GOP establishment will quietly be working hand in glove with Trump to get him elected.

i imagine it'll be hard for mccconnell to walk back all "the american people must have a say!" rhetoric in order to allow a nomination

Mitch the Knife

gtfo w this

not to mention borked

#NoBorking.

John Yoo:

"The Senate has rarely confirmed Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year, especially when opposite parties have controlled the Senate and the White House."

Gee, did you ever stop to think that maybe that is true because it has come up so rarely? File this under "Lawyers Being Clever in Exceedingly Stupid Ways".

Especially when the nominees' last names start with G

I think the lefty angst I've seen over Garland is a little overdone, even leaving aside the likelihood that he'll never get a hearing. The NYT analysis pegs him right around Breyer ideologically, and there's no question anyone even slightly left of center would change the 5-4 calculus on most of the major divides. A Scalia-of-the-left is appealing mostly rhetorically, in the same way Scalia appealed to the right mostly rhetorically for most of his time on the bench.

Plus, if you're going to make somebody into a potential political sacrifice, I'd just as soon it's an old white guy, and save the other choices for when they have a stronger shot at being confirmed.

i think that hot air piece is 100% otm, which is why i thought nominating garland was risky

if garland were being offered solely as a sacrificial lamb, i'd love the pick. but, there's a serious chance senate republicans read the writing on the wall between now and january and realize he's the best pick they can possibly hope for. that would not be ideal for us

Why? "We" still get a justice in the Breyer-Souter mold, which is still better than Attila.

yea kevin otm xp

i'd almost say it is the more likely option that senate republicans will cave and confirm him, there is still plenty of time

btw didn't know this about failed Nixon appointee Harrold Carswell!

In September 1979, Carswell was attacked and beaten by a man whom he had invited to his Atlanta, Georgia, hotel room in similar circumstances.[18] Because of these incidents, Keith Stern, author of Queers in History, alleges Carswell to have been the first homosexual or bisexual nominated to the Supreme Court.

that's some real interpretative jiggery-pokery!

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/3/8/pinter-in-progression-pbnbight-school-landscape/

man Carswell's wiki entry is a treat

In defense against charges that Carswell was "mediocre", U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.

no wonder Nixon liked him

some of the greatest artists ever are bland.

like Marcel Marceau, f'rinstance

or Raffi

I knew about Hruska's comments, didn't know Carswell was a sodomite.

Well: https://twitter.com/nprmontagne/status/710142777569492993

cutting their losses eh. lame duck session confirmation would also get them out of the "let the American people have their say" rhetoric. Of course, if Obama was smart and wanted to twist the knife, he would withdraw Garland's nomination after the election and get some commitment from Hillary to nominate someone else w her new Senate majority.

which would be a total dick move but oh the lolz

dick move but do-able. garland could withdraw citing ill health and exhaustion with the process or something in october. but don't count on any eight-dimensional chess game here, though maybe more than the usual one dimension might apply.

Not sure what benefit is for Obama getting Garland over during lame duck session... This sounds dubious.

Yeah I would think that Obama will withdraw Garland before then.

Not sure what benefit is for Obama getting Garland over during lame duck session... This sounds dubious.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, March 16, 2016 4:20 PM (2 minutes ago)

shhhhh obama knows more about the law than us and is a master negotiator, just be happy!

oh i misread that tweet -- yeah, if they're going to wait til november anyway this would make no sense unless obama just really wants another justice in there as part of his legacy

wow. such dimensional. very chess.

Right I get making that deal if you get Garland now, but in November/December after Democrats have already won?!?! What's the upside then? It's been vacant for nearly a year by then, what's another month or two.

ughhhhhhhhh

This deal, it's a terrible deal. The worst deal I have ever seen. It's a disaster. We're gonna make a much, much better deal, and replace Garland with something way better.

This judge, let me tell you something, I know lots of judges and the guy is a loser. I dunno, maybe we should boycott the Supreme Court, I'm just throwing it out there.

I wonder what would happen if Obama said "y'know, if the Senate doesn't give my nominee a hearing... I don't know, but I represent millions of people, there's a good chance there would be riots. I think there's a very good chance there could be riots"

I say there's a 40% chance he would be shot immediately

otm

when I think about it, I consider it a minor miracle he hasn't been assassinated already.

It appears as though the Secret Service has gotten a lot better at protecting presidents lately.

Garland is a step up in that he doesn't believe in the literal devil burying dinosaur bones to fool people about the age of the earth

Anthony Anderson's monologue from the riot episode of Black-ish when describing watching the Obamas walk down the street during their first inaugural parade and being paralyzed by fear that they were about to be shot brought back some severely unpleasant memories of watching that footage and thinking the same thing.

Anthony Anderson's monologue from the riot episode of Black-ish when describing watching the Obamas walk down the street during their first inaugural parade and being paralyzed by fear that they were about to be shot brought back some severely unpleasant memories of watching that footage and thinking the same thing.

Yikes! Surely this has faded?

... The past seven years have given us Treyvon Martin, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Freddie Grey, Aiyana Jones, Sandra Bland, Kimani Gray, John Crawford III, Michael Brown, Miriam Carey, Tommy Yancy, Jordan Baker, and the massacre in South Carolina, so no it has not faded.

yeah Trump's armed and violent followers are hardly a palliative

That's not even including major incidents I left out like Tamir Rice

christ what an asshole

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, has called President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, and explained that no action would be taken in the Senate on the nomination, Mr. McConnell’s spokesman said.

Mr. McConnell also informed Judge Garland that they would not be meeting in person at the Capitol.

“Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House, the leader decided it would be more considerate of the nominee’s time to speak with him today by phone,” Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said in a statement.

“The leader reiterated his position that the American people will have a voice in this vacancy and that the Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next president nominates. And since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well.”

Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House

ice cold

so what's gonna happen? is this actually gonna cost any senators their seats, or what?

they have no bargaining chips really, I mean sure they could hold out for all that time but i suspect they are going to play chicken with Obama and will eventually find an excuse as to why they decided to start confirmation hearings despite frequent assurances that they wouldn't, while also assuring that they were doing it not because Obama told them to but because *they wanted to*!

i'd think they'd at least wait through all the primaries before folding; the florida senate primary isn't until august 30, so hell why not wait another two months anyway

tbh i don't think the senate gop has any idea what it's doing -- they're just delaying in the hope that things magically improve somehow

yeah it won't be tomorrow but they'll wait until they can't keep the charade up any longer

is it playing chicken if both sides are prepared to total one guys car?

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/busted-pbs-features-trump-volunteer-sporting-white-supremacist-tattoos/

88 tattoo not even hidden from view.

My wife knows Garland too, I found out tonight

(She is a big fan and compared him favorably with Kagan)

Xxpost oops that was for other thread

the GOP is pathetic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-garland-conservative-reaction

Washington Post Daily 202 column:

What worries the smartest people on the left is that McConnell will shepherd Garland’s confirmation through during the lame-duck session if Clinton wins, depriving the first woman president of her ability to pick a more progressive alternative. While Garland is 63, which means he has a relatively shorter shelf life on the bench, Hillary could pick someone who is still in her 40s.

Oops, just read the end of that TPM thing after I posted the Post comments

SCOTUS beat reporter Robert Barnes says it is probably accurate to describe Garland as “the most conservative Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president in decades.

His prosecutor background and some of his rulings on the D.C. Circuit indicate that he would not take uniformly liberal positions on criminal justice issues; on the circuit, he is more likely to side with the government than his liberal colleagues.”
• “Garland looks more like a left-leaning version of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: a Midwesterner with double degrees at Harvard who clerked for the same circuit judge, moved on to work for Supreme Court justices, served on the D.C. Circuit and made friends on both sides of the aisle.”

OK but "left leaning John Roberts" is a meaningless, incoherent description.

I get the political expediencies of this nomination, but it's hard not to be disappointed. if the GOP had NOT pulled this stunt and the nomination process proceeded more or less as normal, would he have chosen Garland? probably not, though who knows (ugh i've internalized the worst aspects of josh marshall style writing, sorry). so it feels like rewarding the GOP for their complete idiocy. now the possible are outcomes are 1) GOP folds before the election and we get a relatively older justice that even fox admits that Garland is the most conservative nominee from a democratic president in the modern era, or 2) GOP folds after Clinton wins and appoints Garland in the lame duck session, which effectively grants them an extra decision point that they normally wouldn't have, or 3) GOP wins the election and blood flows from our tear ducts. Those are all weak outcomes imo.

i guess the counterpoint is that if he would have nominated someone that liberals were excited about, it would be a more effective GOTV issue for the GOP. but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to go with Orrin Hatch's best friend, especially after waiting until after March 15 and seeing the state of the presidential nomination process

left wing law ppl i know think v highly of garland

What worries the smartest people on the left is that McConnell will shepherd Garland’s confirmation through during the lame-duck session if Clinton wins, depriving the first woman president of her ability to pick a more progressive alternative. While Garland is 63, which means he has a relatively shorter shelf life on the bench, Hillary could pick someone who is still in her 40s.
--curmudgeon

Again as per above if this gets to like September with no hearing/no vote I don't see why Obama wouldn't just withdraw Garland's name. This fear seems unfounded (aka Nina Totenberg sources might be making shit up).

-- In the Roosevelt Room yesterday afternoon, Obama privately made the case to leaders of 23 progressive groups that he did not sell them out. There are concerns about Garland’s moderate record and lack of a paper trail on certain issues important to supporters of abortion rights. “Obama emphasized he did not pick a nominee with an eye to pleasing a specific political constituency,” participants in the meeting told Juliet. “He said he thought many Americans would see the inherent unfairness of Republicans’ denying Garland a hearing. … ‘I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge,’ he said.”

-- The short-term problem for Democrats is that nothing about Garland will gin up their base, especially women and African Americans. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last week found that 63 percent of Americans want the Senate to hold hearings. Only one-third approve of waiting until next year. But this doesn’t capture the degree to which most voters just won’t care. “GOP advisers agree that public and private polling shows a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of holding hearings and possible votes on the Garland nomination,” Paul Kane reports. “But at the same time, they say that the intensity level on this issue is low and that voters are focused on the economy and national security as the most critical issues. The backlash from conservative voters, Republicans say, would be far worse than the small gain from going through the process with the nomination.”

more from W. Post Daily 202

left wing law ppl i know think v highly of garland

same here

The backlash from conservative voters, Republicans say, would be far worse than the small gain from going through the process with the nomination.”

This is what I have been trying to say.

One thing I wonder is what the benefit is to the GOP of just not even holding hearings, as opposed to just voting no? Is it that they think enough GOP senators could be turned on the right pick so they want the committee to prevent that from even happening? Or is it more of a psy-ops move?

“He said he thought many Americans would see the inherent unfairness of Republicans’ denying Garland a hearing. … ‘I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge,’ he said.”

yeah, maybe back in the 70s or something. in the cursed year of our lord 2016, it's more like this:

-most of the country isn't paying attention.
-of those that are paying attention, 99% already thought "wow mitch mcconnell is even more of a fucking asshole than i previously thought, weird!", or "obama is evil and there's no way he should shove another SC justice down this blessed country's throat, what with only 11 months to go until the next president takes office, my heavens, god DAMN i'm really stupid, hey i wonder what THIS household object tastes like if i boil it and mix it in with pancakes!"
- there are maybe 50 or 60 people, maybe 100 tops, that were paying attention, on the fence, and will now be newly astonished at the choice of Garland and the GOP's continued refusal to do anything. so obama's right, i mean he is going to definitely win the hearts and minds of those several dozen people
-

otm except the people being astonished at the GOP refusing to do anything clearly aren't paying attention

xp "We will not hold hearings" = a (very thread-bare) principle. "We will vote no" = we don't like this guy that we would have otherwise liked, because the president nominated him.

the whole "let the american people decide this" thing is so gross

yeah the american people decided in 2012

The smartest people on the left should look up actuarial tables on cancer survivors RBG's age.

They don't want hearings because it would give the nominee too much public exposure and make it difficult to defend voting him down. It's much easier to say they are not going to follow the process at all because of some bullshit about the will of the people

Jim Newell of Slate seems convinced Garland's a "prop":

Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop.
Jim Newell Jim Newell

The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitute political malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans.

http://www.theonion.com/article/defiant-mitch-mcconnell-holds-merrick-garlands-sev-52575

lol

Jim Newell of Slate seems convinced Garland's a "prop":

Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop.
Jim Newell Jim Newell

The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitute political malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:38 PM (29 minutes ago)

part of me doubts a jurist as well-respected and distinguished as garland would consciously agree to partaking in this sort of political theater for the better part of a year -- during which he removes himself from the 2nd circuit!

but all of the "what if" bases are going to be covered by some journalist or another, and if this board is known for one thing it's blind faith in obama's decision-making and political instincts

the DC circuit, i mean

the DC Circuit's known for one thing: its blind faith in Obama's decision-making and political instincts

Does he have to quit his current gig? I wasn't aware of that as a requirement.

he's not quitting, just sitting out while he's the nominee. and no, it's not required -- i read the other day that alito and roberts continued to file opinions while their nominations were under consideration

Is replacing nino with this guy really taht much of a loss

we've been over this

Is replacing nino with this guy really taht much of a loss

― Ecomigrant gnomics (darraghmac), Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gtfo

he's not quitting, just sitting out while he's the nominee. and no, it's not required -- i read the other day that alito and roberts continued to file opinions while their nominations were under consideration

― k3vin k., Thursday, March 17, 2016 6:32 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf with the clerks these guys have they probably only do high level edits

Cool thx guys

liptak takes the microscope to garland's record: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html

His most charged cases, involving national security and campaign finance, were as likely to disappoint liberals as to please them. He has repeatedly voted against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and he joined in a decision after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United that gave rise to “super PACs.”

In more run-of-the-mill cases, he was apt to side with workers claiming employment discrimination and against criminal defendants who said their rights had been violated.

Throughout, Judge Garland’s opinions were models of judicial craftsmanship — unflashy, methodically reasoned, attentive to precedent and tightly rooted in the language of the governing statutes and regulations. He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.

the toyota camry of supreme court justice nominees

does it seem like right wing media isn't talking a lot about this whole thing? like when it does the GOP talking points are obviously parroted but it also seems like they are quieter on this than some of the more left-leaning media. trump & the primaries obviously sucking way more energy but also perhaps maybe because mcconnell's argument is trash and people know it? idk i could be majorly off -- i don't have cable for example so i don't know what fox news or others are saying, they could be talking about "the american people should have a voice" all the time. but NRO Corner has only had just a couple of columns about this, one by john yoo lol, my local right wing AM radio is has not mentioned it all week

GOP knows they don't have majority public opinion behind them, they prefer to bury this

right that's kind of what i figured

plus SCOTUS followers are basically us and the Beltway.

yeah i always find dubious the claims that nominees should be selected in part by their ability to rally certain voters

these groups are into trying to rally voters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-plan-push-to-force-hearings-on-supreme-court-nomination/2016/03/17/97983d40-ec5b-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_garland-hill-920pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

That has given outside groups a central role in the coming fight, especially on the Republican side. Most prominent among them is the Judicial Crisis Network, which has coordinated the conservative response to the Scalia vacancy and has pledged to run millions of dollars in television ads to derail Obama’s nominee.

The group issued talking points Tuesday that said Garland would support “a laundry list of extreme liberal priorities, like gutting the Second Amendment, legalizing partial-birth abortion, and unleashing unaccountable bureaucratic agencies like the EPA and the IRS.”

America Rising Squared, a GOP-aligned opposition research organization, had been working with the Judicial Crisis Network and the Republican National Committee to investigate potential nominees. Brian Rogers, the firm’s executive director, said Wednesday that he now had about a dozen researchers digging into Garland’s background; some will be deployed across the country to vet the judge.

“The White House is planning a big coordinated effort, and we need to, too,” Rogers said.

The president’s mobilization call Thursday was organized by the Constitutional Responsibility Project, a nonprofit group formed by several former top Obama staffer. The group includes Stephanie Cutter, Julianna Smoot, Anita Dunn and Amy Brundage, all of whom worked both on his campaign team and in the White House.

The new tax-exempt organization, which is aimed at providing a platform for hundreds of groups to share information, has planned a series of events over the congressional recess, including a MoveOn Day of Action on Monday, with more than 50 grass-roots events outside senators’ offices, and a robust social-media campaign.

In Ohio, teachers will aim to put pressure on Sen. Rob Portman (R) with “Do Your Job Learn-ins” in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Lima. In Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, nurses, firefighters and union members will call on Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R) to meet with Garland and hold a hearing on his nomination

America Rising Squared

America Rising Prime was already taken?

http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/ed/23/84ed2366ea80475c58edf760e9e5b0ba.jpg

http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/char_533.jpg

Hill Rodhimus Prime

some Dem counter op should just name itself America Rising Cubed

sinking ship: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/18/mark-kirk-is-first-republican-senator-to-call-for-vote-on-garland/

Further complicating matters for Kirk is that Garland grew up in Illinois, in a Chicago suburb only a few miles from the border of the congressional district Kirk used to represent.

lol that's a good out. "Well, I just figgered, him bein' a home-town feller and all, well, a man oughta give him a fair shake and such."

Sam Nunn : Clarence Thomas

Not surprised with Kirk, thought he would give in pretty easily. He's going to have a hell of a fight against Duckworth in November, he's didn't need this held against him.

Yeah, ever since his stroke Kirk has been the first to kave.

Nina Tottenberg sez "zero chance" Obama withdraws nomination after/if HRC wins.

this was a dumb hill to die on, i look forward to shameful joy in seeing this resistance atomize as people realize they're gonna look moronic to their constituency

kirk is running for senate in a liberal state, he's also a centrist (one of the few) by disposition, so this isn't surprising in the least. but it gives a few other GOP senators some wiggle room, i think.

Senator Franken admirably bangs his head against a wall (the wall being Orrin Hatch):

https://www.facebook.com/senatoralfranken/videos/972614816157734/?fref=nf

Curious to know what freaked out Klobuchar so much that Franken had to reassure her mid-scold.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

sounds good to me!

ha, they've boxed themselves into a corner.

Vituperative jiggery pokery

“I can’t imagine that a Republican majority Senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left,” he added.

imagine how horrific a judge would have to be to replace Antonin Scalia and not move the court dramatically to the left

they'd have to appoint grover norquist or something

so punchable

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/20/mcconnell_says_republicans_won_t_vote_for_supreme_court_nominee_after_election/514347028-senate-majority-leader-sen-mitch-mcconnell-speaks-as.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

he looks like his face is already half-punched-in

Last month, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered some blunt remarks about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The Senate should ensure that nominees are qualified, he said, and leave politics out of it.

The chief justice spoke 10 days before Justice Antonin Scalia died, and he could not have known how timely and telling his comments would turn out to be. They now amount to a stern, if abstract, rebuke to the Republican senators who refuse to hold hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland.

Some people are hoping that the chief justice will speak out again, and more directly, addressing the actual nomination of an actual nominee.

It was not long ago that qualified nominees coasted onto the court, Chief Justice Roberts said last month. In 1986, Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0. In 1993, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3.

These days, Chief Justice Roberts said, “the process is not functioning very well.”

The last three justices should have sailed through, too, he said. He was referring to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., appointed by President George W. Bush, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by Mr. Obama. Forty-two senators voted against Justice Alito, 31 against Justice Sotomayor and 37 against Justice Kagan.

“Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn’t make any sense. That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.”

If Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were “extremely well qualified for the court,” it is a safe bet that Chief Justice Roberts has a similarly high regard for Judge Garland, with whom he served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

link?

am driving but it's on the NYT's front page

"Antonin Scalia would not return calls requesting comment despite several attempts."

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a conservative challenge to the marijuana legalization laws adopted in Colorado and elsewhere that permit adults to buy, sell or use one ounce of the drug.

By a 6-2 vote, the justices turned away a lawsuit brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma, whose state attorneys complained that illegal marijuana was pouring into their states as a result of Colorado's liberalized laws.

"The state of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects and profits from a sprawling $100-million-per-month marijuana growing, processing and retailing organization that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 states in 2014," they said. "If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html

Quad-City Times goes after Grassley:
http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-majority-s-voice-ignored-in-scotus-stall/article_90b6da66-1f34-57d3-93b4-ea4b12c2fe56.html

who the fuck are these Freedomworks millenials that are into Goldwater:
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/03/21/us/21court-web02/21court-web02-articleLarge.jpg

in 2016 Goldwater is Henry Wallace, Shakes.

Apparently the kind that think it is cool to put facebook and instagram stickers on our cubicle, not to mention that vest. I revoke their youth.

on *your cubicle

Goldwater, their hero, staunchly stood against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but purely on the basis of state's rights, mind you, not because he had a single drop of racist blood in his veins. He was just that principled, you know.

nyt:

"A study of 14 cases showed that Merrick B. Garland, the Supreme Court nominee, favored the police and prosecutors 10 times, bolstering his reputation as a moderate."

tp:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/17/3761337/merrick-garland-isnt-especially-liberal-heres-what-that-means-for-how-hell-decide-cases/

Important qualifier: "So a partial explanation for why he’s sided with so few criminal defendants is probably that he hears fewer criminal cases than other judges."

Also: "Nevertheless, Garland is a former prosecutor who, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, is likely to be more conservative on criminal justice issues than an average Democratic appointee."

Sotomayor was a prosecutor too.

Garland is likely to be more conservative than Kagan and Sotomayor based on what we know of his record.

My wife's anecdotal impression of him is that he will align much closer to Kagan than people are assuming, but she is basing this primarily on interactions outside of the courtroom.

being a prosecutor definitely does not automatically mean conservative -- it's a sought-after job for law school grads to work in a DA or US Atty office just because of what it opens up.

Agency deference isn’t one of the sexiest issues that comes before the Supreme Court, but it is one of the most important. Especially as Congress falls into deeper and deeper dysfunction, presidents must turn to their existing authority under federal statutes (and the authority held by agencies within the executive branch) in order to be able to govern. Smart and influential conservative groups are very aware of this fact, and they have very well developed plans to effectively shut down much of President Obama’s power by shrinking executive agencies’ authority and limiting judicial deference to agency actions.

Garland’s confirmation would end many of these plans. It would almost certainly cut off the challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, the administration’s most ambitious effort to fight climate change. And it would most likely add another vote to the Supreme Court who would uphold the administration’s authority to temporarily allow millions of undocumented immigrants to live and work in this country.

these days I'm thinking Garland's a sacrificial lamb, not really gonna waste time worrying about how marginally lefty he is

He is totally a sacrificial lamb but I think the important thing is that he is not a Thomas/Alito in disguise; this fantasy of stacking the court with ultraliberal judges was never going to happen regardless of who the Democratic president was due to the makeup of the Senate anyway so I don't understand why a) people are surprised that Obama nominated a moderate; b) why people thought Obama wouldn't nominate someone that the Republicans held up as a consensus pick in the past; and C) why people are looking for ways to cast Garland himself as anything but a centrist who swings right on some issues and left on others

Also: he's not ugly like last centrist Lewis Powell:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/images/powell_082598ap.jpg

Obama played a good hand here - doesn't lose much if (through some miracle) Garland actually gets confirmed, otherwise provides maximum embarassment/electoral trouble for GOP Senators. He wins either way.

xp

Yeah, exactly. It's semi-amazing to me that people are lamenting a lost hypothetical scenario that was never, ever going to happen, even if Scalia lived past the election and Sanders won.

i'm 100% rooting for him not to get confirmed so 1) it hurts the GOP as much as possible in november (though i do think the influence this is going to have on any elections is wildly overstated) and 2) we get someone better if he gets withdrawn

that's some political jiggery pokery

I mean, I am hoping he gets withdrawn so that one of my wife's classmates gets nominated instead but that's kind of beside the point of this being an excellent choice that maximizes the competing poles of "good for the Supreme Court" and "good as a political weapon that embarrasses the hapless pile of nonsense that is the modern Republican party"

Yeah, exactly. It's semi-amazing to me that people are lamenting a lost hypothetical scenario that was never, ever going to happen, even if Scalia lived past the election and Sanders won.

― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:43 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no one (here) thinks the 2016 equivalent of brennan was going to get confirmed given the current senate, but the two of you do seem to be very eager to downplay the opportunity cost of confirming a 63-year old moderate in your boundless zeal to gush over obama's every chess move. it's a real risk

Would you rather he nominated a 50-year-old centrist?

it is the least risky path

xp

personally, since as I mentioned my feeling is that the nomination's impact on the election is overstated, i put more value in getting the best nominee confirmed. shifting the court as much as possible for 25 years vs maybe, potentially altering some smaller races this november somehow xp

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

Would you rather he nominated a 50-year-old centrist?

― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:50 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

actually yeah! since we don't know what party the president is gonna be to replace the nominee, at least keep him on as long as possible

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:55 PM (2 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes shakey i very well understand the political rationale for the pick

kickin' cans down the road + least risky paths = genius Democratic strategy of the ClintonColossus Era

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

but they ALREADY were revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent. that was revealed for all to see just after scalia's death, when mcconnell courageously announced that there was no fucking way the GOP would participate in the appointment process, no matter who the candidate was.

yeah, and this nominee called their bluff on that

basically i'm with k3vin on this one. the political advantage of going with a centrist is temporary, and i don't think the obama administration needed any sort of help in making the GOP look completely terrible on this. they already looked terrible. the more important thing is the actual person who will sit on the court for the rest of their life

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:55 PM (2 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The problem is that NONE OF THIS FUCKING MATTERS. THIS IS THE SOUND OF A POLICY WONK JERKING OFF INTO A SOCK. (not you shakey but whoever came up with this "strategy").

getting images of Sidney Blumenthal in a closet making quiet noises

Obama was always going to go with a centrist. Obama is a centrist and he clearly like Garland for a pick for a while now. The only complaint about Garland I "get" is that he's older but even that's kinda meh peeps live into their 80s now.

Yeah I've started to think the pick makes a lot more sense if you DO assume it's someone Obama would actually like to put on the bench.

inside the situation room:

http://i.imgur.com/8fz2qNB.jpg

that was uh the last paragraph in the ThinkProgress story Morbs. Obama likes this kind of judge on the bench.

*story Morbs posted, that is

Karl/k3vin - I guess I don't understand what ideal scenario you guys are arguing for. Obama nominating someone leftier just means that a lefty goes down as the sacrificial lamb. Why would that be preferable? Or do you think there was some way a more liberal nominee could actually get confirmed?

xp

like why on earth do you think someone leftier would actually get to the court

idk if obama picked him for cynical political reasons at all. my guess is it's a combination of 1. obama is a centrist lawyer and garland is a widely respected judge. 2. obama believes we should sit a justice asap for the sake of the health of our judiciary and nation and he thought this was his best shot of getting one through. 3. most candidates did not want to be nominated because of the republicans but garland is old and was willing to take the risk.

Yeah I've started to think the pick makes a lot more sense if you DO assume it's someone Obama would actually like to put on the bench.

― human life won't become a cat (man alive), Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:14 PM (2 minutes ago)

yeah totally, i mean he's not going to nominate him unless he's comfortable with him being confirmed

yeah I think it's all those things albeit + the political maneuvering

also mordy otm

When it's over, Garland returns to his safe seat in the country's second most powerful court; all he has to watch is for the possibility that he'll get vilified by the right, which I don't think they're going to do because it's safer politically to keep quiet and heads low.

McConnell can keep repeating, "NO MEETINGS NO MEETINGS AAAHH AAH" and duck into his office.

Ugh centrists

Karl/k3vin - I guess I don't understand what ideal scenario you guys are arguing for. Obama nominating someone leftier just means that a lefty goes down as the sacrificial lamb. Why would that be preferable? Or do you think there was some way a more liberal nominee could actually get confirmed?

just a second, i have to go change socks. ok,

if someone leftier went down as the sacrificial lamb (which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion imo - as mentioned, the GOP already revealed themselves to have a completely indefensible stance on this with 24 hours of Scalia's death, so it's possible at some point in the year they finally give in and at least hold a hearing. but yeah, it's unlikely), then someone else could be nominated by clinton. at that point, after garland was shot down and the SC vacancy became a real election issue, she could use the argument of the republicans ("let the people choose") against them, and claim to have a mandate of sorts, especially in a trump landslide loss scenario. the downside of this strategy would be a supreme court with only 8 members, all the way up to Spring 2017.

http://i.imgur.com/oKOybnT.jpg

fuck, i mean i don't know. i just hate when the terrorists win

another thing -- i actually haven't seen anyone mention this, again probably because most pundits are also focused on the perceived chess match, but is there some rule saying someone who gets rejected by the senate (or, more likely, not considered at all) can't be re-nominated (or finally taken up) next spring with the new senate, with democrats potentially controlling the judiciary committee?

No rule at all. It happened with one of Hayes' justices, I believe.

i mean if obama nominates, idk, paul watford or someone, and the senate ignores the nomination (as they're doing now with garland), what's stopping the new senate from voting on him in 2017?

yep:

On January 26, 1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Matthews for a position as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Matthews was a controversial nominee, and as the nomination came near the end of Hayes's term, the Senate did not act on it. Upon succeeding Hayes, incoming President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews in March 1881,[1] and the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 24 to 23, the narrowest confirmation for a successful U.S. Supreme Court nominee in history. He served on the Court until his death in 1889.[2]

if someone leftier went down as the sacrificial lamb (which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion imo - as mentioned, the GOP already revealed themselves to have a completely indefensible stance on this with 24 hours of Scalia's death, so it's possible at some point in the year they finally give in and at least hold a hearing. but yeah, it's unlikely)

if they aren't going to approve Garland, why would they ever approve someone leftier, that they don't already like? idgi

then someone else could be nominated by clinton. at that point, after garland was shot down and the SC vacancy became a real election issue, she could use the argument of the republicans ("let the people choose") against them, and claim to have a mandate of sorts, especially in a trump landslide loss scenario. the downside of this strategy would be a supreme court with only 8 members, all the way up to Spring 2017.

um, this *is* the most likely scenario, and one Obama has set up. so again I don't get what scenario - one that would end up w a leftier nominee than Garland on the court - that you would prefer.

xp

btw we have Justice Matthews to thank for voting to extend Fourteenth Amendment protections to non-citizens.

it seems increasingly clear -- if you believe obama's statements, anyway, as he's reportedly said he's not going to withdraw him after the election -- that garland is going to be confirmed. whether it happens before the election, in the lame duck session, or in the next congress, he's probably getting confirmed

i mean look -- a democratic nominee is going to get confirmed to the supreme court. whether it's obama's choice or clinton's, it's going to happen. we could have done better than the most palatable option to republicans, is all i'm saying

Anybody think Obama would recess-appoint this guy?

I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell kept the Senate in session around the clock to prevent it

sort of don't think obama's dumb enough to do that anyway

if you believe obama's statements, anyway, as he's reportedly said he's not going to withdraw him after the election

I didn't see this tbh. I'm surprised you think Garland's going to be confirmed - what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

If Obama leaves office w out Garland being confirmed, I'm not sure what the protocol would be. I assume Hillary could withdraw his nomination and put up someone else, if she were so inclined (I would think she might be but who knows).

um, this *is* the most likely scenario, and one Obama has set up. so again I don't get what scenario - one that would end up w a leftier nominee than Garland on the court - that you would prefer.

the difference is, the republicans have the option to fold by going ahead with the nomination process and confirming garland, and it would likely be the most conservative friendly nominee that they could possibly get, either out of obama or a clinton presidency. if obama would have nominated someone more liberal, that conservative-friendly fallback option wouldn't exist, and they'd be forced between going with obama's liberal nominee now or clinton's even more liberal nominee in spring 2017.

what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

i figure he'd do it in the lame duck session when it'd be obvious to everyone -- especially the puppeteers -- that allowing clinton to pick someone else would be worse for them

I'm surprised you think Garland's going to be confirmed - what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

they could confirm him during the lame duck, and spin it as "well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

so, in your ideal scenario, Obama nominates a more lefty nominee, and McConnell confirms that nominee in a lame duck session following the election in the fear that Hillary will nominate someone even leftier? that doesn't make any sense.

xp

xpost jeez, that's like the 3rd time i've done that today, sorry

"well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

except this is explicitly NOT the argument McConnell has been making, which is that the *next* President should fill the vacancy. wtf

"well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

except this is explicitly NOT the argument McConnell has been making, which is that the *next* President should fill the vacancy. wtf

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:49 PM (8 seconds ago)

if ol' mitch is known for anything it's acting in good faith, huh?

so, in your ideal scenario, Obama nominates a more lefty nominee, and McConnell confirms that nominee in a lame duck session following the election in the fear that Hillary will nominate someone even leftier? that doesn't make any sense.

xp

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:48 PM (1 minute ago)

omg dude!

here would be my preferred way of doing it: nominate someone better now. the senate either acts on it or they don't. then, after the election, they either act on it or they don't. then, if they don't, the new (democratic controlled) congress either confirms that person or president hillary nominates someone comparable

if ol' mitch is known for anything it's acting in good faith, huh?

I don't think he's going to relish explicitly repudiating his own very public statements, no

the only difference in outcome I see there is that the GOP gets more political cover during the election, how is that better? If you assume Garland's not going to get confirmed (which I am but you are not, apparently), the "someone better" getting confirmed scenario is still a likely option.

i'll just reiterate that for me the likelihood of garland getting confirmed, and the opportunity cost that represents for people whose rights depend on supreme court rulings, is greater than the (arguable) benefit of making the GOP look bad in november. the GOP was gonna play this game no matter who was nominated; the american public doesn't know a centrist from a liberal. in fact the campaign to paint garland as an extreme liberal are underway already. i don't see the difference

The likelihood of him getting confirmed is zero, though?

it's very obviously not

idk why it's so obvious to you and ... less so to most other people:
http://theweek.com/articles/613352/why-merrick-garland-never-supreme-court-justice

if clinton does elected -- which is what happens in most of the scenarios you guys are mooting -- she'll probably get at least one other supreme court pick. i mean god bless ruth bader ginsburg but it seems unlikely she'll be in there pitching at age 88.

er, does GET elected

idk why it's so obvious to you and ... less so to most other people:
http://theweek.com/articles/613352/why-merrick-garland-never-supreme-court-justice

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:28 PM (2 minutes ago)

there's a good chance he doesn't get confirmed! there's also a chance he does

if clinton does elected -- which is what happens in most of the scenarios you guys are mooting -- she'll probably get at least one other supreme court pick. i mean god bless ruth bader ginsburg but it seems unlikely she'll be in there pitching at age 88.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:29 PM (2 minutes ago)

ginsburg will def retire during clinton's first term but her replacement is unlikely to shift the court significantly to the left, which is the issue at stake here. ginsburg is getting replaced regardless of what happens to scalia's seat

idk why it's so obvious to you and ... less so to most other people:
http://theweek.com/articles/613352/why-merrick-garland-never-supreme-court-justice

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:28 PM (2 minutes ago)

there's a good chance he doesn't get confirmed! there's also a chance he does

― k3vin k., Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:32 PM (1 minute ago)

i mean obviously i am higher on his confirmation chances than you apparently are -- i guess you have more respect for mcconnell's word than i do, or don't think he's going to be pressured by the GOP donor class in the lame duck session to salvage by confirming garland -- but we can probably agree the chances are not "zero". if the chances were zero then i wouldn't care who was nominated

i wonder what line of bull mcconnell will come up with when they obstruct a clinton nominee next year. "it's totally different this time. different, yet the same."

"ginsburg will def retire during clinton's first term but her replacement is unlikely to shift the court significantly to the left, which is the issue at stake here. "

Not really at stake here tho.

wondered what ILE woulda been like had the internet been around for the Bork hearings

hopefully lots swedish chef jokes

probably just as unbearable

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/176729/judge-bork-martinis-kathryn-jean-lopez

The Garland choice may have been influenced from Obama wanting to be remembered as being a uniter. i'd consider this a bad thing -- leaders should base their choices on improving the world, not their image. like that ever happens.

otherwise this was a problem for game theory: you have a shortlist of choices and the opposition responses can be estimated. hand it over to a math program and get an answer.

I think people underestimate the effects of conservative criminal procedure jurisprudence -- which plenty of "liberal" justices have engaged in -- on people who are not directly involved in criminal justice. But we'll all continue to find out if we're paying attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/politics/supreme-court-case-on-contraceptives-mandate-may-offer-little-closure.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

ughhhh

former Dubya Admin ethics lawyer had an op in the NYT today saying W wd've nominated Garland as a consensus pick

The dudes are not any more enlightened than when Nino was cracking jokes.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-zubik-healthcare

Despite Garland's mostly moderate record, Republicans, led by the NRA, have turned him into anti-gun extremist whom they have to oppose. Washington Post's Daily 202 column talks about how the right are still motivated not to give him a hearing:

every poll shows that majorities of Wisconsinites and Americans want Garland to get a hearing and an up-or-down vote. But these don’t capture the intensity gap that’s apparent on the ground. A Marquette University law school poll conducted last month, before Obama named Garland, found that 51 percent of Wisconsin voters thought the Senate should hold hearings and vote, while 40 percent say Congress should hold off until 2017. But two-thirds of Johnson’s supporters supported inaction, while 28 percent said there should be hearings and a vote.
-- Even before Scalia’s unexpected death, the National Rifle Association planned to make Supreme Court nominations a central focus of its 2016 messaging. The vacancy will feature prominently in paid media this fall, but for now the group has been sending action alerts to its members urging them to call Johnson’s office and attend his town halls. Officials say they’re putting pressure on senators in both parties but stress that they’re willing to put pressure on any Republican who wavers.

This argument is still out there too:

By opting for a mild-mannered white man who has been careful not to leave a paper trail – and by all accounts is more of a technocrat than an ideologue – Obama made a choice that makes it less likely his own base will fight for his nominee. If he had picked an African American, a Latino or even an Asian candidate – and especially a woman – he could have helped energize the coalition that got him reelected in 2012 and arguably pushed his nominee onto the court.
Instead, he picked a former prosecutor known for siding with the government on criminal justice issues more than his Democratic counterparts – something that appears to be deterring the Black Lives Matter movement from going all-in. Now Democrats are divided about whether or not they’d be okay with Garland being confirmed during a lame-duck session or if Clinton should get to choose, with some liberals calling on Obama to withdraw his pick if Hillary wins and the White House insisting he’d do no such thing.

Stunning deployment of 'arguably', 10/10

"former Dubya Admin ethics lawyer had an op in the NYT today saying W wd've nominated Garland as a consensus pick"

That's a line of ****shit. He would most certainly not have done that.

****shit!

Exacta-****-ing-lute-ly!

hey Garland is pro-Citz United, so enough o that ****ing ****!

While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.

xp say what? It was a UNANIMOUS ruling. Do you understand how precedent works?

forget it, Jake

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11306422/supreme-court-prosecutors-career

4-4 tie in Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/opinion-analysis-result-but-no-guidance-on-public-unions-fees

And thank god for that. (Self-interest but this was the case most directly affecting my regular work.)

I know this stuff is real for a lot of people, and I know that not all cases will work out in favor of causes I value. But some part of me would like it if the current Court responded to the Republican nomination impasse by continually handing down nothing but 4-4 nondecisions until McConnell et al. budged on Garland.

I don't think that will make McConnell budge.

Meanwhile--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-seeks-alternative-ways-to-deal-with-contraceptives-coverage/2016/03/29/4b6129f2-f5d7-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_supree-240pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for additional briefing on alternative ways that employees of religious organizations could receive contraceptive coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act without involving the organizations themselves.

The new order could mean that the court is deadlocked on the case, which was argued last week.
...In the order, the court directed both sides to file briefs that “address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.”

The court went into unusual specificity in asking the parties to address how that could happen, and made a suggestion.

It said the groups could contract to provide health insurance for their employees but inform the insurance company that they did not want the plan to include contraceptive coverage that they found objectionable.

Then the insurance company could “separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.”

all this bullshit to not offend these nuns precious sensibilities. separation of church and state rip.

It was a UNANIMOUS ruling. Do you understand how precedent works?

mea culpa on that one

https://themuslimtimesdotinfodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/four-horsemen-apocalypse.jpg

very good, one in a row

Fascinating case with unusual alliances.

The government may not freeze assets needed to pay criminal defense lawyers if the assets are not linked to a crime, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a 5-to-3 decision that scrambled the usual alliances.

The case arose from the prosecution of Sila Luis, a Florida woman, on charges of Medicare fraud that, according to the government, involved $45 million in charges for unneeded or nonexistent services. Almost all of Ms. Luis’s profits from the fraud, prosecutors said, had been spent by the time charges were filed.

Prosecutors instead asked a judge to freeze $2 million of Ms. Luis’s funds that were not connected to the suspected fraud, saying the money would be used to pay fines and provide restitution should she be convicted. Ms. Luis said she needed the money to pay her lawyers.

The judge issued an order freezing her assets. That order, the Supreme Court ruled, violated her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in a plurality opinion also signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said the case was simple.

The government can seize, Justice Breyer wrote, “a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementing, or concealing of a crime.”

But it cannot, he said, freeze money or other assets unconnected to the crime.

this looked like cut and dried Sixth Amendment violation to me but whatevs

money is fungible; how does one assign the money she spent to the fraud while keeping the rest of her money unconnected?

yeah that seems to be what kagan is arguing

That's what Kagan implies, I think

xpost

any blow against civil forfeiture's OK by me.

Whoa.

Not as sweeping as we'd like but damn.

I meant to post that this morning. I think it would have been 9-0 had Scalia not died.

very interesting

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

Hmmmm---

Two of the eight Justices were clearly not satisfied with the rhetoric and some of the implications of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, and only joined in the outcome. Those were Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas, each of whom wrote separately. Thomas also joined most of Alito’s opinion.

Had Justice Ginsburg not held five colleagues in support of what her opinion actually said in the end, two — perhaps Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — might have abandoned the common result. The result then might have been that the Court would have split four to four, settling nothing and releasing no opinion at all while leaving intact a three-judge federal district court’s ruling that Texas had the authority to base its state legislative seats on a division of the total population of Texas.

Scott Lemieux:

But this doesn’t settle the issue politically. The Supreme Court said that states are not required to apportion legislative district by voters, but it didn’t forbid the practice either. It is very likely that some conservative legislatures will do exactly this in 2020, when the next Census rolls around.

Samuel Alito, the preeminent strategic mind among the conservatives on the Supreme Court, drew a handy road map for any state legislatures that are so inclined. In a concurring opinion, Alito rejected the argument advanced by the Obama administration that the “one person, one vote” standard requires the drawing of legislative districts that are roughly equal in population. Alito called the argument “meretricious.” He claimed that the decision of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to apportion the House of Representatives by total population was merely power politics that did not reflect any broader theory of representation. He was quite clear that states should be free to apportion by either total population or voters.

Alito’s concurrence made it apparent that such states would have his support. But he did not go as far as Justice Clarence Thomas, who tackled the “one person, one vote” principle head-on in his own concurrence.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/06/473228688/plan-for-antonin-scalia-school-of-law-is-tweaked-over-unfortunate-acronym

the link is enough to generate the lol

i love this story perhaps more than i should

baahaahaha

amazing how that story goes into contortions to avoid quoting the ASSoL jokes

Conservatives want Mike Lee on SCOTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/30/the-next-supreme-court-justice/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/04/07/daily-202-key-conservatives-pushing-mike-lee-for-the-supreme-court/5705472c981b92a22ddc6367/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_daily202-915am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

No surprise, conservatives are not pushing to put a moderate on the Supreme Court if Republicans win

I just posted that!

Utah’s senior senator, Orrin Hatch, who is not as conservative as Lee, got elected in 1976.

Jeeps, how conservative is Lee?

More importantly, why do people call Trump "The Donald?" That's stupid, they should stop.

it's been his nickname for decades

Lee is considered a Serious Constitutional Scholar.

which means he's as dumb as a bag of hay

From the section on Lee in a People for the American Way analysis item:

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-rogues-gallery-right-wing-candidates-have-dangerous-agenda-for-america-and-could-tu?_ga=1.140591730.1501181851.1460051369

He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes and make the current tax system more regressive – more reliant on lower income taxpayers – and says his favorite approach to taxation would actually be to repeal the 16th amendment altogether, strip the federal government of the power to tax income, and leave it to the states to determine how they would tax their own citizens to pay for the limited federal government that would be left.

Hes a constitutional lawyer whod like to make lots of changes to the Constitution: he has said he supports repeal of the 17th Amendment, which calls for popular election of U S Senators; he wants to "clarify" the 14th Amendment through legislation to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens or legal residents; he wants to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget and to impose congressional term limits.

iow, he wants a return to the 1870s, with a few extra regressive additions even that decade did not have the benefits of.

is he down with stripping the population of directly electing senators too

yes

he has said he supports repeal of the 17th Amendment, which calls for popular election of U S Senators

Michael Waldman's new The Fight to Vote includes a chapter on the history of the 17th Amendment and the modern conservative movement's attempt to repeal it.

whoa thats real xp

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/immigration-case-hearings

Should Texas even have standing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2s

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/the_supreme_court_might_let_bob_mcdonnell_off_the_hook.html

Looks like Breyer will vote with conservative Justices in giving sympathetic "vague" reading to corruption law, plus claiming everyone does it (accepts gifts from folks who want something). No such sympathy for most non-governors when laws are vague

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mcdonnell-conviction-should-stand/2016/04/22/53960d50-0350-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html

McDonnell’s constitutional argument trivializes the First Amendment. There may be legitimate constitutional concerns in a bribery case involving campaign contributions, but that’s not this case. It’s hard to see the Madisonian virtue in protecting the “right” of Williams secretly to buy McDonnell a Rolex or to take his wife shopping at Louis Vuitton in exchange for political favors.

This is the same legal theory that Jeff Skilling of Enron won on appeal but was remanded and deemed harmless error by the fifth circuit.

@RedState
Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP. bit.ly/1NVLxkB

lol

The Good Ship Trump already is sinking, eh?

Don't always like Toobin's commentary on the Supreme Court, but here he is agreeing with many re oral arguments at the McDonnell case.

As in Citizens United, the Justices appeared heading toward requiring a specific and obvious quid pro quo—a formalism that ignored the workings of the real world. Campaign contributors and favor-seekers, as well as the recipients of their largesse, don’t need to be explicit about their corrupt bargains. But the Supreme Court, worried about the tender vulnerabilities of the fat cats and their prey, seems to be requiring a mindless (and unlikely) spelling-out of the details. The logical result is a deregulation of corruption, which a victory for McDonnell will only accelerate.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption

Breyer was in the minority in Citizen's United, yet he seemingly joined the 4 remaining conservatives in the McDonnell arguments. I wonder if any analysis has gone into more detail regarding Breyer.

it seems like the court needs to find that a literal sack of cash with a dollar sign on it was exchanged for political favors, otherwise its totally cool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-send-obamacare-contraception-case-back-to-lower-courts/2016/05/16/84e5d6da-1b72-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_court-11am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A shorthanded Supreme Court declined Monday to decide challenges to an Affordable Care Act requirement about providing contraceptive coverage, saying that there was a possibility of compromise between religious objectors and the government.

The court punted the issue back to lower courts, and said its unanimous ruling “expresses no view on the merits of the cases.”

In the unsigned opinion, the court emphasized: “In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”

The unanimous, three-page decision maintains the status quo, and indicates that the court — evenly divided along ideological lines following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — could not reach agreement.

A week after oral arguments in the case, the justices took the highly unusual step of floating its own compromise about how to resolve the case, and asked the parties to weigh in.

“Both petitioners and the government now confirm that such an option is feasible,”said the opinion, a summary of which was read from the bench by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Women’s rights groups, which had won the vast majority of cases in the lower courts, worried that the court’s action was a setback.

“We are disappointed that the Court did not resolve once and for all whether the religious beliefs of religiously-affiliated non-profit employers can block women’s seamless access to birth control,” said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of the National Women’s Law Center. “Eight of nine circuit courts of appeals have already upheld women’s access to birth control no matter where they work. We are confident that the government’s birth control accommodation once again will prevail.”

Lawyers representing the challengers saw the decision as a positive sign.

“The Supreme Court was right to protect the Christian colleges and other groups from not having to pay fines or fill out forms authorizing the objectionable coverage,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel David Cortman. “The government has many other ways to ensure women are able to obtain these drugs without forcing people of faith to participate in acts that violate their deepest convictions. We look forward to addressing the remaining details as we advance these cases in the lower courts.”

thanks, Nino!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/supreme-court-racial-discrimination/index.html?adkey=bn

7-1

I am DYiNG to know who the 1 was

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/23/supreme-court-race-black-jury-discrimination-death-penalty/78642468/

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's lone African American member, cast the lone dissent. "Foster's new evidence does not justify this court's reassessment of who was telling the truth nearly three decades removed from voir dire," he said.

I KNEW IT

damn

ice cold

When that guy goes he won't even get the sort of anti-fanfare that Scalia earned. He's just a sociopathic personality-free asshole.

america's carbuncle

carbuncle sam

you know what they say: when you've lost Alito, you throw a party

never forget: this man replaced Thurgood Marshall.

https://twitter.com/djperry1973/status/734758381206933504
https://twitter.com/djperry1973/status/734840228595175425

lol

in some ways the boneheadedness of his jurisprudence is fascinating - it's always the simplest, most absolutist position possible, totally devoid of nuance or context.

How did he produced clerks with minds as subtle as John Yoo and Laura Ingraham?

best/worst thomas decision was that schools should be allowed to strip search children to look for advil

DJP please be more consistent, is he a Marvel villain or a DC imp?

Slobbo the Cruel

http://urbanintellectuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/cthomas.jpg

He transcends studios

Hmmmm, let me think about this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-allows-challenges-to-clean-water-act-restrictions-1464705519

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for landowners to contest the federal government’s ability to regulate their property under the Clean Water Act.

The court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with North Dakota-based Hawkes Co., which wants to harvest peat from wetlands in a northern area of Minnesota. Those plans got off track when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined the property contained waters of the U.S., a finding that triggered application of the Clean Water Act.

Hawkes said the land was far away from the Red River of the North and had no connection to navigable waters. The Army Corps said the wetlands were of exceptional quality and had a significant nexus with the river, one of the components for claiming oversight.

If the Clean Water Act applies, Hawkes would need a permit from the Army Corps or it could face significant financial penalties if it disturbed the land without permission.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hawkes could proceed immediately with a lawsuit that challenges the Army Corps’ claim to jurisdiction over the land, or whether it must go through a potentially lengthy and expensive permitting process before it could bring a case.

The court, in a 10-page opinion, said Hawkes could bring the challenge now. Chief Justice Roberts said landowners shouldn’t have to wait until the end of the permitting process, which “can be arduous, expensive and long.”

Six other justices joined the chief justice’s opinion, while a seventh, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined most of it.

The court rejected arguments by the government that lawsuits shouldn’t be allowed until after the Army Corps brings an enforcement action.

It isn’t a viable option to go forward without government permission because of the threat of criminal and civil penalties, the court said. Hawkes shouldn’t have to assume such risks while waiting for U.S. regulators “to drop the hammer in order to have their day in court,” the chief justice wrote.

Hawkes’s arguments attracted a broad array of support from home builders and other business groups, as well as from organizations representing state and municipal governments.

The case is a sign of the broader muddled state of U.S. environmental law on water regulation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, noted the reach of the Clean Water Act remained “notoriously unclear.” The law “continues to raise troubling questions regarding the government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the nation,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

Determining whether federal environmental officials have jurisdiction over a particular tract of wetlands can be a complex task, and the Supreme C ourt hasn’t made things any easier.

In a major case a decade ago, no five justices could agree on the scope of federal authority, leaving the court without a majority opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts at the time said the “unfortunate” situation would leave landowners and lower court judges “to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.”

The Environmental Protection Agency last year issued a new regulation that attempted to clarify—and broaden—what wetlands and smaller waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, but the agency’s effort attracted many legal challenges and courts have put the regulation on hold while litigation continues.

in a normal country parts of the CWA - and other environmental statutes and regulations - would have been amended decades ago to modernize and clarify ambiguous terms (like "waters of the U.S." and "hazardous waste"). too bad we live in this one, where one party constantly rails against environmental regulation but refuses to do anything to help improve them. they've long taken the position that EPA is evil, so they refuse to allow obvious incremental improvements because they'd also have the effect of making the federal government look useful.

The justices also have a festive dinner before the State of the Union address.

“One year, Justice Kennedy came with a couple of bottles of Opus One,” Justice Ginsburg said, referring to a very good wine. “That was the first time I fell asleep during the State of the Union.”

In Chief Justice John Marshall’s time in the early 1800s, when the justices lived together in a boardinghouse, they took a vow of temperance, saying they would drink their beloved Madeira wine only on rainy days. This was a flexible rule, Justice Ginsburg said.

“The chief justice looked out the window, and the sun was shining brightly,” she said. “And he said, ‘Somewhere in the world, it’s raining.’ ”

The regular lunches these days feature a distinct protocol.

“We don’t talk about cases,” Justice Sotomayor said. “That’s our absolute rule.”

“There is no topic that’s off limits, but we try to avoid controversial ones,” she added. “We’re very guarded about raising topics that might create hostility.”

Instead, she said, they talk about books, vacations and grandchildren.

Justice Ginsburg interrupted. “You left out one favorite topic, to which I never contribute,” she said. “And that’s sports.”

The tradition of guest lunch speakers has fallen away. Only two were invited back for a second visit: Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and James Wolfensohn, who was president of the World Bank. “Those two had the uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak,” Justice Ginsburg said.

The two justices ticked off favorite foods of current and former colleagues.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, used to bring beef jerky. Justice David H. Souter, who retired in 2009, would subsist on a lunch of “plain yogurt,” Justice Ginsburg said, with distaste. “Just plain yogurt.”

Justice Sotomayor, who succeeded Justice Souter, said he might have brought the occasional apple. Justice Ginsburg said that was for “later in the day.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, favored cheese sandwiches on white bread with the crust cut off.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. orders a salad for lunch from the court’s cafeteria, Justice Sotomayor said, while Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. bring food from home. “And sometimes I see Sam’s fare and think maybe I should eat dinner with him,” she said.

As for Justice Ginsburg, her colleague said, “the treat she’s most fond of is muffins.”

Food delivery to the court has apparently improved since 2013, when Justice Sotomayor complained about the difficulty of getting takeout.

“I go to New York, I order food, it’s at my door in 10 to 15 minutes. O.K.?” she said. But in Washington, she said, “there isn’t a place I call where it doesn’t take 45 minutes.”

“One year, Justice Kennedy came with a couple of bottles of Opus One,” Justice Ginsburg said, referring to a very good wine.

New York Times, I presume?

How did you guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/for-a-collegial-court-justices-lunch-together-and-forbid-talk-of-cases.html

"that style tic always cracks me up, I want there to be a name for it," he posted, referring to the explanatory clauses that often follow quotes

The scariest part of the article was learning they called Alito "Sam," about Justice Samuel Alito, confirmed in 2006.

Opus One is a fantastic wine, though