U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

mm delicious:

Representing Alabama, Mr. Pryor in 2003 filed a supporting brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold a Texas law that made gay sex a crime. The position of the gay men challenging the law, Mr. Pryor wrote, “must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.”

“The states should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences,” Mr. Pryor wrote in the brief.

(his mother was Reagan's EPA administrator)

not just any administrator, of course. Anne Gorsuch Burford's tenure was filled with scandals and she was forced to resign. she was the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress.

but you know i bet her son is sooo much better so no big deal

omg I totally remember her from my teenage years under Reagan

fuck this

let's hope his scandal comes before he is confirmed

I was trying to remember where I'd heard "Burford." FUCK THIS

executive order 13777: every nomination must come loaded with some ironic detail that renders the choice absurd

O.G. Gorsuch is infamous to me thanks to the week of Doonesbury strips about the EPA staffer out on the window ledge.

Get ready:

The Judicial Crisis Network has said it will spend $10 million boosting Trump’s choice, targeting mostly Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump carried. “They’re going to have to choose between the interest of their constituents — who clearly wanted Donald Trump to choose the next Supreme Court justice — and Chuck Schumer’s plan to obstruct this vacancy for the next four years,” said Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel.

Many involved in the outside efforts are veterans of court battles dating back to the Bush administration. “You feel like a band, kind of like U2,” said Gary Marx, a Republican strategist involved in mobilizing conservative groups on behalf of the nominee. “You’ve done a number of world tours, a whole lot of albums and looking to release another major one.”

so that makes the Trump Court Songs of Innocence then

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kBLzqbviWD0/TyipL3Zw8HI/AAAAAAAAAe0/qH9gpt-jP94/s1600/itgetsbetter.png

So who's less terrible overall, Hardiman or Gorsuch?

Harriman: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/30/14439220/thomas-hardiman-souter

*Hardiman

Seems like Hardiman, just trying to figure out if there's a catch. But my gut says he picks Gorsuch anyway.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

you don't think he'll pick hardiman just because of the name, a la mad dog mattis

"He's gonna be great. Look at that name. Hardiman. HARD MAN."

he'll pick whoever's the most sycophantic

The speculation is that if he picks for a superficial reason, Gorsuch is taller and better looking and a "winner" type.

Aside from that I just don't see how picking a relatively more moderate justice rather than an arch conservative scalia mold justice fits with the way he's done things so far.

is hardiman the one trump's sister was pushing? I secretly hope she knows her brother is a monster and is trying to do us a solid, but I doubt it.

yep

xxp so neither of these dudes are arch conservatives? (or did i misread u)

Neither is a "bomb thrower." That would be Pryor, so maybe he'll pick Pryor.

My lawyer friends think Gorsuch is less terrible, because less of a hack.

Thus, perhaps, less likely to be picked, despite being really conservative. Remember, Scalia, for all his weird jiggery-pokery about the homosexual agenda, was not afraid to restrict the police power when the Constitution required it. That's presumably a negative for the boys in charge.

Trump isn't giving these guys an ideological test, Trump has no judicial ideology. He will go for who is the most pliant or, if he can't figure out who that is, he'll go with who his most pliant advisors recommend (in which case maybe his sister will have the most sway). Parsing their past decisions for how Trump will weigh his decision seems like a fool's errand to me.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkeley has just stated he will personally filibuster any Trump nominee, regardless. I will probably be giving him some money very soon, along with my commendation.

he said that two days ago

it seems like the question will be whether or not McConnell needs to invoke the nuclear option to get to 60 votes (which he may not have to if fake Dem assholes like Manchin go along w whoever Trump nominates, as they've indicated they have. although idk i don't think there are actually 8 Dem Senators as worthless as Manchin)

Munchkin is winner of the Joe Lieberman Award for Most Sycophantic Democratic Senator five years running

that reminds me

not to mention turning West Virginia into a giant runoff for petrochemicals as governor

The speculation is that if he picks for a superficial reason, Gorsuch is taller and better looking and a "winner" type.

His main adviser looks like a potato someone dredged out of a restroom wastebasket.

feel like a some point we're gonna have to poll ILXs best Bannon descriptor

Dear caek

Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom.”.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

The debate is scheduled for 20 February 2017.

Once the debate has happened, we’ll email you a video and transcript.

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

wrong thread i guess

so according to this (which I believe is referring to Reid's "parliamentary trick" that allowed him to change the filibuster rules w out invoking a super-majority) - McConnell would need 50 votes to undo the filibuster for SC nominees. Collins has already come out against it, so if the Dems could pick out just two other institutionally-minded GOP Senators (McCain, Graham, Hatch even?), would McConnell be stuck? Am I reading this right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/on-the-death-of-the-senate-and-its-long-history-as-the-worlds-greatest-deliberative-body/2017/01/31/b99fcbda-e73a-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pkcapitol-150pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.226cee0a4e2b

I realize this is getting into real arcane senate rules, changing them mid-session etc.

that URL name is some David Broder bullshit

not gonna argue on that point

Only one Democrat seems likely to support Trump’s pick at this point, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a former governor who believes in strong executive authority and who comes from a state that Trump won by 42 percentage points.

“I’m not a filibuster-type guy,” Manchin said Monday.

^^ piss on this turd

pee too good for him

If it's good enough for Trump ...

funny thing about this predicament is that if McConnell can't get rid of the filibuster and get the nominee approved, it really won't have anything to do with Trump's nominee - it will all be because of McConnell's shitty tactics blocking Garland, and ol Blobfish will have no one but himself to blame.

it'll be a huge test of his power as a Senator and a majority leader, and if he doesn't pull it off he's gonna look like a schmuck

yeah that washington post headline is some bullshit. pretty sure a dude named mitch participated in the senates reputation going into the toilet about 18 months ago.

Nina Totenberg says 'various news sources' say it's Gorsuch

Here we go.

It's Gorsuch.

I can't listen to Lindsay Graham's polite tiptoeing.

An actual lawyer and not Steve Bannon's coke dealer is besting my expectations tbh.