U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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.

so wait did he actually say this out loud to people

In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive "to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best."[35]

phenomenal

He attended Harvard Law with former President Barack Obama. On Tuesday, Obama's former ethics czar, Norm Eisen, another classmate, tweeted: "Hearing rumors Trump's likely Supreme Court pick is Neil Gorsuch, my (and President Obama's!) 1991 Harvard Law classmate.If so, a great guy!"

srsly Alfred everyone knew three hours ago, where is your obsessiveness?

originalism is the refuge of cowards and the intellecutally dishonest

"you should make up a story about a cave man inside of your mind, and decide based on that, but definitely do not decide based on an imaginary person who lives in our time, or one that lives in the future."

srsly Alfred everyone knew three hours ago, where is your obsessiveness?

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, January 31, 2017

you're a movie guy yet don't believe in building suspense?

I'm not sure "intellectually" is a modifier that applies to guys like this

also the Obama's ethics czar thing- so basically harvard choom gang?

so if Reagan's dominated every GOP candidate from state to presidential level for the last 30 years, we're gonna hear about fucking Nino as jurisprudential lodestar for the next 60.

meritocracy just crushing it everywhere

how many pages of opinions by the finalists do you think Yam read before deciding?

I tend to believe Obama did read the opinions of, god help us, federal court judges.

Even if Schumer and the Dems do what we want, they're not gonna pick anybody off. Not even Susan Collins will forgo a chance to keep a conservative majority on SCOTUS, and the GOP cares about courts more than even the presidency.

sucks to be this guy as now the ruthless dem minority will do everything they can to block his nomination even if it is blatantly unconstitutional right

― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:18 PM

got money?

ha, morbs otm.

i have a feeling dlh was not being entirely earnest with that post

How much you wanna bet that Manchin and Heitkamp vote YES because they're in red states?

Making things easier for The Most Important Man in America:

“Everyone involved in the process — the president, the Senate Republicans, the Senate Democrats — needs to fight this nomination with one eye on Justice Kennedy,” said Ron Klain, a former senior White House aide who shepherded court appointees for Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton. “His decision to retire or remain determines the balance of power on the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Trump’s strategists understand that filling Justice Scalia’s seat is not as significant as replacing Justice Kennedy. “I’m sure they would dearly love to see him step down soon,” said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general. “But he would like to be replaced by a moderate. If they chose a firebrand for the Scalia seat, Justice Kennedy might be more reluctant to leave. Of course, there is no guarantee the next nominee will be like this one.”

I'm worried about Ginsberg, she's 83

neal katyal comes out in favor https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=0

I'm getting a headache keeping track of how many Democrats worry about Tony's feelings:

For Senate Republicans, keeping the prospect of a Kennedy resignation in mind would counsel resisting the temptation to end the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominations. Eliminating any power of the minority to stop the most extreme possible nominee would probably be a red flag to Kennedy — an indication that the way was clear for a balance-shifting nominee who rejected Kennedy’s views and moved the court in a radical new direction.

Senate Democrats, too, must be mindful of how their approach to the nomination could affect Kennedy’s thinking. While it is tempting to begin the confirmation process with an intent to avenge the injustice done to President Barack Obama and his nominee, Judge Merrick Garland — and no one could be more tempted than I am — this urge must be resisted. An attitude of score-settling and partisan bitterness would likely be off-putting to Kennedy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kennedy-not-trump-will-determine-the-supreme-courts-future/2017/01/29/63723374-e66d-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.2799ce1aaae9

I feel like Neal Katyal's bar is pretty low. "He's a competent judge with some integrity and not a complete Trump rubber-stamper therefore he's good."

I mean I get that sentiment in these times, I was sincerely worried he might pick a pure crony, like someone who would be completely ok with undermining our system of government. But it's not a very strong endorsement.

yeah 'better than harriet myers' is a low bar to clear

It is weird how each party breeds these nominees on some judicial farm out there, independent of who's actually president. I mean, it's not farfetched to assume Kasich or Pence would've nominated the same dude.

I was expecting Trump to nominate Judge Judy or Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

William Pryor is not far off.

media pretty much back to blowing Trump now since he didn't go bonkers and was semi-professional during the announcement.

It is weird how each party breeds these nominees on some judicial farm out there, independent of who's actually president. I mean, it's not farfetched to assume Kasich or Pence would've nominated the same dude.

speaking of farming them, one thing I love about supreme court discussions is how now the prospect analysis always includes how young they are. 'great young judge, real workhorse, he's got a lot of years in him'

"this yale law product batted .800 in anti-abortion contests"

On an unrelated note, it's a little depressing to have reached the age where I see the next Supreme Court nominee and think, "Well, he'll probably still be up there after I'm dead."

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

while I think voters reward/account for 'moderate votes' from these 'moderate politicians' way less than they believe, dude is from the state w/ the single highest % of trump voters and he's up for re-election. I think we kinda just have to let him be the bad guy when the results of the vote are more or less preordained.

i'm not really sure what to do about garsuch. obviously he sucks, but there's no way to stop him from being confirmed, unless it comes out that he's a child molester or something. also, despite recent history, i do think i believe that presidents have the right to appoint judges who are qualified, and despite his shitty opinions, he is. the time to stop guys like this from being on the court was in november

they should filibuster, no reason not to

sure, why not. but if it comes down to it, mcdonnell can just ram him through

Doesnt matter, they should still do it. Don't waver.

This is about building and maintaining a united front in order to achieve victories down the line, even if the immediate goal is unattainable.

An attitude of score-settling and partisan bitterness

wouldn't it be terrible if an attitude like that took hold in the Senate, we need more bridge-builders like Tom Cotton

"there's no way" my ass.

cute:

https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/826645604159852548

looking forward to chevron being overturned

The Dems should force the GOP Senate caucus to choose between loyalty to the President and the "sanctity" of their institution (we can guess which side they'll choose but the outcome is not certain, I don't think). If they opt for blowing up the filibuster it's just one more thing the Dems can point to re: the GOP's march to fascism - they're basic disrespect and willingness to undermine the institutions that have served this country for centuries in order to centralize power. This is a strong argument, and it is good politics for re-election.

the time to stop guys like this from being on the court was in november.... OF 2012! it's a stolen seat! treating the appointment process as being sacrosanct at this point is some barn-door shit imho.

This is about building and maintaining a united front in order to achieve victories down the line, even if the immediate goal is unattainable.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:00 AM (thirteen minutes ago

The GOP has learned even in defeat that nothing keeps a base in perpetual ferment than a unifying idea ("Liberals are evil b/c they want to appoint judges who don't mind your killing babies"). Democrats lose because they think explaining things to the public rallies them.