U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

this is sorta pedantic/semantic but the thing that rubs me the wrong way about the Notorious RBG thing is that um Biggie died young, dude was not exactly a "survivor" (also his music sucked but that's a personal opinion I know most don't share)

The tragedy was Scalia not dying a year sooner tbh. Hell, at this point it'd be better if he were still alive since then he might have a chance of dying at a more opportune moment. Obv Mitch & Co. are the real evildoers here, but still.

this is sorta pedantic/semantic but the thing that rubs me the wrong way about the Notorious RBG thing is that um Biggie died young, dude was not exactly a "survivor" (also his music sucked but that's a personal opinion I know most don't share)

― Οὖτις, Thursday, February 2, 2017

but her opinions just hypnotize me!

He's a worm..

That could have been predicted based solely on a cursory glance at his political allies.

dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres

Josh Marshall, engaging in one of his 3 a.m. ruminations:

No judge with integrity can look kindly on what we've seen from President Trump. So I take his remarks at face value. This afternoon many observers said that this was also good politics for Gorsuch and his nomination. While I agree with that judgment as far as it goes, the logic assumes a President who is in control of his emotions and faculties. Neither of which are the case.

Remember, we know President Trump very well by now. He has just gifted Gorsuch the opportunity which is the ultimate prize in any elite judicial career. The idea that Gorsuch would now pass a negative judgment on Trump and his behavior as President can only strike him as a betrayal. Almost any other President would be able to prioritize his interests over his ego and give Gorsuch the room he needs. Trump will almost certainly not be able to.

I even think it is possible that before this is over Trump will be asking his aides whether it is possible for him to withdraw Gorsuch's nomination even if he still seems certain to be confirmed. Likely? No. Possible? Absolutely. It would be a wildly self-destructive act. But we know Trump. Ego and affirmation are everything. Betrayal and humiliation can never be allowed to stand.

Likely? No. Possible? Absolutely.

every Josh Marshall post ever

tyvm

It would be a delicious gift to Democrats if T. withdrew the nomination over this. Adds to the "DJT is a whiny babyman who cannot stand to be criticized even slightly etc."

However all I'm seeing from the right is Scott Adamsesque "you are being played, masterfully, by a masterful master of playing you."

Gorsuch was going to be confirmed even if he flopped completely with the Dems, and seemed utterly incompetent - DeVos did. So if he's trying to play nth dimensional chess about it, he's showing weakness. This is in no way a win for the right.

Tom of, what's the deal with border agents and social media passwords?

Donald J. Trump
‏@realDonaldTrump
Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?

Gorsuch, of course, has confirmed what Blumenthal said. And he will definitely be asked about it at his confirmation hearing now. Nth dimensional tic-tac-toe.

Or Gorsuch's communications person has confirmed the comments. Nevertheless. Trump is an idiot.

fwiw i've spoken to several british people who've entered the country since the inauguration. none of them were asked for passwords. there is a form on the ESTA that asks for social media usernames (including github?!), but it's listed as "optional" and it was there before the election.

good morning

Canadian woman denied entry to U.S. after Muslim prayers found on her phone

dammit wrong thread, sorry

https://scotusmemes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/scalia2.gif

(major lie)

Major Lie is the name of his dog

dear sweet Alito:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered a fascinating keynote speech at the Claremont Institute’s 2017 annual dinner on Saturday night. Alito, who received a Statesmanship Award from the conservative think tank, devoted much of his address to criticizing his bêtes noires, including environmental regulation, affirmative action, the “media elite,” the European Union, and emergency contraceptives.

But then Alito went off the rails. He declared that he would provide two examples of this alleged regulatory overreach. The first was a fair illustration of his point, involving water regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second was Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” within the scope of the Clean Air Act, allowing the EPA to regulate it. Alito dissented from the 5–4 decision. And in his speech on Saturday, he summarized his frustration with the majority opinion:

Now, what is a pollutant? A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting. When Congress authorized the regulation of pollutants, what it had in mind were substances like sulfur dioxide, or particulate matter—basically, soot or smoke in the air. Congress was not thinking about carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

Alito’s comments here are straight out of the climate change denialist playbook—and were rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA, for good reason. The Clean Air Act defines “air pollutant” as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical [or] chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air” and “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In its decision, the Supreme Court correctly recognized that carbon is a “chemical substance or matter” that is “emitted into” the air and “endanger[s] public health” by contributing to rising global temperatures. There is no textual support for Alito’s assertion that the law was meant to be limited to “soot or smoke.”

But what’s really odd about Alito’s comments on Saturday is that he seems to have forgotten key details of the case. Massachusetts v. EPA was not, contra Alito’s intimation, an example of “a massive shift of lawmaking from the elected representatives of the people to unelected bureaucrats.” To the contrary: The case marked a departure from the usual deference that courts afford administrative agencies. Instead, it constituted a triumph of an independent judiciary. What Alito forgot to mention in his speech was that, at the time, the EPA refused to regulate carbon. Massachusetts, already suffering from the effects of climate change, sued the EPA, demanding that it enforce the Clean Air Act. Those “unelected bureaucrats” at the EPA were refusing to enforce a law passed by the people’s “elected representatives.” And the judiciary stepped in to ensure that the bureaucrats followed the law.

sadly that's not going "off the rails", it's the standard (american) conservative position on the issue

yeah. I long ago stopped being surprised when standard issue conservatives on the internet completely ignored whatever I actually said and instead responded to the cookie-cutter argument they were certain every liberal was required to make regarding the issue being discussed, so they could just regurgitate whatever the conservative talking point against that other argument was and feel like they'd demolished me. when an associate justice does it, though, it is noteworthy.

Ginny's in the news again!

In an email sent to a conservative listserv on Feb. 13 and obtained by The Daily Beast, Ginni Thomas asked an interesting question: How could she organize activists to push for Trump’s policies?

“What is the best way to, with minimal costs, set up a daily text capacity for a ground up-grassroots army for pro-Trump daily action items to push back against the left’s resistance efforts who are trying to make America ungovernable?” she wrote.

“I see the left has Daily Action @YourDailyAction and their Facebook likes are up to 61K,” she continued.

She then linked to a Washington Post story about the group.

“But there are some grassroots activists, who seem beyond the Republican party or the conservative movement, who wish to join the fray on social media for Trump and link shields and build momentum,” she wrote. “I met with a house load of them yesterday and we want a daily textable tool to start… Suggestions?”

Ginny Thomas is moderating a panel at the Conservative CPAC Conference near Washington DC with crazy Clarke and some conspiracy theory types .

http://cpac.conservative.org/agenda/

When Did WWIII Begin? Part A: Threats at Home

• Moderator: Ginni Thomas, The Daily Caller

• Sheriff David Clarke

• Clare Lopez, Center for Security Policy

• Trevor Loudon, Author

• The Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, US FTC

Oh , Ohlhausen is the a Republican member of the FTC, who 45 recently put in charge. She is against government regulations of course.

Still trying to understand the theme of that upcoming panel and how the participants will all relate to it. Will Clarence T attend?

The fuck, Thomas being reasonable and ... just?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clarence-thomas-civil-forfeiture_us_58bda8a5e4b0d8c45f453f8f

Civil forfeiture is so ugly that it shouldn't be a stretch, but we're talking about the justice who wonders why we don't torture people like we did in 1790s America.

lol Thomas doing a babyface turn just at this point would be jokes

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/500425dcecad046316000012/clarence-thomas-will-get-his-hearty-laugh-back-after-obamacare-loss-justice.jpg

Gorsuch hearings!

I can't remember the last time there were *two* congressional hearings demanding my attention on the same day

I for one have waited for months for an opening statement that praises the pellucid writing, generosity, and collegiality of Nino Scalia.

YOU LIE

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gorsuch-told-class-many-women-manipulate-maternity-leave-student-n735701

a 2016 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, wrote in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee published on Sunday that on April 19 of last year, Gorsuch presented his legal ethics class with a hypothetical of law students interviewing for jobs at firms. Gorsuch allegedly said the following:

Gorsuch at one point asked the class whether they knew of any women who had "used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby," according to Sisk's letter.

After only a handful of students raised their hands, Sisk wrote, the federal judge became more animated and said, "C'mon guys."

Gorsuch proceeded to say that all of his students' hands should have been raised because "many" women used their employers for maternity benefits and then left after giving birth, Sisk said in her letter.

A response from the person aiding in the Gorsuch nomination process also said that Sisk's claims were false and came from a misunderstanding of the hypothetical discussion question.

My takeaway from that is that, assuming that statement is true, Goresuch does not actually talk to women.

my wife absolutely stuck it out at her job to claim the benefits when our first child was born, and then quit immediately after. There is nothing unethical or illegal about this - it's literally what the benefits are for.

His college days in the 80s:

In at least 19 columns published in the Daily Spectator, Columbia’s student-run newspaper, and The Federalist Paper, a conservative broadsheet that Gorsuch co-founded, the future federal appellate judge wrote sneering takedowns of liberal students on campus and their causes. He also argued for what he saw as unpopular beliefs at the time, including university investments in apartheid South Africa, on-campus military recruitment, a pro-Reagan stance in the Iran-Contra affair, and consistently, for Columbia’s all-male fraternities.

Url phrasing below might be considered a bit misleading by some

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/19/neil-gorsuch-defended-columbia-s-so-called-date-rape-frat.html

I guess my point is that Grosuch isn't wrong about the practice being common, but he should be challenged on the notion that that practice is wrong

xp

haha Gross such

he should be challenged on thinking this is a great idea for a class discussion

Ted Cruz accused liberals of wanting court results that match their desires as opposed to conservatives who follow the Constituiton.

fuckin cruz man

"the people chose originalism" right dude thats what voters were thinking of in november

in 2012 they chose liberal activism, but by 2015 they had totally changed their minds and didn't want that anymore

yes but is in the Constiution

A reassuring sign: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-labels-Supreme-Court-nominee-Gorsuch-an-11013027.php

Steve Deace Retweeted
Josh Hammer‏Verified account @josh_hammer 1h1 hour ago

If Gorsuch can't assure us of a Thomas-esque approach to stare decisis and opposition to Roe, all options should be on the table.

All.