U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

I'll go out on a limb and bet he picks a white guy

Are there any sort of shenanigans lower court judges could engage in to offset this? Like prolonging judgments on controversial cases? I dunno. Something. Give me something, for chrissakes.

I will double down on that wager of it being a white guy.

i think it's not impossible he would pick a white woman

I’ll take the other side of that bet tbh, why not

seems about right

july: democrats encourage republicans to pick a justice "in the kennedy mold"
aug: trump nominates giuliani, democrats act betrayed
sep: democrats urge restraint, the gop invokes the nuclear option
oct: heitkamp votes to confirm
nov: heitkamp loses re-election anyway

— chris hooks (@cd_hooks) June 27, 2018

Well, who's the most bangable lawyer-y, trumpiest white woman out there that we know?

the general thrust of all that is very plausible

that analysis is stupid, McConnell won't consult the Democrats at all because he doesn't need them, he doesn't need to "invoke" anything the rules are already changed.

Republicans don't "pick the justice" either

lol well he was right about the first part, except the dude didn't even wait til July

Here’s the full quote for proper context: pic.twitter.com/Tt9qlZOI2o

— Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) June 27, 2018

Homeseller: "We are asking $150 thou--"
Blumenthal: "--I WILL PAY NO MORE THAN $200 THOUSAND"

that analysis is stupid, McConnell won't consult the Democrats at all because he doesn't need them, he doesn't need to "invoke" anything the rules are already changed.

yes yes yes

The only thing Dems can hope for is that there is something truly scandalous about whomever Trump nominates. Because otherwise they basically can't control anything about this.

roy moore has set the bar for "scandal that republicans do not give an actual shit about" pretty far out

I was hoping that an outcry from a critical mass of democratic senators might persuade a couple of moderate republicans, but maybe that's too much to hope for

Like every Republican, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski were created in labs that programmed their DNA with an anti-Roe animus. They won't fold, I don't think.

Let me not sound hopeless -- it would take every constituent in Maine and Alaska ringing their phones off the hook for weeks for them to waver.

It's hard to imagine anything that would make a justice "too conservative" for collins or murkowski but if anyone has any ideas

I wonder how bitter Collins is about Mitch not following through on his end of the deal for her tax cut vote. Those kinds of things matter.

what was his end of the deal?

I don’t think she was sincere about trusting him.

Mitch promised Collins that he would bring a bill to shore up funding for healthcare exchanges to the floor. He never did.

Nerdstrom may be right, idk

I wouldn't hang my hope on Collins.

the ever-reliable salon is already trolling us by telling us that whoever trump picks "won't be that much worse" than kennedy:

https://www.salon.com/2018/06/27/listen-up-progressives-anthony-kennedy-was-not-your-friend/

Trump should nominate Jared

even if trump somehow nominates a guy who shares every single legal opinion with Anthony Kennedy, he will still be much worse cause he'll be decades younger

otm

David Souter to thread pls

oh hey, it's amanda marcotte, one of the great take artists of the 2016 election. hadn't heard from her for a while.

Guess what, literally not one single progressive thought Kennedy was "our friend." The reason people are upset is that (1) he will replaced with someone worse and (2) his retirement now means we don't get to pick the replacement.

Scott Lemieux wrote a better obit for Kennedy:

Of course, as Kennedy demonstrated particularly forcefully this term, his liberal votes have always been an aberration; he’s a reliable conservative vote on most issues. The even larger significance of Kennedy’s retirement is the extent to which it entrenches a conservative majority on the court, which will have far-reaching effects on both American politics and the future of the court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, still only 70, is the oldest Republican remaining on the court. The other four will be on the court for a long time yet barring force majeure. And should Trump be able to replace the 79-year-old Stephen Breyer or 85-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans would have a hammerlock on the Supreme Court for at least a generation, even though the coming generations are more liberal on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion than the ones currently in control.

What’s particularly disturbing about this is that Republicans have gotten its firm hold on the court despite lacking a popular mandate. The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in six out of seven presidential elections, and is relying more and more on the race-baiting of Trump and his allies to bring supporters to the polls because its domestic agenda is highly unpopular. The party is also relying increasingly on vote suppression of nonconservative racial minority groups rather than attracting voters to stay in power, most recently with the assistance of a Supreme Court that is at war with the Voting Rights Act and unwilling to overrule even the most egregious partisan gerrymanders.

i can't imagine thomas would retire any time soon

We're back to the Fuller Court! Or the horrifying mid thirties Hughes Court.

The "popular mandate" angle is bunk. Are people still clinging to that? Very tragic.

But Lemieux is obviously right on the other part--it's very likely that Trump will get to replace RBG after he replaces Kennedy. Anyone who isn't at least a little bit skeptical of a rigid conservative majority for the next 25 years should be.

really depressing

Dude, we all think netflix and chilling and having gay sex and abortions all in the same day was the best it was ever getting in our lifetime. Where have you been???

ok lol

oh, that was an xpost.

The "popular mandate" angle is bunk. Are people still clinging to that?

why?

i think that strategy could backfire. the "open" SCOTUS seat was a big voting reason for trump-skeptic republicans. might stem the "blue wave" or whatever ts called in november and not get you the 51 senate seats to blocks it in the first place. idk. this is fucking bullshit.

huh?

The popular vote in a presidential election has nothing to do with nominating or confirming someone to the Court.

Good lord the sitting Dems had their chance to make the Biggest Ever Stink and hold the World's Largest Grudge after the Garland shenanigans and ensuing installment of Gorsuch. But it seems forgotten until right now.

This moment should be the greatest fundraising event of all time for Democrats.

the democrats have been painfully slow on the uptake, but maybe things have changed? idk

the sitting Dems had their chance to make the Biggest Ever Stink and hold the World's Largest Grudge after the Garland shenanigans and ensuing installment of Gorsuch

they made a huge stink, filibustered Gorsuch, and have spent the entire term either withholding votes from McConnell or throwing up procedural roadblocks. The only exception to this were the couple of defections for the tax cut bill.

do you guys even know how the Senate works, what it means to have no power to block things

huh?

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:42 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry, my bad, that wasn't clear. i am speculating if the dems had the idea to block trump's nominee a la garland until 2021 (this is sounding dumber than i thought as im typing it out so ignore me if you want). so, assuming the dems had the power to stall in whatever way the confirmation of kennedy's successor until after the midterms (a gigantic if) in order to have a chance at securing a senate majority and thus be in the driver's seat to hold out for a nominee of their liking.

my concern was that the dems are counting on huge turnout and lower gop turnout in the midterms to secure said senate majority, and that delaying the SCOTUS vote until november could be a rallying cry for GOPers who care a lot about that. and that could put a 51-seat majority out of reach.

it's hare-brained and speculative, so apolz.

I think he really just meant that two GOP presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote, which is a problem in and unto itself. The fact that Presidents basically choose the new Justices compounds the problem.

hundreds of posts like this from people who breathe politics https://t.co/eNhFW536FU

— Gorilla Princip (@Michelgrabowy) June 27, 2018

i got an idea you dum dums how bout you just take the capitol building and crumple it up and put it in your pocket that way they cant hold a quorum bingo bongo done.

— Gorilla Princip (@Michelgrabowy) June 27, 2018

At least the guys who make 45 minute youtubes armchair generalling Barbarossa into a winning campaign know which way east is

— Gorilla Princip (@Michelgrabowy) June 27, 2018

my concern was that the dems are counting on huge turnout and lower gop turnout in the midterms to secure said senate majority, and that delaying the SCOTUS vote until november could be a rallying cry for GOPers who care a lot about that.
― 21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:54 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My eternal concern is that the GOP base cares more about their shit than the dems will ever do.

yeah basically

do you guys even know how the Senate works, what it means to have no power to block things

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:53 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Remember when the Senate successfully prevented Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan from getting on the Court?