U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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?

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.

they did the bare minimum that was expected of them, given the circumstances, and iirc part of the excuse for why they didn't make a bigger fuss at the time was that everyone was so certain that hillary clinton would win. a "huge stink" is what republicans did with #benghazi for 4 years straight, and that was in response to something that wasn't even real. every american knows about benghazi, even if they only know that it's something related to hillary clinton and how republicans hate her. in contrast, few americans know that mitch mcconnell and the republicans shamelessly stole a supreme court seat and that it was one of the consequential thefts in the history of this country

every single time democrats reference the supreme court or mcconnell they should be bringing that shit up, #benghazi style

OTM!

What they did was pretty traditional stink. Expected stink. If there's simply no power to block things, then do you give up and say it's all of no use anyway? Or can you unite behind one issue and get the fucking vote out.

McConnell and the rest of his team was LIVID about Harry Reid killing the filibuster and them chickens are still coming home to roost. Most of the people I know who have admitted to voting for Trump say it was about the Court.

It's not like every time the presidency of Trump is mentioned there isn't a huge scandal hanging over him, either. So there's definitively a possibility to be even more agressive.

didn't realize you guys were referring to pre-Trump era there.

even so, you think the Senate and Hillary didn't bring up the blocked nomination thing enough to... drive turnout? Hillary brought it up all the time and no one listens to Senators during presidential elections. As it was, the court seats were referenced constantly during the election iirc. idk what you mean by "bigger fuss" and I don't think you do either, frankly.

Well for example, I have the feeling there's a bigger fuss made about Trump's russian relations than the fact that Roe vs Wade might disappear within 15 months.

uh not today

Not saying that one thing should outfuss the other, just pointing out that bigger fusses exist.

I know because I made the miserable decision to watch MSNBC from 4 p.m. onward.

few americans know that mitch mcconnell and the republicans shamelessly stole a supreme court seat

like... every Democrat knows this? what are you even basing this hyperbole on?

and I said two hours to myself, "Maybe this'll stop them from discussing Russia shit."

like... every Democrat knows this? what are you even basing this hyperbole on?

i don't live in california or new york

Well okay but the fact that you say 'not today' is really what I think Karl Malone was arguing: the gears have been turning for something like today to happen ever since the Garland steal has been consummated, and it is only now that the liberals in America are starting to understand that Roe vs Wade has no future anymore.

is there a non-miserable time to watch msnbc

They’ve been covering the migrant crisis pretty heavily last couple weeks. Moreso than Russia stuff

this guy seems like a likely nom
https://empiricalscotus.com/2017/12/07/the-next-nominee/

Yeah! That's another example of a big fuss that I haven't seen about the Garland steal.

is there a non-miserable time to watch msnbc

― Simon H., Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:19 PM (

Chris Hayes' slot, as ever.

Emily Bazelon one of my favorite writers/commentators, weighting on:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/opinion/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-trump.html

Dahlia Lithwick's Kennedy obit:

And so the formerly “centrist” Anthony Kennedy ended his Supreme Court career by taking sides, not simply in the spate of bombshell 5–4 decisions that came out in recent weeks. He took sides in a rhetorical war about the suffering of Christian bakers and pregnancy centers, and the language of “no you’re the radical” he now directs at liberals with whom he could once find common cause. It wasn’t so much that Kennedy ever represented the “center” of the court. He was no more the center than John Roberts will be the center of a vastly more conservative post-Kennedy Supreme Court. But Kennedy did become, for a time, a symbol of certain values around judging and justice—of acute concern that both sides be heard, of respect for the rule of law, and of solicitude for at least some communities that were invisible to his colleagues on the right. And to the extent that this was the center, it is perhaps apt that it falls away at the end of this term. Those institutional and rhetorical values feel like the relic of another time. Neither Sonia Sotomayor nor Samuel Alito has any patience for that kind of signaling anymore.

I like that Al.

Kennedy's writing for the Court never seemed to amount for much other as someone who was trying to reason his way out loud.

I think Roberts will be the new Kennedy of the Court.

I think Roberts will stay to the right as he did this term, and only be the new Kennedy on a less frequent basis. He seems more doctrinaire than Kennedy.

Chris Hayes' slot, as ever.

yea I think his show is pretty good, it's pretty much the only news thing I can watch these days

I can't watch mainstream pundits but I have enjoyed watching him get increasingly furious on Twitter.

This was the best response Alito could come up with the other day in his union decision regarding obtaining the benefits of a union (wage increases, etc.) without paying dues:

Alito dismissed the argument that allowing nonmembers to opt out of negotiating fees would allow them to unfairly piggyback on their dues-paying co-workers.

Janus "strenuously objects to this free-rider label," Alito wrote. "He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage."
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/606208436/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-government-unions

shanghaied

Hey bud, welcome to the fuckin' club.

With that comment I literally just realized I have been superimposing Judge Ito's face in Alito's place on the SC.

Like, for years I have been doing this. I just looked up a pic of the SC and yep, no asian guy.