U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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.

lol

<3

This clears up why the asian dude was confusingly and disappointingly voting conservative all these years.

would welcome lance ito to the supreme court right now, tbh

also, thanks for the new display name

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."

An unwanted voyage to health insurance, paid sick leave, a protected pension, scheduled raises, clear performance metrics, free legal representation, free mental health services, free professional development & certifications...yeah no definitely don't go there.

Pareene has a plan.

Brett Kavanaugh, a federal judge known to be high on Trump’s shortlist of potential nominees, doesn’t appear to believe a president can be indicted. Most of the time, that is a purely academic debate; it is currently a much more relevant one. How irresponsible it would be to confirm someone who has already prejudged the issue, especially when the court has no particular need for a ninth member!

And if there is no need for a ninth member, and if President Trump is not qualified to appoint one anyway, the way forward is clear: Deny quorum until everyone accepts the eight justice status quo. Senate moderates in both parties, including pro-choice Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, should be thrilled with an evenly balanced Supreme Court, with the four conservatives and four liberals being forced to find common ground, and persuade one another, instead of deciding things on nakedly partisan grounds. Anthony Kennedy has given centrists, and all who regret the incivility of the current moment, a gift, and it would be irresponsible to waste it by replacing him.

https://splinternews.com/good-news-the-supreme-court-just-lost-its-conservative-1827204710

Deny quorum until everyone accepts the eight justice status quo.

I was wondering about this as a Senate tactic. It's never been tried (I don't think) at the Federal level. At the state level it's never really worked out historically beyond delaying the inevitable for a few weeks/months. otoh, when every week matters...

This would be a very extreme tactic though, and would likely backfire on the Dem caucus ("They aren't doing their jobs!") ahead of the election, I doubt Schumer would be willing to take the gamble.

didn't the Oklahoma Dem caucus hole up in a hotel a few years ago, hiding from state troopers or something like that...?

oh it's never going to happen but it's absolutely what they *should* do

and it's a reminder that whenever people say they have no options to fight back, it's rarely quite true

why do you think it would be successful

I mean how would it be different from the Gorsuch filibuster - which, while def the right thing to do, did not stop his confirmation. P sure McConnell would find some rule that would compel Senators to attend or risk expulsion altogether. Hard to see how it wouldn't backfire imo.

I don't know that it would be! but these are pretty extreme circumstances so why not exhaust every option

because it could make things worse?

Pareene predictably if convolutedly pretending it will be the democrats fault for not stopping the thing he knows they can’t stop.