U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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.

^

this suggestion sure seems to be making the rounds this morning

Currently, Democrats control 49 Senate seats — two short of the simple majority they would need to filibuster a Trump nominee. So how could they “technically” block the president’s pick? And even with all the outrage on the left, why are they still unlikely to do it?

Earlier this month, University of Miami political scientist Gregory Koger, a specialist in filibustering and legislative obstructionism, explained on Vox.com that, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “a majority … shall constitute a quorum to do business” in the Senate — meaning that Democrats can basically shut the place down by refusing to vote on anything.

With only the barest 51-vote majority — and one of their own, Arizona Sen. John McCain, on extended leave in Arizona as he grapples with what is likely to be terminal brain cancer — Republicans would have difficultly mustering a quorum without at least some Democratic help. “In the month of June, there have been an average of 1.8 Republican absences across 18 roll call votes,” Koger wrote, “so even if McCain returned to the Senate, the majority would struggle to consistently provide a floor majority.” If McCain doesn’t return, and all 49 Democrats refuse to participate, the 50 Republican senators left in Washington would fall one short of a quorum. (The Senate precedents on quorums do not mention whether Vice President Mike Pence could contribute a 51st vote.)

In that case, “the Senate can do nothing,” Koger concluded. “No bill can pass, no amendment can be decided on, no nominations can get approved.” The Senate would screech to a halt for lack of a quorum — and Democrats could conceivably delay a confirmation vote until a new Senate, perhaps with a narrow Democratic majority, is seated next January.

Asked to confirm that Democrats could use the quorum rule to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee indefinitely, Koger tells Yahoo News the answer is “technically yes,” assuming that the word “majority” in the Constitution means “51 votes, not 50” and that the vice president can’t “vote to make a majority.”

The fact that Democrats can shut down the Senate, however, doesn’t mean they will. “This would be a confrontational tactic,” Koger explained. “Confrontational” is probably too gentle a word for it. Obstructing a president’s Supreme Court pick by completely shutting down the Senate would require political winds that were blowing strongly in Senate Democrats’ favor. It’s not clear they are.

For one thing, 10 Democratic senators are running for reelection in states that Trump won in 2016, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch. Would every one of these at-risk senators be willing to imperil their reelection chances by striking over Trump’s next nominee? Democrats can’t afford a single defection.

How the fuck could it possibly make things worse? Do you think anyone buys the "do your job" argument? Did anyone buy that with Merrick Garland?

it could cost them their shot at controlling the Senate

it could hand McConnell a 2/3rds majority

things can always get worse!

lol you are fucking delusional

a 2/3 majority because they refuse to vote on a supreme court justice?

Shakey, they ARE getting worse. How effective has this cower-in-place strategy been at preventing that so far?

Democratic Senators refusing to show up to work to block a pro-life SC nominee would definitely increase turnout among anti-Democratic "independents" and GOP voters

Did voters punish the GOP for blocking Garland?

do I need to remind you how many seats the Dems are defending in the Senate? It isn't good, math-wise!

"cower-in-place" sheesh stop it with the hysterical hyperbole, we're on the same side.