U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Manchin is presumably an "in the mold of kennedy" guy, i.e. a conservative justice that occasionally acts like a fucking primadonna who can't make up his mind and once in a while throws liberals a bone, cementing his reputation as "even handed" because liberals have stockholm syndrome.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive)

otm...and West Virginia is a deeply conservative state

hey why doesn't Trump nominate Joe Manchin to replace Kennedy

hahaha

wait don't give him any ideas

trump expands supreme court to 10 to appoint justices diamond and silk

supreme court justice donald trump jr.

bless the outline for this URL

https://theoutline.com/post/5126/pack-the-court-judicial-appointment-scalia-is-in-hell?zd=1&zi=irzf4v5i

Awful thought occurred to me that if we don’t retake the senate I’ll bet THEY will pack the court.

eh that's picking a fight they don't need to. Any attempt to pack the court from either side will be filibustered to death.

It was not until 1869 that Congress fixed the Court at its current number. In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a judicial reform that would have allowed him to appoint a new justice for every existing justice over the age of 70 years and six months. The legislation is sometimes described as a failure or an overreach. The mere threat of court packing, however, achieved the bill’s objective: the Court suddenly began upholding the New Deal measures that helped working people survive the Great Depression.

This is incorrect history. The bill was likely to pass in the Senate, albeit with great reluctance, in large part b/c FDR promised the next open seat to Majority Leader Joseph Robinson. Then the combination of Chief Justice Hughes' canny open letter responding to FDR's accusations about the Court lagging in its workload and Robinson dropping dead of a heart attack killed the bill. Finally, Willis Van Devanter announced his retirement.

the GOP would be stupid to pack the court, given that they already have a near-guaranteed majority even before the senate race

of course, that doesn't rule out them doing it

thx for the correction there Alfred, I was wondering if I was misremembering the details from "Supreme Power"

according to all evidence what made the Four Horseman flinch wasn't the bill (which wasn't announced until well after Election Day) but the size of FDR's victory in November; this development also affected Owen Roberts' move to the liberal camp in West Coast Hotel

Everything sucks.

One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct.

But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.

Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. “Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today,” she wrote. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand.”

f o l l o w t h e m o n e y

i took p4reene's column as a modest proposal of what the Dems could/should try to do, not what he expects.

Saw it suggested that the Dems should demand a conclusion to the Mueller investigation before appointing another justice, but that could backfire by either making Mueller rush or increasing demands for him to otherwise wrap up early. It also gives the investigation even more of a political charge.

Here's a question that the SC might one day hear: if it turns out Trump was (officially) illegitimate, or a criminal, or a traitor, or a cheat or whatever, and is removed (or even not) from office, could that alone be the legit basis for (at the least) impeaching a justice or otherwise rescinding an appointment? I think it's possible to impeach a justice. A quick little look shows that one justice (under Washington!) was impeached but did not leave. Another, Fortas in the late '60s, resigned before his impeachment. I mean, it would never happen, but we're in an alternate universe where "it would never happen" is meaningless and shortsighted.

Trump is not “illegitimate”; he won the vote of the electoral college, which is where legitimacy begins and ends.

Mueller pulled the Iraq WMD's out of his ass i'm sure even in a crunch he has something up his sleeve

he won the vote of the electoral college

this is in fact how the country works since 1787

He was legitimately elected through the system we have, but if they discover and/or reveal he was illegally assisted, through bribes and hacking and messing with votes, that does muddy things a lot.

Millions of people cast ballots for him, so his legitimacy is unquestioned. The presence of foreign money and influence is another question.

This is a dumb argument, but his legitimacy *is* being question. The presence of foreign money and influence - and also intent - is a huge piece of this puzzle. Just because a mark is fooled by a con does not let the con off the hook.

otoh his opponent only had a career bcz of her dumb marriage

(sorry i was just trying to get into the spirit)

not to be captain save a hillary but that's like textbook misogyny?

xp

Thank you for your on-topic and totally non-non sequitur contribution to this thread about the Supreme Court, Morbs.

Also most women in higher office politics historically have gotten into politics because of a male family member. No one was big upping women on their own... bitches.

Saw it suggested that the Dems should demand a conclusion to the Mueller investigation before appointing another justice

given that the GOP is champing at the bit for the Mueller investigation to end (see: yesterday's hearing) I really don't think this is a good idea

It's hilarious that they want to rush the investigation because he's not indicting enough people already?

xpost that's the Catch-22 of it though isn't it? What happens if the Mueller investigation concludes in a year, or two years, or after Trump's reelection, and only then do we find out all the horrible stuff behind his 2016 election. What then?

I’ve been wondering if all of this will provide an incentive for Mueller to wrap things up sooner than he wants to. That’s what trump and the GOP (and everyone else - it is truly a national nightmare) want too, of course, but the sooner he brings real charges to the trump family (fingers crossed) the harder it will be for him to nominate a total stooge to the SC

didn't he imply or someone close to him imply that the investigation will conclude in stages, with one of the stages being the summer?

wasn't obstruction of justice the first conclusion expected?

I’m not sure. tbh after the one billionth tweet I saw regarding an incremental development, they’ve all started to blend together into an amorphous blob of possibility

there's also the issue of Mueller-related findings making their way to the supreme court

Solid Ian Millhiser piece about how the badness of Kennedy's writing could weaken his liberal decisions in the future.

It would’ve been nice if Obergeffel had contained some more thorough legal reasoning about the equal protection clause and less goofy posturing

"Goofy posturing" is a terrific description (Nino, ugh, otm).

stfu crut

no offense

research when & why she stopped going by "Rodham" maybe

STOP. TALKING. ABOUT. HILLARY. CLINTON.

anyway there have been no additions to Trump's Big Boy List of SC Nominees since the campaign?

not to be captain save a hillary but that's like textbook misogyny?

― cr.ht (crüt), 29. juni 2018 15:49 (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup. FP'd him for that.

this is ominous

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause/index.html

it could make it more difficult for a state to try someone who has been pardoned by the federal government if trial proceedings had already begun for the federal offense

gosh I can't imagine what would be appealing about this

if you're Donald Trump and the NY courts are gonna prosecute you, it's quite appealing!

sarcasm is dead ;)

if only ******* was

naw I caught it!