U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

That would be more in the nature of suggestions.

Anything they say now should be seen more as paving the way for future action. I mean obviously if there's a way to get a couple gop senators on board for holding off I'd be thrilled but it seems like a longshot. Whatever they say now, demand or suggestion or whatever, is the "dissenting opinion" that can be cited in a future "majority opinion" should they get the chance to write one.

Senate maneuverings aren't binding legal opinions, strategic hypocrisy and expedient abandonment of precedent are the rules of the game.

Dissents aren't binding legal opinions either

Of course you should be strategically hypocritical but you also need cover. Stuff like "stolen seat" and "the american people should have a say" are cover. That's exactly how McConnell did it. He could hypothetically have done it anyway but you at least need a fig leaf imo.

anyway, it doesn't matter a whole lot, bottom line is the senate must be retaken.

Meanwhile:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/korematsu-supreme-court-ruling.html

Anyone else disturbed by the "solely and explicitly" language here? “The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority.”

Isn't that pretty narrow? Doesn't that leave open detention solely but not explicitly because of race?

yes, they're called prisons

Ponnoru strikes!

I don’t begrudge liberals their anger, being expressed afresh this week, about the Senate Republicans’ refusal to take up President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. I’m sure conservatives would have reacted similarly if the shoe were on the other foot, especially since the chief Republican argument for inaction on Garland—let’s wait until after the presidential election—had a distinctly made-for-the-occasion feel. But I don’t think the complaint that the seat was “stolen” from Garland, or from Obama, has much merit.

The complaint has to mean one of two things. In version one of the complaint, the Senate owed Obama a vote on his nominee, even if it ended up being a no vote. But this argument attempts, implausibly, to make the difference between active and passive Senate rejection of a nominee into a major point of principle. (The Founders seem to have deliberately chosen a system that allows for passive rejection of nominees.) It also fails to justify the “stolen” label, since it concedes that the Senate would have been within its rights to reject Garland if it had followed the proper procedure.

Version two of the complaint holds that Obama’s pick deserved deference, and so the proper thing for the Senate to do was to confirm Garland even though the vast majority of Senate Republicans objected to his legal philosophy and the results it would likely have if he were on the Supreme Court. I don’t think that presidents deserve this degree of deference on their Supreme Court nominations.

The fly in Ponnuru's argument is that, had the Senate rejected Garland, Obama would have been free to nominate another person for the Senate's consideration, or a third, had the second been rejected. Such a series of rejections and nominations has happened before.

This occasion was remarkable in that it essentially said NO nominee of Obama was acceptable, based ONLY on the fact that Obama had nominated them. This was a complete rejection of the President's prerogative to nominate, as opposed to a rejection of his nominees. That was not just unprecedented, but Constitutionally indefensible.

It also excludes the possibility that Garland could have been confirmed, which I thought was the whole point of Mitch's bullshit - keep it from coming to a floor vote because at least a couple of GOP senators might have broken rank and voted on the merits (or just out of fear of who Clinton might nominate instead, or whatever).

remember when Orrin Hatch was caught gums flapping? When Obama nominated Kagan or Sotomayor he said, "Why couldn't he nominate someone moderate and acceptable like Merrick Garland?!"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/big-business-keeps-winning-at-the-supreme-court/564260/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20180702&silverid-ref=NDQzMzg5OTk4NDM5S0

"And while this term’s decisions on immigrants, gerrymanders, and wedding cakes are prompting many on the left to lament Gorsuch’s “stolen” Supreme Court seat, it is not just the conservative justices who tend to side with business. Six of the nine cases won by the Chamber this year were decided by margins of 7-2 or 9-0. Indeed, with the exception of Elena Kagan, the Chamber has endorsed the nomination of every current member of the Supreme Court."

Man, the latest raft of decisions is really hitting me hard. I hate saying it, but we are so FUCKED with this court. It's only going to get worse.

Yup

Gorsuch’s “stolen” Supreme Court seat

Not sure why they added scare quotes here

the stoopid lib Ginsburg cult really annoys me

tho i hope she's not going anywhere for 2.5 years

McConnell didn't literally wear his Hamburglar outfit for this heist.

mcconnell's one of those people who would really benefit from wearing the Hamburglar outfit. it would humanize him in some ways

mcconnell must don the beef cowl

What are the reasons to hate RBG. Honestly asking.

Where did I say "hate"? I object to fanboyism.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick/index.html

(She did apologize later.)

Anyway, maybe Yam shocks us all by appointing his pro-choice sister?

I dont hate RBG but I'm certainly pissed at her for not retiring in 2014

The documentary did suck.

that movie was flat amazing, like 60% of it was just white ladies in pearls sitting in front of bay windows giggling about biggie

you mean 60 seconds

yeah sorry there were snl clips too.

nominee and spouse must "look All-American"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/04/trump-supreme-court-pick-family-optics-694788

while the doc was running i overheard a customer ask one of the ushers what the movie was about; "it's about a woman on the supreme court," she replied. another customer, sweeping grandly by, stopped to rebuke her, presumably for betraying her sex w her ignorance: "it's about THE woman on the supreme court!" but there are three.

lmao

What are the reasons to hate RBG. Honestly asking.

Well, there was this gift to the anti-choicists:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

basically she is nowhere near as progressive as given credit for and she should have retired under Obama. I don't hate her, I just think the cult around her is unwarranted.

She's progressive enough. No vote is 100 percent reliable, as the GOP has learned.

anyway never forget

https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_07/1417876/160214-ginsburg-scalia-230p_d8c1506bab17a5efb1e0e2577595d371.1200;630;7;70;5.jpg

nominee and spouse must "look All-American"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/04/trump-supreme-court-pick-family-optics-694788

lol so Amul Thapar doesn't have a fuckin chance

Still gives hard-ons to Chuck Todd I-long-for-bipartisn-monkeyshines types

I just remembered her comments on kneeling but she retracted them. I should've said hate on, but I see you are hating on fanboys, which yeah. Any fandom has shitty people in it.

And seriously, the women have been carrying this court. No flies on them from my perspective.

basically she is nowhere near as progressive as given credit for and she should have retired under Obama. I don't hate her, I just think the cult around her is unwarranted.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, July 6, 2018 1:11 PM (fifty-four minutes ago)

I am not really familiar with the methodology behind these metrics but she was about as liberal as a post-marshall justice has been, at least in how she voted

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/?ex_cid=story-twitter

So in 2019, the Supreme Court is probably going to force public sector unions to pay back fair share fees from the past to workers who opted out of membership. This would effectively bankrupt all public sector unions. https://t.co/6WvyJzwOCV

— Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) July 6, 2018

BREAKING: President Trump is nominating federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as next US Supreme Court justice - @PeteWilliamsNBC

the golden boy

oh fucking hell Ed Meese is in the audience

ME: It's Kavanaugh.
WIFE: Which one is that?
ME: The shitty one.
WIFE: Not helpful. Aren't they all shitty?
ME: Yeah. Life is meaningless.

— Charles, Star of Mic Dicta (@Ugarles) July 10, 2018

so marvelous that five dudes will strike down or weaken Roe v. Wade!

the NYT is here to tell us this is fine

Akil Ahmar wins this year's Neal Katyal Award for meritorious service on behalf of contrarianism https://t.co/VygfW9czIb

— David Dayen (@ddayen) July 10, 2018

He’s the most qualified Supreme Court nominee ever!

John Marshall himself would've married him iirc

Given the quality of every other Trump nominee to date, I expect that in the next 24 hours we’ll either learn that Brett Kavanaugh has an IQ of 75 or that he owns a coat made of human skin.

I hope he catches Ebola