U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

I really just meant in regards to the Will Wilkinson tweet that caek posted. It is not even a question whether Kavanaugh's appointment "may be" damaging to the SCOTUS' legitimacy in the eyes of at least half the country.

Genuine disgust with a SC justice could boomerang on those who voted for them, so that the more Kavanaugh is identified with the Republican Party as being Their Guy, then any widespread disgust with him will reflect badly on that party. But I wouldn't hold my breath. He's more likely to help reconcile evangelicals with all the rest of the mess Trump is making each day, just because he'll kill Roe v Wade for them.

if the GOP confirms him by a vote or two, it will be so much more than a blue wave

It will dictate significant parts of the platform(s*) in the 2020 presidential election and could wind up significantly weakening the judiciary for a generation

(I mean, the incumbent party platform is “rape is okay, maybe sometimes even better than okay if a baby comes out, but only if the man wants it” so really his potential confirmation is just clarifying)

& “evangelicals” are already 100% okay with everything Trump is doing unless they don’t get Kavanaugh at which point their big threat is they might not show up in November. Truly the most venal, stupid voting bloc in the country.

Scare quotes because people can be evangelical and not pro-rape-babies, it’s a fact

funny how you’re so quick to paint evangelicals with such a broad brush but as soon as someone has a bad word to say about VETERANS, watchout

there is no coherent “platform” for any of these life forms tbh

One side effect of Reid & McConnell eliminating the filibuster over all federal court nominees and scrapping several other senatorial courtesies designed to smooth over partisanship in the confirmation process, will be raising the stakes on every senatorial election even higher, and probably setting off an even bigger campaign contribution arms race under Citizens United. The battle against the 1% is the defining political issue of our time.

Fuck you kevin, learn to read

aimless otm

I’m day-drunk and can read just fine, thanks

The first part was already clear, you may want to actually do the reading though

evangelicals are a voting bloc and among progressive Christians whose doctrinal stance is technically "evangelical" e.g Zahnd or Held Evans, the term evangelical is imo/e very much a term used to mean "those assholes"

I understand that! and I also understand that if I don't asterisk "evangelicals" then some other cats around here will holler at me for including other doctrinally evangelical sects that aren't in favor of rape babies and the rich getting richer

I also get drinky during the day sometimes and I fully accept that internet people might foreshorten their nap recommendations to "go fuck yourself" - it's a manner of speaking

yay! you go, USA :)

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-have-votes-confirm-kavanaugh

I believe McConnell believes it.

i uh, think that if he doesn't the so, he will keep saying he does think so until he does think so, or until mcconnelldoes not think so and kav is withdrawn, which he won't be, imo. i agree with others' earlier comments that a kav vote will not fail.

*think*

I just don't think any of the posited potential "no" votes (Murkowski, Collins, Flake, Corker) have the deeply ingrained spitefulness and showboatery required to pull a McCain ACA vote-style stunt. They just don't. Which means that if McConnell brings it to the floor, it's going to be because he doesn't expect any surprises and it's a sure thing.

Murkowski is the only I'm staring at when I'm not reading Ottessa Moshfegh.

FOR YOUR CALENDARS: Senate Judiciary Committee schedules vote on nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court for Friday, September 28, 9:30 am, Dirksen 226.

— Ed O'Keefe (@edokeefe) September 25, 2018

Judic Cmte noticed POTENTIAL exec mtg for Friday. Still taking this 1 step at a time. After hrg Dr Ford & Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony- if we‘re ready to vote, we will vote. If we aren’t ready, we won’t. Cmte rules normally require 3 days notice so we‘re following regular order

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) September 25, 2018

i'm late on this, but even tho i didn't go to high school w/ him i endorse Dr Casino for the SC.

you are kind, but my mile-long ilx and letterboxd paper trail would make short work of that

A key Republican senator has quietly weighed in on an upcoming Supreme Court case that could have important consequences for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The Utah lawmaker Orrin Hatch, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed a 44-page amicus brief earlier this month in Gamble v. United States, a case that will consider whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be put to rest. The 150-year-old exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy clause allows state and federal courts to prosecute the same person for the same criminal offense. According to the brief he filed on September 11, Hatch believes the doctrine should be overturned. “The extensive federalization of criminal law has rendered ineffective the federalist underpinnings of the dual sovereignty doctrine,” his brief reads. “And its persistence impairs full realization of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s liberty protections.”

Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump’s power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn’t be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example—he was convicted last month in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud—both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws. (Both states have a double-jeopardy law that bars secondary state prosecutions for committing “the same act,” but there are important exceptions, as the Fordham University School of Law professor Jed Shugerman has noted.) If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/?

lotta law & order defendants gonna be stoked about that

I know it's somewhat besides the point, but it should be weird that nobody on the Supreme Court is stepping in and saying that nobody with this much dirt hanging over them should be confirmed to the bench. Slow down, investigate. Clear his name (yeah right, lol). Everyone knows this won't happen because the GOP knows Kavanaugh is to extreme for Dems ever to agree to confirm him, but this also undermines the legitimacy of the court.

I know, I know, this is the Supreme Court for Treeships (sorry dude), but it felt good to write it down.

nobody on the Supreme Court is stepping in

generally, none of them make public statements and they *certainly* don't comment on the confirmation process, ever, so no it is not weird.

^

it would be very weird and unconventional if someone DID say something

I know it's the norm, and it's definitely conventional, but I still say it's weird. Or it should be. When norms are going to get your prestigious job title associated with gang rape, you might break that norm.

yes, surely Clarence Thomas should weigh in, what could go wrong

I think Charles Evans Hughes' letter co-written by Brandeis and Van Devanter fighting the court packing scheme was the last time SCOTUS ever responded to rumblings in Congress and the White House

it would be very weird and unconventional if someone DID say something

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:59 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf it was pretty weird when kavanaugh went on fox news to say he was a proud virgin.

that was exceptionally weird

I missed this relevant factoid

FACTOID: Among the myriad possible reasons 15-yr-old Chrissy might’ve been *especially* reluctant to call the Montgomery County prosecutors: Kavanaugh’s mother was apparently among those prosecutors at the time of 17-yr-old Brett’s alleged assault.

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) September 22, 2018

it should be weird that nobody on the Supreme Court is stepping in and saying that nobody with this much dirt hanging over them should be confirmed to the bench.

Fred, there's still a very good chance that Kavanaugh will be seated. It's a political decision. In which case, any justice who spoke up against his confirmation would be working closely with him for (possibly) a decade or more. And because speaking out would have zero real authority, other than whatever moral weight might be assigned to it by the senators who hold genuine authority, it might easily accomplish nothing other than making your colleague hate you. Since coalition building is a necessary component of the SCOTUS, it would be *ahem* kind of stupid to do as you suggested.

>Since coalition building is a necessary component

...is it?

Less than it used to be, but still, yes, it is.

Kavanaugh is not a smart man.

Fred, there's still a very good chance that Kavanaugh will be seated. It's a political decision. In which case, any justice who spoke up against his confirmation would be working closely with him for (possibly) a decade or more. And because speaking out would have zero real authority, other than whatever moral weight might be assigned to it by the senators who hold genuine authority, it might easily accomplish nothing other than making your colleague hate you. Since coalition building is a necessary component of the SCOTUS, it would be *ahem* kind of stupid to do as you suggested.

― A is for (Aimless), 27. september 2018 06:26 (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This calculation might be right, but it's also so very, very weird. I get that you might put a premium on coalition-building, but if you step one step away from the issue at hand, then building coalitions with rapists are a sure way to lose authority and legitimacy anyway. This seems to me to be a crisis of massive proportions for the Supreme Court, as it has become a bigger and bigger story, much larger than what happened to Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas (because he got confirmed on a bi-partisan vote anyway, something that will definitely not happen here) and more comparable to the court-packing bill in 1937 or the whole Madison v Marbury case that I definitely knew about before yesterday, yessir. Without an FBI investigation into Kavanaugh, he will just never be seen as a legitimate judge, and if his colleagues on the Supreme Court tries to pretend otherwise, they will lose legitimacy as well. I think.

If he still gets on the Court, his colleagues will work with him because that's the way it's always worked. The misogynist, anti-Semite, and racist James McReynolds, on every list of the worst justices in SCOTUS history, was loathed by many of his colleagues but they still worked with him. What can Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, or even Roberts do -- resign in protest? It ain't happening. History suggests comity.

The authority and legitimacy of the Supreme Court come straight from the constitution - if Trump isn't assaulting them, they'll be just fine.

Trump will be gone much sooner than Kavanaugh. It's all about how the next Dem president will react to a rapist striking down her signature policies. And also, times have changed since McReynolds.

Even my hyper-skeptical self thinks Kavanaugh is probably out now. I'm sure they're already doing whatever they can to try to set up an expedited process for Amy Barrett. Although there's probably the concern that she will not be as popular with the base, because people don't fully trust a woman to overturn Roe.

Nah. Kav will be on the Supreme Court. Republicans never back down. 52% of white women voted for Trump. The Republicans will support jamming him through.

Dems need control of Senate, House, & presidency. Then need to make DC and Puerto Rico states ( maybe other territories too) to counter the influence of less populated red states. Then add additional justices to the Supreme Court since there’s no constitutional rule it has to be 9.

“it’s starting to seem like it was an accident that the country worked as long as it did”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/ford-kavanaugh-hearings-were-a-case-study-in-gop-misogyny.html

yessss, fuck you Khosla: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Court-refuses-to-take-up-Martins-Beach-13271592.php?t=ed7559424c

Half the motherfuckers on the court don’t know what a beach is anyway

Oh boy, beach! That's where I'm the ralph king!

omg

"Killer Qs and 151" is quite plausibly a reference to quaaludes and grain alcohol, which Julie Swetnick said were used to drug high school girls. The timing--Beach Week '82--lines up with her allegation. Good thing the FBI is [checks notes] barred from interviewing these folks... https://t.co/ZussrwG4qe

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) October 1, 2018