U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Politics is a dance of power, and the sum of power includes the perception of power. In practical terms the Republicans occupy both of the pinnacles of power when it comes to filling SCOTUS vacancies: president and a Senate majority. In that regard, yes, we are fucked.

But both those pinnacles rest on the broad basis of popular support. Make that earth they rest upon shake and they will feel it. Shaking that political ground beneath their feet is not an easy task right now and the tectonic plates of left and right have been locked together in apparent stasis for a couple of decades now. But that is where any hope of averting a 6-3 conservative or a 5-4 far right majority lies, and that court will do far more damage than just wiping out Roe v Wade.

I guess we'll know how it all shakes out in the next couple months.

I read that RBG felt that since sexism in the law and workplace kept her from participating in the legal world till her late 30s, and her husband died in 2010 that those 2 items influenced her choice to stay on the court. Not saying that was right on her part, but those factors should be acknowledged.

Also, in a US where many people can’t name Supreme Court justices, maybe having RBG as a role model/ icon despite her less than perfect judicial career is still nonetheless a good thing . In an ideal world more might understand the big picture of law and policy better, but maybe for some this is a stepping stone.

Both of the last two Republican presidents—Bush and Trump-- have lost the popular vote, and yet each nominated two Supreme Court justices, who have been confirmed by the votes of senators who represent a minority of the American people.

kinda fucked up tbh

so its between Barrett and Lagoa? Tempted by a punt on Nick Sandmann

The overemphasis on personal narrative is exactly the problem. I am more concerned about the results than her legacy. It is “kind of fucked up” that our system thwarts popular will, but Democrats keep acting surprised that that’s the system we have when it was designed that way. And then when we actually have majority power we don’t maximize its use and make needless concessions to the right for the sake of “norms” that they don’t observe. I don’t care what RBG’s personal motivation was for not stepping down because the Supreme Court is not and should not be about her personal motivations.

Lagoa is a Hialeah girl!

just increasingly feels like we have a system by the red states, of the red states and for the red states in terms of representation in all branches of federal government as well as revenue flows

True, it does feel that way. The only thing that gives me hope is that the people making that possible are disproportionately old. God, what is it about old voters. Maybe we should surrender the ballot at 65.

But both those pinnacles rest on the broad basis of popular support. Make that earth they rest upon shake and they will feel it. Shaking that political ground beneath their feet is not an easy task right now and the tectonic plates of left and right have been locked together in apparent stasis for a couple of decades now. But that is where any hope of averting a 6-3 conservative or a 5-4 far right majority lies, and that court will do far more damage than just wiping out Roe v Wade.

I guess we'll know how it all shakes out in the next couple months.

― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Sunday, 20 September 2020 bookmarkflaglink

The Democrats aren't interested in anything like shutdowns or strikes or street protests...just phantom arrows and a "let's see how it shakes out" at this word salad is your response?!

Advocates for Lagoa sent text messages and placed calls over the weekend to officials in the White House and the Justice Department, as well as prominent attorneys who have sway with Trump’s top aides, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

“She is a Cuban woman from Miami, and Florida is the most important state in the election,” said Jesse Panuccio, former acting associate attorney general in Trump’s Justice Department and a member of the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission, which vetted her before Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) named her to the state’s top court in January 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barbara-lagoa-supreme-court/2020/09/20/364d73e4-fb50-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html

Twenty-six Dems voted for her to join the court on which she sits.

I'm kind of surprised McConnell hasn't tried to pack the court himself over these past four years. You could say he got what he wanted anyway, but not if Biden and a Dem senate do add justices. So is it simply that he's betting the Democrats don't have the stones to actually go through with it?

The Democrats aren't interested in anything like shutdowns or strikes or street protests...

This is apparently not feasible in the US due to the country's sheer size, as I'm repeatedly told whenever I try to make this particular point.

Yes I've seen those tweets. The larger point is to have a strategy in place, rather than talk about arrows or "we'll see whether we're fucked or not in a couple of months, when we are getting fucked".

man alive i hate to tell you this but when those old people die other old people with extremely similar political views and tastes in leisure apparel will have taken their place. it's both spooky and confounding and you can absolutely count on it.

^^^
Realized this weekend that while any of the justices could outlive me if I step in front of a bus, Barrett is the first one who's statistically more likely to die after I do.

(Barrett, who hasn't even been nominated yet, I should say.)

damn, yeah she might outlive me as well. i guess they're codependent factors - if barrett is successfully seated, my own life expectancy will go down because i'll be hitting the bottle a little harder for the rest of my life

They all figure to outlive me, especially after they take my cancer treatment away.

*rimshot*

they better fucking not

i take em at their word, for once

Amy Coney Barrett, a frontrunner for the SCOTUS seat, belongs to the cult that directly inspired The Handmaid's Tale

The charismatic Christian parachurch organization, which was founded in South Bend, Indiana in 1971, teaches that men have authority over their wives. Members swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another and are expected to donate at least 5 per cent of their earnings to the group.

~Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.~ ephesians 5:22-24

beware of christians who read the bible literally, and that's many white evangelicals

"5 per cent of their earnings to the group..."

Mormons have to tithe 10%, right? So that's a bargain, especially if it's post-tax.

tithing is usually thought of as 10% for christians, too

The only thing that gives me hope is that the people making that possible are disproportionately old.

But sadly most of the 200 Trump judges put on District and Appeals Courts though are not old. Nor are the new ones on the Supreme Court. If Biden becomes Prez and if Schumer becomes Majority leader will they take the more than the moderate steps required to counter these Trump judges with more judges at all levels (there is the precedent of Carter once expanding the number of district and circuit judges)

You can’t tithe anything but 10%, that’s what tithing means

I would guess that's 5% on top of the Catholic Church's 10% cut?

beware of christians who read the bible literally

Tbf they never read it literally, assuming such a thing is even possible, since that would imply buying into the whole thing, from beginning to end, down to its countless inconsistencies and self-contradictions, which they would have no choice but to own up to and/or to explain via exegesis, at the risk of undermining their own commitment to the letter. No, they merely stress the purported literality of those passages they wish to magnify and gloss over the rest.

idk. I was a Fundamentalist, and they were all about Youth Earth biblical inerrancy bullshit, right down to the Earth being 6,000 years old, dinosaurs being in the Bible, and they had just about every Jedi-handwave for every terrible contradiction. even both ways Judas dies. most of them said outright the Bible didn't contradict itself and believed it to be the "divine word of God". they found the verses they believed to condemn homosexuality (even though they don't), and they even showed us VHS tapes of a Christian biologist who explained the scientific basis for God (not quite apologetics but, close enough).

I got talked to because I pointed out the bullshit in the green workbooks they gave us by writing angrily how none of it made any sense.

I was a Catholic boy who loved the Old Testament and still do, so they couldn't pull their bullshit on me.

Paul was not ideal husband material. (That passage showed up in the liturgy VERY often when i was a kid.)

well, how could he be? Between ratting on Christians as Saul of Tarsus, writing letters with the zeal of the newly converted, and willing himself to get martyred, how could he get laid?

I was always a poser Christian in that I was never really hooked as a kid (when I was a Methodist), but I was closer to being a 'true believer', the Fundies I only half-heartedly believed their nonsense but I was trying to find something I believed in.

then I found thrash metal

There is actually a Metal Church so you can reconcile these seemingly incompatible belief systems.

^gets it

one of my 'friends' at the fundie church (a reclamation project from Miami who got into trouble and listened to metal) was a douche and I didn't like him and he stole my Beavis and Butthead cds but he also conned our youth group leader into thinking Ministry was a Christian band and regularly played their music in the youth group room so hats off for that

I kind of agree with Alfred way upthread that we should probably start a new thread soon. Whatever you think of RBG, the post-RBG era deserves its own thread title, for obvious reasons no matter what happens over the next few months.

and what certainly shouldn’t be a shock to anyone


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898?fbclid=IwAR24rEhHW2wCTCfeOOuQj5e6GSa_yvsyroqA2z8_d3W_Yut6lj9FfmHlR28

well that's the last time i put my faith in the CEO of Bain Capital

pierre derelicto

Question from the north: the thing that Republicans keep saying--that precedent says when you control both the presidency and senate, you go forward, no matter how close the election, but when they're split, like in 2016, you don't--is that true or are they just making stuff up?

In that it's a precedent they are setting, sure.

golden rule is whoever has the gold makes the rules

there is no rule. there used to be this whole thing about working together *deep breath* "in good faith", this thing called shame or trust or accountability. but those aren't rules. mcconnell recognized that with the merrick garland nomination and took advantage of it. he made the "rule" then, and now he's changing the "rule". it's not a rule, it's a power grab, both times

In that it's a precedent they are setting, sure.

That's what I mean--they keep saying this as if there's already a precedent in place, with lots of actual historical examples that fit that distinction (and, implicitly, adhered to by both parties). Is there any truth to that?

I wonder in how many years of the Senate's existence these "norms" and "traditions" of "bipartisanship" even applied -- I always think of the caning of Senator Sumner

My default is always "they're lying," but thought I'd ask.

clemenza, this might illuminate:

Here is the justification McConnell offered shortly after Ginsburg died for violating his own rule:

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

This last sentence—which you will recognize as the heart of McConnell’s argument—is a lie. . . .

OK, now for the dull facts: What McConnell says in that statement is not true. In 1988 (an election year!), the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy—President Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court. McConnell tried to circumvent this reality by crafting his new rule to exclude any vacancy “that arose” in an election year (Lewis Powell retired in late 1987).

from: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-mitch-mcconnell.html