U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150625123238-will-mullery-justice-scalia-large-169.png

aaaaand here we go:

President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.

Mr. Obama is adamant that he will name a nominee to the court, most likely in the next few weeks. Republicans remain just as adamant that they will not even meet with Mr. Obama’s nominee, let alone hold confirmation hearings.

Then again, the meeting on Tuesday will bring together six men who have rarely been accused of keeping their remarks brief. Besides Mr. Obama, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Grassley, the invited participants include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:33 (three years ago) link

Thomas speaks!

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.

“O.K.,” he said. “So, can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”

Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”

The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:35 (three years ago) link

Chris Christie says there should be hearings. So you can all exhale now.

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:16 (three years ago) link

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

wish I could see video of Eisenstein's reaction to this

crüt, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:29 (three years ago) link

Ha! Yeah, jaw must've hit the floor.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:49 (three years ago) link

"Shit, I thought this was going well - I'm dreaming, aren't I?"

Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:05 (three years ago) link

Dust and cobwebs covering Thomas' mike.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18 (three years ago) link

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

http://i.imgur.com/jrbn9oI.gif

"Wha? Who said that!"

pplains, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:21 (three years ago) link

and of course the motherfucker asks a question to which any non-lawyer could have given a reasonable answer: yeah, many constitutional rights have had court-imposed limits.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:32 (three years ago) link

The cause that inspired Thomas to break a ten year silence: men convicted of domestic violence who wish to own guns.

Voisine v. United States involves a fairly technical question of whether two men with previous domestic assault convictions are subject to federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Justice Thomas, however, appeared deeply troubled by the idea that these men may not be able to carry a firearm.

Noting that the right to carry a gun is ordinarily “a constitutional right” under existing law, Thomas began his questioning by asking if Ilana Eisenstein, the attorney arguing the case on behalf of the federal government, could “give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right.”

There are many possible answers to this question. The Supreme Court has long recognized that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel within the United States, yet a person convicted of a misdemeanor could be arrested and jailed for up to a year. Similarly, the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association” with other individuals, but such an association may be difficult to maintain while an individual is incarcerated. The Constitution also provides fairly robust protections for property rights, but someone convicted of a misdemeanor may lawfully be fined.

In any event, Thomas continued to press Eisenstein for several pages of the argument transcript. At one point, he appeared bothered by the fact that domestic abusers have their right to own a gun suspended indefinitely. At another point, he seemed to suggest that the particular domestic abusers at issue in this case should not lose their ability to carry guns because they’ve never actually “use[d] a weapon against a family member.”

Thomas appeared unmoved when Eisenstein pointed out that “individuals who have previously…­­ battered their spouses, pose up to a six­fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.”

Justice Thomas has a record of near absolutism on the Second Amendment. Last December, while the nation was still mourning the mass killing of more than a dozen people at a facility for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino, California — a crime that was committed with assault rifles — Thomas penned a dissenting opinion suggesting that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.

Indeed, it now appears that Thomas believes that the Second Amendment should be read so broadly that even domestic abusers must be allowed to own guns. And that he is so committed to this cause that it is the only thing that he’s spoken about in ten years of Supreme Court hearings.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754773/justice-thomas-just-broke-his-ten-year-silence-to-complain-that-domestic-abusers-cant-have-guns/

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:42 (three years ago) link

The Notorious RBG at work:

That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.

“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:14 (three years ago) link

However, per the NY Times, if the court deadlocks 4 to 4, the stringent Texas law upheld by the conservative Appeals Court could stay in effect:

Although Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month may have muted the prospect of truly bold action in the case, even a 4-to-4 tie would have enormous consequences because it would leave in place the appeals court decision, which challengers say could drive down the number of abortion clinics in Texas to about 10 from roughly 40. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s death means the court is very unlikely to weaken constitutional standards affecting abortion in the rest of the nation, as the four liberal justices would not go along.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:19 (three years ago) link

yeah this is not a good outcome

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:39 (three years ago) link

TPM publishes one of those speculative pieces:

The current situation has put the chief justice in an awkward position. Senate Republicans have picked this fight with the White House in the hopes that a future GOP president can ultimately pick a Scalia successor, restoring the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they also embroiled the court in the very partisan contentiousness from which Roberts tries to insulate the court.

“He’s in an interesting place, personally, because on the one hand, I’m sure he would like a reliable conservative vote, and on the other hand, I can’t imagine he wants to operate with a court of eight for two terms, which is what it effectively would be,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM. “My guess is he would rather have the position filled and get the court out of this particular spotlight.”

Unless Roberts makes the unlikely decision to speak out about the hardball Senate Republicans are playing, we won’t know how he feels about it. And even if he did object to their refusal to restore the full bench, at least for another year, saying so publicly might only make matters worse. But a review of Roberts’ record suggests the current standoff presents competing interests for the chief justice, and legal experts argue, at the very least, he would be torn.

“In his heart of hearts, he probably has views on these things. It would be very hard not to,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said in an interview with TPM. "He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:44 (three years ago) link

the TRAP laws case is so very infuriating to me; these fuckers trying to pretend their objection is not entirely moral but is about "helping women" is the most hypocritical load of bullshit

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:31 (three years ago) link

"He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

Well, what fun is it to be the Chief Justice of a despised and disrespected institution? People just spit on you in public or chant your name in a funny voice.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:32 (three years ago) link

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes
housing/feeding/clothing the child and the mother however is SOCIALISM and not the state's business. these bastards are willing to put actual lives in danger in practice rather than risk their principals not being fully executed
so angry

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:34 (three years ago) link

Don't we all do that? I mean, don't some of us trade security for freedom/privacy?

schwantz, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:44 (three years ago) link

it's a bit different when you're risking lives of people that you're not even remotely connected to because you want to save their miraculous soul babies but don't give a damn about what happens post partem

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:48 (three years ago) link

Sadly, George Clinton can no longer make Richard Pryor minister od education

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (three years ago) link

Oops, wrong thread

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (three years ago) link

true though

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:55 (three years ago) link

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes

OTM -- these people see themselves as fetus Harriet Tubmans and John Browns.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) link

with respect to the case, it's not a "good outcome" but it doesn't strike me as a worse outcome than you'd likely get if Scalia were alive.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:30 (three years ago) link

i saw this a few weeks ago and some of the actual cases these laws impact are utterly heartbreaking
http://www.trappeddocumentary.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjgVPPEoFt8

Same director as the outstanding 'Gideon's Army'; she spent months at the clinics in question to see what the actual work that they're doing is about and it's utterly damning to the "for the safety of women" argument.

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:33 (three years ago) link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIvZuypso4

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 5 March 2016 01:58 (three years ago) link

omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 7 March 2016 15:49 (three years ago) link

Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:04 (three years ago) link

that actress looks like Ginny!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:09 (three years ago) link

that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit

ulysses, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:29 (three years ago) link

I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:34 (three years ago) link

right?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:37 (three years ago) link

that is the same story that DJP linked, no?

micro brewbio (crüt), Monday, 7 March 2016 23:04 (three years ago) link

ah sorry

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 23:11 (three years ago) link

the Scalia Effect in full effect

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:19 (three years ago) link

hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward

were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:22 (three years ago) link

I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:25 (three years ago) link

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:26 (three years ago) link

I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man

tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:28 (three years ago) link

*crumples sketch, fumes*

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) link

(xpost)

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) link

The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:30 (three years ago) link

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:37 (three years ago) link

(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:42 (three years ago) link

It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:49 (three years ago) link

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-pinata-scotus-nom

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata."

"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.

When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."

"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 20:11 (three years ago) link

if only it was ever-shrinking

big beautiful wario (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:15 (two months ago) link

lol fair. they do seem to have a Quiverfull.

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:21 (two months ago) link

I think NC & GA will drift more blue population wise as time goes on

Vape Store (crüt), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:21 (two months ago) link

Roberts the Umpire.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:22 (two months ago) link

Haven’t read the decision but I assume PA will stand because it was decided under the state, not the federal, constitution. Not sure about VA.

Mazzy Tsar (PBKR), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:22 (two months ago) link

I think NC & GA will drift more blue population wise as time goes on

It largely won’t matter after the R majorities are locked in. Dems may be able to win statewide elections (Gov, Senators), but good luck in the House and state legislatures.

Mazzy Tsar (PBKR), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:25 (two months ago) link

I don't feel as bleak as that. There are mathematical limits on gerrymandering -- eventually the dam bursts. Also statewide officials and courts will have some power to mitigate the damage, and states can still outlaw this in their own constitutions, which are not as hard to amend as the federal one.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:34 (two months ago) link

The Virginia decision is not affected by this ruling fyi

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:35 (two months ago) link

first of all, this decision doesn't impact racial gerrymandering, which is what VA was about. Second, that decision was on procedural grounds, because what actually happened was that VA was forced to redraw maps and then half of the VA state legislature tried to sue to stop the redrawing, and SCOTUS said, nope, you can't have one house of the legislature maintain a suit on behalf of the entire state.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:37 (two months ago) link

Which points to the fact that another way to get around today's SCOTUS ruling is to just dig deeper in order to connect the partisan gerrymandering to racial motivations. Which shouldn't be that hard in places like Georgia.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:38 (two months ago) link

that still buys the GOP at least another decade, assuming you'd have to go state-by-state to "prove" that each gerrymander is racially motivated.

old cloud yells at man (voodoo chili), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:41 (two months ago) link

And we'll all be dead by then! Win!

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:42 (two months ago) link

Which points to the fact that another way to get around today's SCOTUS ruling is to just dig deeper in order to connect the partisan gerrymandering to racial motivations. Which shouldn't be that hard in places like Georgia.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), 27. juni 2019 17:38 (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'll bet you five bucks that it's going to be impossible. Every racial gerrymander from here on out will be called partisan, and then it can't be challenged.

Frederik B, Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:44 (two months ago) link

well that didn't happen with the 2017 Virginia decision -- or was that one still under a 4-4 court?

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:47 (two months ago) link

It got six votes including Roberts
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-680_c07d.pdf

Alito and Thomas concurred in part but I don't remember what the basis was and don't have time to read it

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:51 (two months ago) link

Some stinging legal realism in Kagan's dissent, one of the best of her career. pic.twitter.com/x9nEPsMxhV

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 27, 2019

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:57 (two months ago) link

cool, a split decision today!

republicans (temporarily) lost out on their white supremacist plan to adds a citizenship question to the census

republicans won on their white supremacist plan to make sure that they can adjust district lines to maximize the vote of old white people for the rest of our lifetimes

it's a draw!!

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:22 (two months ago) link

Roberts calls balls and strikes!

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:23 (two months ago) link

it's a draw!!

would that it were.

never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:24 (two months ago) link

luckily, in the spirit of the case, the 4-judge minority opinion now becomes the rule of the land https://t.co/3297SeMiQ3

— Sam Eifling (@SamEifling) June 27, 2019

pplains, Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:41 (two months ago) link

i'm still kind of in shock, tbh

this is deeply fucked up

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:45 (two months ago) link

first of all, this decision doesn't impact racial gerrymandering, which is what VA was about.

Sure it does. Effectively this decision authorizes legislatures to substitute party for race and skirt any restrictions that would be unconstitutional if they were racially based.

Mazzy Tsar (PBKR), Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:46 (two months ago) link

this is truly nauseating

d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 27 June 2019 18:42 (two months ago) link

Extreme gerrymandering leaves Rs with lots of thin majorities that will crumble in a wave election. If people are as committed to getting rid of Trump as they appear to be, that could happen next year. Obviously that's a highly rosy scenario.

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Thursday, 27 June 2019 20:04 (two months ago) link

meanwhile

The Hill reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says he would give a new Democratic president’s nominee to the Supreme Court a hearing and vote in 2021, but isn’t making any promises that person would win confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 June 2019 20:30 (two months ago) link

Whatever he says today he'll feel free to renege n later.

A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 27 June 2019 20:34 (two months ago) link

two weeks pass...

John Paul Stevens dead.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:48 (two months ago) link

Hope Trump thinks this means he's allowed to kill a Republican justice.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 01:06 (two months ago) link

Stevens was a Republican

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 14:12 (two months ago) link

Boy oh boy is this thread's revival ever anxiety-inducing

Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 14:15 (two months ago) link

One of the few men in public life whom I can credit for improving mine.

This bit in Greenhouse's obit intrigued me:

One plausible explanation for Justice Stevens’s growing affinity for the liberal side was his response to the polarizing discourse about the Supreme Court that emanated from the administration of President Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s. After Attorney General Edwin Meese III criticized a long series of Supreme Court precedents that had interpreted the Bill of Rights as binding not only on the federal government but on the states as well — a foundational premise of 20th-century constitutional law — Justice Stevens took him on directly. The attorney general, he said in a speech to the Federal Bar Association in Chicago in 1985, “overlooks the profound importance of the Civil War and the postwar amendments on the structure of our government.”

[snip]

His distinctive approach to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection was perhaps the best example of his disdain for doctrinal formalism.

By the mid-1970s, the court had developed an elaborate grid for evaluating claims of unequal treatment at the hands of the government. Policies that distinguished among people based on their race were subject to “strict” judicial scrutiny and were almost never upheld. Policies that simply concerned economic interests were subject to minimal scrutiny and were upheld as long as they had a “rational basis.” Policies that treated men and women differently fell somewhere in between, subject to “heightened” judicial scrutiny and required to serve an “important governmental interest.”

Justice Stevens rejected all this. “There is only one Equal Protection Clause,” he declared in 1976, concurring in Craig v. Boren, an early sex discrimination case. “It requires every state to govern impartially.” A straightforward application of that principle was all a court needed, in his view, to decide an equal protection case.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 14:19 (two months ago) link

Republicans continue to Republican:

Person who’s worked high up in GOP politics for A DECADE does not know that Stevens retired years ago. The best people I’ll tell ya. pic.twitter.com/cY5Ur4mP3o

— Seth Cotlar (@SethCotlar) July 17, 2019

When Jimmy Carter dies does Walter Mondale become a former President?

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 15:00 (two months ago) link

Xpost she now claims she was tired and thought it said Breyer

Fuck Trump, cops, and the CBP (Neanderthal), Thursday, 18 July 2019 17:40 (two months ago) link

How is the RBG cult taking the news that she called Kavanaugh and Gorsuch “very decent men”?https://t.co/cdjCPclzUF

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) July 26, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:25 (one month ago) link

mans loses healthcare in crazy nonagenarian twitter beef

Hunt3r, Friday, 26 July 2019 16:30 (one month ago) link

morbs don't bump this thread if there's not a decision or a death or something you'll give us heart attacks

president of deluded fruitcakes anonymous (silby), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:47 (one month ago) link

the death of hope

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:49 (one month ago) link

Morbs is actually trying to kill you.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:51 (one month ago) link

is that a message to Ginsburg? untrue

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:53 (one month ago) link

No, ILX.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:55 (one month ago) link

well, that's true

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 July 2019 16:57 (one month ago) link

"Doug Henwood" as usual reaching the Urban Outfitters crowd

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 July 2019 17:46 (one month ago) link

four weeks pass...

Scott Lemieux ranges over SCOTUS history since the LBJ era for evidence that RBG and Breyer fucked up by not resigning.

Earl Warren, who hated Nixon, resigned in 1968 out of a justified that Nixon would win and be able to nominate his replacement. LBJ screwed it up and the old conservative coalition won one more once in an oddly under-discussed event of great historical significance, but this doesn’t change the fact that Warren retired strategically.

Potter Stewart resigned as soon as the term after Reagan’s inaugural ended.

Burger and Powell are less obvious cases, but resigned with Reagan in office; they’re certainly not counter-examples.
Brennan and Marshall were unable to resign strategically, but not for lack of trying. Both very strongly did not want to be replaced by a Republican president and stayed on for years in horrible health hoping to live to see the next Democratic administration. Brennan was forced off the Court by a massive stroke and Marshall resigned on his near-deathbed with Bush’s approval rating north of 70%, and on his way out said “there’s no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They’ll both bite.” Neither of them believed there was a norm that required them not to consider who would replace them.

Blackmun, who was very invested in the survival of his most famous opinion, stayed until Clinton was elected and resigned midway through his first term.

Byron White, a conservative but still a Democratic partisan, consciously and explicitly waited to resign until a Democratic president was elected although he had been sick of the job for a long time.

Both Stevens and Souter waited until Obama was elected to resign. (It is striking that there have now been three Republican nominees who have put more weight on the survival of Roe v. Wade than Clinton’s two nominees.)

If you think Anthony Kennedy would have resigned in 2018 if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, I have 20 acres of oceanfront property in Shelby County, Alabama to sell you.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 23 August 2019 21:22 (four weeks ago) link

an 8-member court seems likely: Dem in the WH and McConnell in the Senate refusing to vote on any nominees

Οὖτις, Friday, 23 August 2019 21:28 (four weeks ago) link

cool

president of deluded fruitcakes anonymous (silby), Friday, 23 August 2019 21:37 (four weeks ago) link

8-member court overturning Roe v. Wade, possible but not guaranteed. I'm not sure Roberts would be cool with such a sweeping decision.

Οὖτις, Friday, 23 August 2019 21:47 (four weeks ago) link

three weeks pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.