there's also some non-zero chance that, in the event that a Democrat wins the presidential race four times in a row and this permanent 5-4 Court keeps shutting down every exciting thing the people are turning out to vote for, then a mandate for court-packing develops much much more quickly than we might expect right now.
― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:30 (three years ago) link
so long as our rights are subject to these bizarre matters of fate and circumstance, we may as well remind ourselves that there are ways the probabilistic parts could break our way.
otm
i know that's not a convincing or comforting thought for everyone, but to me that really is what gives me hope
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:44 (three years ago) link
NEW: Senate Democrats say they will press President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee to commit to recuse herself if the justices hear a case that could impact the outcome of the fall elections, @mkraju reports.— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) September 25, 2020
― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:44 (three years ago) link
That seems a little dumb
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:46 (three years ago) link
I mean it makes sense but they'd still have a 5-3 advantage anyway
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:49 (three years ago) link
"Will you commit to not doing the exact thing you were hired for" is a dumb question
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:52 (three years ago) link
and... all these scenarios also presume a successful barrett confirmation. tbh, i'm pretty doom-and-gloom about that, seems like there's no reason to think it won't happen
i will continue to return to my dumb "we simulate the future and then experience it in real time, somehow diminished, as something that was already familiar" theory, until someone or something convinces me that it's not accurate. in that line of thinking, you can already see the barrett confirmation and how it happens. i already saw a headline, last night, talking about how barrett was confirmed in October. i looked at the calendar and it was september 25th, then re-read the headline and it still said that she was confirmed in October, past tense. i can't remember where i saw it, and i had a socially distanced hangout with a friend last night and got way too drunk. but still, it was there all the same.
that was just a drunken horror, but i woke up today and it's still there. the republicans have the votes. 2 have been allowed to deviate (murkowski and collins), which just so happens to allow exactly enough remaining republicans to unilaterally install barrett. what a coincidence. this outcome has already been focus-grouped on a national scale - it turns out that most republicans think it's a great idea, most democrats think it's a bad idea, and the majority of "independents" think it's a bad idea. it sounds like most ideas these days. so they'll do it, because they can.
we're currently simulating the outraged response, right now. at least, i am. and then, when it happens, it won't be the first time.
---
^i think all of that is a very bad way to go about thinking about life, believe it or not. but that's what i see happening over and over, lately.
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:55 (three years ago) link
xpost they're not asking her to not be a justice, they're saying 'Hey, you were literally just nominated by one of the President candidates in this election 5 minutes before the election, maybe it's a conflict of interest for you ruling on a case challenging his results".
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:56 (three years ago) link
But this is the primary reason they are in such a rush. If she can't guarantee to hand over the election, it's pointless for Trump. Surely he already told her she needs to deliver that vote, or there would be a different pick.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 16:59 (three years ago) link
lol of course it's not going to actually happen but would you rather the Democrats not try it first so that they can frame it as "Justice Coney Barrett refused to recuse, she and Trump win, while Americans lose!"
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:03 (three years ago) link
I mean, compared to other things they should be trying, this is VERY low on my list of importance and I wouldn't want it to take the place of promising to pack the fuck out of courts, but we're kinda fucked unless someone has a McCain surprise during the vote.
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:04 (three years ago) link
@ Moodles - isn't the primary reason McConnell & co. are in such a rush that Trump has a good chance of not being President in 3.5 months? and they want to grab another Supreme Court seat for all the reasons you would expect them to want that? potentially covering his ass in a stolen election would just be the cherry on top.
― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:11 (three years ago) link
Trump and McConnell have different motivations, but this is Trump's pick, not McConnell's
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:28 (three years ago) link
technically, but which one of the two is able to exert the most control over 51 republican votes?
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:29 (three years ago) link
(amy barrett, but pure coincidence, happened to be exactly who mcconnell was pushing for)
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:30 (three years ago) link
trump, on the other hand, has the federalist society publish a list for him so that he can make his fantasy list of 25 candidates (which included tom cotton and ted cruz) seem more legit. i'm sure they arranged it in a way so that trump felt that was the crucial decisionmaker who made the tough call, but there are probably a dozen other people that had more to do with this pick than trump
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:31 (three years ago) link
Lucky for them there are so many justices out there willing to both undermine the integrity of a major election and nuke Roe v Wade. Funny how those interests conveniently line up.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:33 (three years ago) link
xp
I think you are sort of right to extent. Trump is obviously not hand picking justices based on some deep judicial reasoning. But rest assured, he's asking any potential justice one question and one question only, and if they don't give the correct answer, they aren't going in front of the Senate.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:36 (three years ago) link
by the time it gets to trump, it's like "oh great leader, we just simply can't decide between the bounty of perfect candidates on your list! you are so impressive, you know much more about their judicial record than ANY other person we have ever met! please, decide for us with your strength and genius! we have OPTION 1) Amy Barrett, OPTION 2) Barbara Lagoa, or OPTION 3) Michelle Obama. and also many people are saying barack obama favors Lagoa over his own wife! george bush also prefers Lagoa. Please decide for us with your wisdom and intuition!"
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:37 (three years ago) link
haha, sorry. i am in an extremely goofy mood this morning. i think they'd actually do a version of ^^ in the earlier stages, before whittling it down to a set of "options" where he actually can't mess it up
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:38 (three years ago) link
Perhaps rather than asking "will you recuse yourself?" they should be asking "did the president request you rule in his favor if the election is contested?"
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:39 (three years ago) link
Certainly possible
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:40 (three years ago) link
This goes to a larger pet peeve about these confirmation hearings, which is that there are always questions about how someone might rule in this or that case, and the answer is always that they can't speculate about a hypothetical situation. It's a meaningless line of inquiry designed as a gotcha that no one actually cares about.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:43 (three years ago) link
The whole notion that these are not political picks driven by an obvious agenda is so out of date and ridiculous, it would be better to drop the pretense.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 17:44 (three years ago) link
Yes how can we expect lawyers and judges to speculate about hypotheticals
― rob, Saturday, 26 September 2020 18:37 (three years ago) link
The point is, they don't. It doesn't matter what we expect. We've seen this game play out over and over, so expecting it to change is folly.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 18:40 (three years ago) link
If you are expecting any of this to operate under a set of unwritten norms that were trashed years ago, you are being played.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 26 September 2020 18:45 (three years ago) link
my homie is seriously sharing this op ed and trying to accept Amy w an open mind and open heart so I guess he’s just a Sorkin Republican now jfchttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/ive-known-amy-coney-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/
― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:02 (three years ago) link
lol
also by "O. Carter Snead" a name designed to make me want to punch the personhttps://www.hoover.org/research/planned-parenthoods-hostages
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:05 (three years ago) link
There is nothing to fear about Barrett’s intellect. She has an incandescent mind that has won the admiration of colleagues across the ideological spectrum.
getting Rich Lowry flashbacks
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:09 (three years ago) link
Sooooo fucking tired of SCOTUS nominees called "brilliant" as if what they do requires anything other than keeping the clerks happy as they cobble your opinion together.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:10 (three years ago) link
I for one was worried that she was actually illiterate.
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:11 (three years ago) link
The GOP has been functionally illiterate since 1981.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:12 (three years ago) link
Those concerns assuaged, I look forward to strapping on my legally mandated cilice every morning to get me ready to face the day.
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:12 (three years ago) link
time to invest in chastity belt manufacturers
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:22 (three years ago) link
i think i saw incandescent mind open for gene loves jezebel in '87
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:32 (three years ago) link
Clasping hands meme with BDSM nerds and Opus Dei
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:41 (three years ago) link
XpostMoodles, I wasn’t disagreeing with you
― rob, Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:45 (three years ago) link
Whatever hearing we get out of this will be pointless
― rob, Saturday, 26 September 2020 19:46 (three years ago) link
Here's the only likely way she doesn't get confirmed before Election Day:
https://i.imgur.com/HzAVTWk.png
― pplains, Saturday, 26 September 2020 22:07 (three years ago) link
The Hill reports:
The Senate Judiciary Committee will start a four-day hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee on Oct. 12, two people familiar with the schedule confirmed to The Hill.
Though other nominees have been confirmed in fewer days, they were further away from the presidential election. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is expected to announce the committee’s schedule later Saturday.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees, both had nearly two months between their formal nominations and the start of their hearings. Under the schedule set by Graham, Amy Coney Barrett will have little more than two weeks.
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 26 September 2020 22:27 (three years ago) link
telling myself O. Carter Snead is a (well, another) Virgil Texas pseudonym.
― get a mop and a bucket for this Well Argued Prose (Simon H.), Saturday, 26 September 2020 22:35 (three years ago) link
Snead also wrote this piece of garbage. Fuck them and anybody falling for this ruse of a piece.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/planned-parenthood-will-forgo-payment-for-fetal-tissue-so-now-its-ok-because-its-free
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 23:37 (three years ago) link
Almost as if perhaps they're just hoping gullible, tired liberals will let their guard down so they can get their way on abortion
Democracy dies in darkness IIRC
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 26 September 2020 23:41 (three years ago) link
oh no
🚨 LIMITED EDITION: Show your support for Pres. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, with your very own Notorious A.C.B. t-shirt! Claim yours here ⬇️https://t.co/qi1eWqTz17— The Senate Majority (@NRSC) September 26, 2020
― superdeep borehole (harbl), Saturday, 26 September 2020 23:52 (three years ago) link
Great, offensive on two levels and counting
― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Saturday, 26 September 2020 23:53 (three years ago) link
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who doesn't support taking up a SCOTUS nomination, now says she'll meet with Amy Coney Barrett https://t.co/jSviJQC8u9 pic.twitter.com/Mo443lGUaP— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 26, 2020
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Sunday, 27 September 2020 00:07 (three years ago) link
BREAKING: Contrary to theories advanced by certain credulous journalists, Lisa Murkowski is, in fact, a member of the Republican Party.
― but also fuck you (unperson), Sunday, 27 September 2020 00:11 (three years ago) link
A.C.(a).B.
― Just a few slices of apple, Servant. Thank you. How delicious. (stevie), Sunday, 27 September 2020 06:19 (three years ago) link
These are the times that the religious justices all agree in a separation of church (ie, Jesus' commandments on helping the poor) and state... not to say they'd do any sort of charity in their private lives either.
― citation needed (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 23 April 2024 16:03 (two days ago) link
In practical terms a lot of this is going to boil down to the policy question of where the burden of alleviating homelessness falls. On one end, there’s the probably untenable idea that every municipality in America no matter how small or under resourced has to provide a fairly sophisticated shelter system, and on the other end it’s blue cities are going to get stuck with the bill for housing the homeless as red cities and small towns can just force them to move along. Neither is really tenable but those are the practical implications of the constitutional question. Some kind of federal legislation is probably needed to ensure that the cost of housing the homeless is properly spread out.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, 23 April 2024 16:27 (two days ago) link
Today at the court— After Starbucks fired seven workers who were trying to unionize their Tennessee store, a U.S. government agency obtained a court order forcing the company to rehire them. Now, Starbucks wants the Supreme Court to curb the government’s power in such cases.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/23/starbucks-federal-labor-agency-supreme-court/
Court majority was likely sympathetic to Starbucks
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 23 April 2024 16:50 (two days ago) link
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-starbucks-union-fired-workers-tennessee-e373f840987234c84019cd9643ddf2f3
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 23 April 2024 21:58 (two days ago) link
And today- Idaho abortion ban vs federal law protecting patients who need emergency care. Supreme Court is holding president immunity hearing till tomorrow Thursday April 25 ( & may take their time issuing a decision to help the court majority’s pal)
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 April 2024 13:42 (yesterday) link
Hmm. I may be wrong, but the conservatives (even Alito!) seem to want to make emergency access an exception to their hostility? Alito and Gorsuch and Roberts sound like they're begging the federal government for assurance that this is an exception.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is so good at this.
― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 April 2024 15:23 (yesterday) link
Sounds like they want to be slick and pretend the Idaho law allows for protection of women, and allows doctors to protect the pregnant person , when in fact the Idaho law doesn’t clearly do that and allows for prosecution of doctors.
Alito was focused on the unborn child language in such a way that didn’t seem to show much of any concern for the pregnant person
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 April 2024 18:20 (yesterday) link
I wrote my post before Alito's DINGO ATE MAH BAYBEE language.
― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 April 2024 18:22 (yesterday) link
https://x.com/chrisgeidner/status/1783170516418773488?s=46&t=u2ZSlsY3trRV36IPP6jNDQ
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 April 2024 18:30 (yesterday) link
https://www.rawstory.com/amy-coney-barrett-2667868611/
― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 April 2024 18:32 (yesterday) link
When I read that Alito was focused on unborn child language am I to assume he was making guttural noises in addition to some combination of moaning and gargling?
― henry s, Wednesday, 24 April 2024 18:40 (yesterday) link