U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

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.

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".

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.

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!"

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.

@ 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.

Trump and McConnell have different motivations, but this is Trump's pick, not McConnell's

technically, but which one of the two is able to exert the most control over 51 republican votes?

(amy barrett, but pure coincidence, happened to be exactly who mcconnell was pushing for)

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

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.

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.

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!"

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

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?"

xp

Certainly possible

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.

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.

Yes how can we expect lawyers and judges to speculate about hypotheticals

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.

If you are expecting any of this to operate under a set of unwritten norms that were trashed years ago, you are being played.

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 jfc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/ive-known-amy-coney-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/

lol

also by "O. Carter Snead" a name designed to make me want to punch the person
https://www.hoover.org/research/planned-parenthoods-hostages

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

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.

I for one was worried that she was actually illiterate.

The GOP has been functionally illiterate since 1981.

Those concerns assuaged, I look forward to strapping on my legally mandated cilice every morning to get me ready to face the day.

time to invest in chastity belt manufacturers

i think i saw incandescent mind open for gene loves jezebel in '87

time to invest in chastity belt manufacturers

Clasping hands meme with BDSM nerds and Opus Dei

Xpost
Moodles, I wasn’t disagreeing with you

Whatever hearing we get out of this will be pointless

Here's the only likely way she doesn't get confirmed before Election Day:

https://i.imgur.com/HzAVTWk.png

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.

telling myself O. Carter Snead is a (well, another) Virgil Texas pseudonym.

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

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

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

Great, offensive on two levels and counting

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

BREAKING: Contrary to theories advanced by certain credulous journalists, Lisa Murkowski is, in fact, a member of the Republican Party.

A.C.(a).B.

Isn't Question 2b for appointees "Will you invalidate the ACA?"

"do you pledge to merely dismantle the ACA, or will you pledge to completely obliterate it along with any cultural memory of its existence? and i just hope democrats and the lying media don't make a spectacle out of these serious proceedings"

"Judge Barrett, will you invalidate the ACA?"

She'll just look serious and intone that every case is different, so if such a case is argued before the court, she will read all the briefs, consider all the arguments and arrive at the decision that seems to her most in alignment with the US Constitution and established precedent. If she even says that much.

"Judge Barrett, do you believe that God's law is higher than human laws? And is God's law contained in the christian Bible?"

At least this line of questioning will require her to get off autopilot.

According to this article they won’t ask anything tough:

Senate Democrats say they want to avoid a replay of the bitter fighting that characterized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's 2018 Senate confirmation hearings, which centrist former Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) thought cost them their reelection bids that year.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/518669-senate-democrats-want-to-avoid-kavanaugh-20

So no questions re why she always rules for corporations over workers

Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.

[/i]Barrett’s August ruling in the overtime case is particularly significant: It comes as technology companies have been trying to use mandatory arbitration clauses to avoid better remunerating so-called gig workers. Those provisions often force worker disputes to be decided by private arbitrators hand-picked by the companies, rather than in an impartial court of law. [/i]

Dave Sirota website
https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

So no questions re why she always rules for corporations over workers

Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.

[/i]Barrett’s August ruling in the overtime case is particularly significant: It comes as technology companies have been trying to use mandatory arbitration clauses to avoid better remunerating so-called gig workers. Those provisions often force worker disputes to be decided by private arbitrators hand-picked by the companies, rather than in an impartial court of law. [/i]

Dave Sirota website
https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

🐦[Alito now going all-in on comparing J6, legally, to hecklers at SCOTUS and protesters blocking traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge.
— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) April 16, 2024🕸]🐦

Solicitor General did a good job, but the conservative majority seemed determined to nitpick the statute and Justice department enforcement via analogies that were stretches.

Yesterday the same majority allowed an extremist 5th Circuit to restrict free speech protests in that region greatly by reversing precedent based largely on politics and today is mostly more of the same. There are a few issues admittedly with how law at issue today was phrased , but not that substantial.

Clarence Thomas was back at court today and participating even though due to his wife’s involvement in j 6 he should have recused himself

https://x.com/therecount/status/1780305428171174131?s=46&t=u2ZSlsY3trRV36IPP6jNDQ

Clip here has a great response from solicitor general

It's so depressing when you hear these justices and it's like, "Oh you get all your information from Fox News too huh." Long since become accustomed to right-wing elected officials parroting whatever the dumb outrage of the week is, and I know it's increasingly unrealistic to think of the SCOTUS majority as anything but right-wing (un)elected officials, but it's still dispiriting.

Scalia was fucking quoting the Ben Nelson carveout in 2012 when the ACA went to court. These guys are droogs.