SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

48 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

You notice it always comes down to asking the Dems not to respond in kind to make worse what the GOP has already felt free to break? Seems to be a game theory error in there somewhere.

i think the gop is more guilty of that than democrats, but the democrats are not without fault.

i do think that mcconnell's refusal to give garland a hearing was a step over the edge.  he should have given him a hearing and voted him down on a party line vote like what happens to every nominee now.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

i think the gop is more guilty of that than democrats,

I'm sure this gives Schumer great comfort, but unfortunately no judges....

Supposedly the original sin here goes back to the Bork nomination, and I admit that for the life of me I don't understand why the Dems just didn't come out and say that his conduct the night of the Saturday Night massacre disqualified him instead undertaking a character assassination. If this is the price that has ended up being paid, it just proves what a stupid strategy it was.

Maybe it has to do with the lawyers in the Congress having the mentality of not wanting to say they held Bork ethically responsible for his client's conduct, but if so that just demonstrates theirs and Bork's error all the more in not understanding their proper client was the American public and not Nixon.

Edited April 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm sure this gives Schumer great comfort, but unfortunately no judges....

Supposedly the original sin here goes back to the Bork nomination, and I admit that for the life of me I don't understand why the Dems just didn't come out and say that his conduct the night of the Saturday Night massacre disqualified him instead undertaking a character assassination. If this is the price that has ended up being paid, it just proves what a stupid strategy it was.

Maybe it has to do with the lawyers in the Congress having the mentality of not wanting to say they held Bork ethically responsible for his client's conduct, but if so that just demonstrates theirs and Bork's error all the more in not understanding their proper client was the American public and not Nixon.

bork was seen as ideologically extreme and may have been.  even funnier was his subsequent nominee was donald ginsburgh who had to withdraw because he smoked pot.  a bunch of democrats werent going to vote for that hippy!   as to "decorum", what happened to thomas and kavanaugh were seen by the gop as character assasinations that went over the line.  but ymmv on that.

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, buddha said:

bork was seen as ideologically extreme and may have been.  even funnier was his subsequent nominee was donald ginsburgh who had to withdraw because he smoked pot.  a bunch of democrats werent going to vote for that hippy!   as to "decorum", what happened to thomas and kavanaugh were seen by the gop as character assasinations that went over the line.  but ymmv on that.

There is a certain irony in that being strongly ideological is sort of by definition a bad thing in a judge if you subscribe to a classical view of conservatism. Anyone who comes to a court with a particular legal ideology to push violates the very first principle of anything you can honesty call conservative jurisprudence. These people (Bork, Scalia, Thomas, Alito to highlight a few)  haven't been 'conservative'; they are all ideo-warriors, and since Goldwater have mostly really just been right wingers, not conservatives. American right wingers cloak themselves in the historical patina of a classic intellectual movement with a certain level of virtue that is actually at this point completely absent from their movement, which is now more about protection of privilege and entrenched economic interests and the use of white nationalism and culture war agitprop to co-opt enough lower socio-economic class members at the ballot box to maintain their power to maintain those protections in a nominally democratic system. The newest twist being that faced with incipient failure of that enterprise, they are now ready to simply jettison the remaining trappings of democracy as well.

Edited April 6, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

18 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

You notice it always comes down to asking the Dems not to respond in kind to make worse what the GOP has already felt free to break? Seems to be a game theory error in there somewhere.

every single time

[pfife]

16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm sure this gives Schumer great comfort, but unfortunately no judges....

Supposedly the original sin here goes back to the Bork nomination, and I admit that for the life of me I don't understand why the Dems just didn't come out and say that his conduct the night of the Saturday Night massacre disqualified him instead undertaking a character assassination. If this is the price that has ended up being paid, it just proves what a stupid strategy it was.

Maybe it has to do with the lawyers in the Congress having the mentality of not wanting to say they held Bork ethically responsible for his client's conduct, but if so that just demonstrates theirs and Bork's error all the more in not understanding their proper client was the American public and not Nixon.

That's the original sin according to Cocaine Mitch.  Of course he conveniently doesn't have any issue with the shenanigans of Thurgood's confirmation. 

[oblong]

25 minutes ago, pfife said:

That's the original sin according to Cocaine Mitch.  Of course he conveniently doesn't have any issue with the shenanigans of Thurgood's confirmation. 

and the critics act like they won't do it anyway.  "Biden can't do it because then DeSantis will do it"   Fuck that.  DeSantis is going to do it regardless of what Biden does.   The GOP has already shown that they invent standards.

We can't bring our knife because then they'll bring their gun when they've already got the gun.

We'll have a court backing up tyranny and hate but at least we have "integrity in the institution" or some other bullshit.  The trans people will take comfort in that.

 

[pfife]

I'm not sure there's integrity of the institution either.   I do believe John Roberts cares about that but I don't think his comrades do and I definitely don't think the GOP does.   

[buddha]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

and the critics act like they won't do it anyway.  "Biden can't do it because then DeSantis will do it"   Fuck that.  DeSantis is going to do it regardless of what Biden does.   The GOP has already shown that they invent standards.

We can't bring our knife because then they'll bring their gun when they've already got the gun.

We'll have a court backing up tyranny and hate but at least we have "integrity in the institution" or some other bullshit.  The trans people will take comfort in that.

 

the supreme court backed tyranny and hate?  in what case?  the one where they said trans people could sue for sexual discrimination?  the one where they denied trump's attempts to overturn election results?

[oblong]

Just wait.

 

[pfife]

Clean Water Act overturned?

Wasn't acb just urging is to read the opinion?

[pfife]

How long before this is overturned by the Supreme Court

 

[buddha]

the clean water act was not overturned.  its an epa regulation from the trump era.  biden will issue a new regulation soon that effectively ends the trump regulation and we'll be back to the way it was pre-trump.

[pfife]

The tweet author said it was a Trump era regulation that was reinstated.  IN order for it to be reinstated, it had to be removed, so who did that removal of the Trump era regulation?   Presumably the Biden Admin?  If so, why couldn't he do that before but will be able to in the near future like you said?

[buddha]

21 minutes ago, pfife said:

The tweet author said it was a Trump era regulation that was reinstated.  IN order for it to be reinstated, it had to be removed, so who did that removal of the Trump era regulation?   Presumably the Biden Admin?  If so, why couldn't he do that before but will be able to in the near future like you said?

an injunction was entered by a court in california.  the supreme court effectively overruled that injunction.

it takes time to rewrite an epa regulation.  biden reps have said they expect it to be done by next year.  

[chasfh]

 

 

[buddha]

what makes her an exceptional justice other  than the fact that she was picked by a democrat?

[gehringer_2]

Quote

walkouts reflect Republicans’ increasing refusal to honor the most basic premise of a democracy.

This.

[Motown Bombers]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

what makes her an exceptional justice other  than the fact that she was picked by a democrat?

[smr-nj]

Honestly, the fact that she was a public defender really put an additional plus in my column. No other Justice can have that particular insight as part of their being.  

I wish her a long and fruitful career as a SCJ.  God be with her, and all the justices.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

i took "exceptional" in that quote to be "outstanding or very good."  nothing in her record suggests she will be any better (or worse) than any other justice.  

[smr-nj]

Just now, buddha said:

i took "exceptional" in that quote to be "outstanding or very good."  nothing in her record suggests she will be any better (or worse) than any other justice.  

“Lawyer-speak”. 😂

[Tiger337]

8 minutes ago, buddha said:

i took "exceptional" in that quote to be "outstanding or very good."  nothing in her record suggests she will be any better (or worse) than any other justice.  

One might argue that all Supreme Court Justices are exceptional

[buddha]

12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

One might argue that all Supreme Court Justices are exceptional

i would agree with that.

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

One might argue that all Supreme Court Justices are exceptional