Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 8223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #175 on: July 12, 2018, 12:17:09 PM »
I did not understand that to be your point, which perhaps somewhat explains the disconnect.  I did not make it explicit that my statements were a generalization because, although implicit, I thought it was obvious from the context.  But I get what you are saying.  Again, I am not really disagreeing with what I now understand to be your point about generalizations.  I think, to broadly characterize, we were just putting our emphasis in different places.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3369
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #176 on: July 12, 2018, 12:20:28 PM »
I did not understand that to be your point, which perhaps somewhat explains the disconnect.  I did not make it explicit that my statements were a generalization because, although implicit, I thought it was obvious from the context.  But I get what you are saying.  Again, I am not really disagreeing with what I now understand to be your point about generalizations.  I think, to broadly characterize, we were just putting our emphasis in different places.

 :tup
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM »
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

Regarding the bolded part, I'm certain that *I* would love for some to take the opportunity to try.  But that said, even if you are correct that some would "love the opportunity," none will take it.  They can't.  Where the "practical" and the "fundamental" intersect here is that there is no practical way for what you hypothesize to actually occur. 
It's already happening. How many clinics have shut down because of nonsensical regulations? Regulations concerning the size of the hallways, for example. Rules that have no basis in science and are directly targeted at a specific business for the purpose of shutting them down. I would propose that Row has no meaning if your state makes it impossible for clinics to operate legally, and based on their dissents in Hellersted I think it's clear that such a practice won't be considered an undue burden by this conservative court.

And aside from regulating abortions into extinction, what about simply rendering Row moot? Alabama is looking to define personhood as starting sometime around the time the panties come off. The implications of that could easily be used to invalidate Row.

Like I said, if you care about these things there are absolutely valid reasons for concern.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18561
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2018, 01:11:01 PM »
Alabama is looking to define personhood as starting sometime around the time the panties come off.

lol "not every ejaculation deserves a name" I think you brought up George Carlin recently and it triggered me to want to watch one of his stand ups with my gf (which she LOVED since she pretty much agreed with him on everything) and the one we watched had his abortion routine.  So good. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2018, 01:17:48 PM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

For the record, Kavenaugh doesn't strike me as that sort. Still, there is a legitimate reason for concern.

But it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" restrictions do NOT take away the right.   I get it, it limits the right, but it is not unimportant to say that the right still exists.   As long as the right exists, then the laws we are talking about will be judged at a higher standard (strict scrutiny), and other states will be entitled to grant as unfettered access to those rights as their voting constituency will allow.   Those laws will undoubtedly be regularly tested to make sure the "compelling state interest" remains.   

We can debate the practical, but that one has to jump over two hoops instead of one is still NOT "stripping women of their reproductive rights", which is the fear-mongering talking point that some are choosing to use.  I'm not talking about "hallway widths" and neither are the activists that are hoping to create enough outrage to gain traction.    '

The complication here that no one is really talking about is that Roe doesn't JUST declare "abortion" to be a fundamental right.  It also takes the rather unorthodox steps of prescribing how that right can be exercised (the 'trimester' scheme).   To some degree, it has already be rejected as precedent - in Planned Parenthood v. Casey - and while four regulations on abortion were upheld, the one that wasn't - spousal notification - absolutely and unequivocally reinforce the notion that it is a WOMAN'S right to choose.  In fact, the court explicitly reaffirmed abortion as a fundamental right.  (The others, such as informed consent and parental consent in the case of a minor - would be entirely non-controversial if we were talking about any medical procedure that start with "abor" and rhyme with "contortion").     

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2018, 02:11:22 PM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

For the record, Kavenaugh doesn't strike me as that sort. Still, there is a legitimate reason for concern.

But it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" restrictions do NOT take away the right.   I get it, it limits the right, but it is not unimportant to say that the right still exists.   As long as the right exists, then the laws we are talking about will be judged at a higher standard (strict scrutiny), and other states will be entitled to grant as unfettered access to those rights as their voting constituency will allow.   Those laws will undoubtedly be regularly tested to make sure the "compelling state interest" remains.   


Quote
Stan:   It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg:    But you can't have babies.
Stan:   Don't you oppress me.
Reg:    I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb.  Where's the
        fetus going to gestate?  You going to keep it in a box?
(Stan starts crying.)
Judith:  Here!  I've got an idea.  Suppose you agree that he can't actually
         have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the
         Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith.  We shall fight the oppressors for your right to
         have babies, brother.  Sister, sorry.
Reg:     (pissed)  What's the *point*?
Francis:  What?
Reg:      What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he
          can't have babies?
Francis:  It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg:      It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2018, 04:04:43 PM »
 :lol

A personal favorite MP bit.

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11630
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #182 on: July 17, 2018, 09:26:47 AM »
Interesting look at projecting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-brett-kavanaugh/
Photobucket sucks.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #183 on: July 17, 2018, 09:40:59 AM »
Interesting look at projecting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-brett-kavanaugh/

Not really a great article.  Really, it isn't all THAT difficult to figure out where judges fall on certain issues.  But the methodologies cited in the article are all fairly flawed.  You have to look at their decisions and not only figure out which way they voted, but WHY.  It is time consuming, because you have to take the time to read through all their opinions.  For a Circuit Court judge, there are limitations, as the article alludes to, because they are more constrained and because they will simply have written fewer published opinions.  But still, the opinions are out there and can be analyzed to come up with some fairly reliable predictions for anyone who wants to take the time to analyze them.  The two writers of that article don't seem to know much about how the federal court system works.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #184 on: July 17, 2018, 09:51:25 AM »
Yeah, I didn't see much I agreed with in the article.

I'm guessing he falls closer to Roberts than Clarence Alito. Neither side is wanting to mention it, but he's actually the biggest reason we still have ACA on the books. He was the one that came up with the tax argument that Roberts eventually cited. The downside about the guy is that he definitely cares more about the rights of business than he does yours or mine. From time to time this will work out in our favor, but not very often. Since abortion is paramount on the discussion list, it'll probably make him more friendly to pro-choice folk than the RTLers, assuming of course he cares about the law more than his own personal beliefs. From his own legal ideology he'd likely consider most of the targeted regulation aimed to shut down clinics as overreach. Moreover, he'd consider most of the "informed consent" bullshit to be a violation of the clinic's freedom of speech (the doctor would just be a bystander, I reckon). 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11630
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #185 on: July 17, 2018, 03:52:18 PM »
Appreciate the feedback. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the law, but it seemed like there were potentially some interesting ways to look at a judge before he has a Supreme Court voting record.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #186 on: July 17, 2018, 04:32:06 PM »
Yeah, I get that.  If I didn't know and read that article, I might assume it provided a lot more insight that it actually does.

I have not independently verified this fact, but I have heard that a number of his clerks have gone on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices across the spectrum, and that both sides hold his former clerks in high regard and readily hire them.  If true, it suggests a lot about him that other Justices across the political spectrum hold his former clerks in such high regard.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #187 on: July 17, 2018, 05:50:16 PM »
Yeah, I get that.  If I didn't know and read that article, I might assume it provided a lot more insight that it actually does.

I have not independently verified this fact, but I have heard that a number of his clerks have gone on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices across the spectrum, and that both sides hold his former clerks in high regard and readily hire them.  If true, it suggests a lot about him that other Justices across the political spectrum hold his former clerks in such high regard.

For what it's worth, I've heard that tidbit too.   

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #188 on: July 30, 2018, 01:13:41 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #189 on: July 30, 2018, 01:52:29 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.
That woman will crack 100.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #190 on: July 30, 2018, 01:59:03 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.
That woman will crack 100.

More power to her if she does.....as long as she stays coherent and competent over the next (5) years then it's fine by me. I start to get concerned about mental health and wherewithal in people in their mid to late 80's. She has a pretty important job that is mentally demanding.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #191 on: July 30, 2018, 02:15:24 PM »
I'd laugh if Trump gets a second term, then Marco gets a two-term run and she's still humming along at 99 waiting for Hillary to win a national election.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 924
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #192 on: August 01, 2018, 11:49:28 AM »
I'd laugh if Trump gets a second term, then Marco gets a two-term run and she's still humming along at 99 waiting for Hillary to win a national election.

Yeah, that'd truly be the peak of comedy.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #193 on: September 04, 2018, 02:37:51 PM »
All of a sudden, HUGE fan of Lisa Blatt.    Would that there were 47 Lisa Blatt's in the Senate (at least in temperament and reason).

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #194 on: September 04, 2018, 03:09:37 PM »
I wonder if Lisa Blatt being a "a self-described liberal feminist" is like Rachel Dolezal claiming she is black.

Anyway... great circus we have going on so far. Props to Congress members on both sides telling those protestors to GTFO.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #195 on: September 04, 2018, 03:18:21 PM »
I wonder if Lisa Blatt being a "a self-described liberal feminist" is like Rachel Dolezal claiming she is black.

Anyway... great circus we have going on so far. Props to Congress members on both sides telling those protestors to GTFO.

Maybe, but it was a breath of fresh air after the stale, tired whining of Dick Blumenthal, and the self-aggrandizing grandstanding of Cory Booker.    If that's the future of the Democratic party, well, someone call Hillary.  We need her more than ever.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #196 on: September 04, 2018, 03:47:48 PM »
Or maybe she's just pragmatic enough to know which side her bread's buttered on. Her career is based entirely on arguing before the supreme court. While that does make her an authority, it also makes her just about the least credible voice you could ask to hear on the matter. Kavanaugh was confirmed before he was even nominated, so she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by sticking up for him. She'd do the same if Trump had nominated Charles Haley to the court.

And the process deserves to be a circus at this point. McConnell has done all he can to make it so. Personally, I'd prefer it to be the Hartford Circus fire of '44 with all of the clowns burning to death, but a plain old circus full of generic idiots will have to suffice.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #197 on: September 04, 2018, 10:20:25 PM »
Or maybe she's just pragmatic enough to know which side her bread's buttered on. Her career is based entirely on arguing before the supreme court. While that does make her an authority, it also makes her just about the least credible voice you could ask to hear on the matter. Kavanaugh was confirmed before he was even nominated, so she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by sticking up for him. She'd do the same if Trump had nominated Charles Haley to the court.

And the process deserves to be a circus at this point. McConnell has done all he can to make it so. Personally, I'd prefer it to be the Hartford Circus fire of '44 with all of the clowns burning to death, but a plain old circus full of generic idiots will have to suffice.

McConnell, or Reid/Schumer?  Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

EDIT:  None of that is to say I disagree with you. It's all a circus.  Blumenthal grandstanding, Cory Booker throwing his hat in the ring for 2020, Cruz trying to play the level-headed sage of the law, Grassley trying to do... I'm not sure what.  All we need is "Entrance of the Gladiators" playing on rotation underneath the whole thing, like a Bugs Bunny cartoon. 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 10:25:28 PM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #198 on: September 04, 2018, 11:23:14 PM »
Or maybe she's just pragmatic enough to know which side her bread's buttered on. Her career is based entirely on arguing before the supreme court. While that does make her an authority, it also makes her just about the least credible voice you could ask to hear on the matter. Kavanaugh was confirmed before he was even nominated, so she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by sticking up for him. She'd do the same if Trump had nominated Charles Haley to the court.

And the process deserves to be a circus at this point. McConnell has done all he can to make it so. Personally, I'd prefer it to be the Hartford Circus fire of '44 with all of the clowns burning to death, but a plain old circus full of generic idiots will have to suffice.

McConnell, or Reid/Schumer?  Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

EDIT:  None of that is to say I disagree with you. It's all a circus.  Blumenthal grandstanding, Cory Booker throwing his hat in the ring for 2020, Cruz trying to play the level-headed sage of the law, Grassley trying to do... I'm not sure what.  All we need is "Entrance of the Gladiators" playing on rotation underneath the whole thing, like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
McConnell. By refusing to consider Garland he turned the entire thing into a farce. Some politicking is to be expected. For better or for worse it happens and makes up a component of the necessary checks and balances.  What he did lowered the process a level that even drunken high-schoolers would be ashamed to be a part of. If you're being honest with yourself you know as well as I do that was very different than the normal political bullshit we expect from our congressmen, and far more dangerous.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #199 on: September 05, 2018, 09:24:37 AM »
Or maybe she's just pragmatic enough to know which side her bread's buttered on. Her career is based entirely on arguing before the supreme court. While that does make her an authority, it also makes her just about the least credible voice you could ask to hear on the matter. Kavanaugh was confirmed before he was even nominated, so she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by sticking up for him. She'd do the same if Trump had nominated Charles Haley to the court.

And the process deserves to be a circus at this point. McConnell has done all he can to make it so. Personally, I'd prefer it to be the Hartford Circus fire of '44 with all of the clowns burning to death, but a plain old circus full of generic idiots will have to suffice.

McConnell, or Reid/Schumer?  Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

EDIT:  None of that is to say I disagree with you. It's all a circus.  Blumenthal grandstanding, Cory Booker throwing his hat in the ring for 2020, Cruz trying to play the level-headed sage of the law, Grassley trying to do... I'm not sure what.  All we need is "Entrance of the Gladiators" playing on rotation underneath the whole thing, like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
McConnell. By refusing to consider Garland he turned the entire thing into a farce. Some politicking is to be expected. For better or for worse it happens and makes up a component of the necessary checks and balances.  What he did lowered the process a level that even drunken high-schoolers would be ashamed to be a part of. If you're being honest with yourself you know as well as I do that was very different than the normal political bullshit we expect from our congressmen, and far more dangerous.

I'm honest with myself; I don't disagree with you.  But I don't think McConnell is unique.  Harry Reid going nuclear was just as dangerous.   And you know the idea that McConnell executed was mooted and set out by Chuck Schumer as a tool to be used in the waning years of the Bush Administration; that tool was later used against him and his party, to startling effect (by the way, the Congress should have voted on Garland; I have no qualms about that).

My point is not to defend McConnell, or argue with you.   My point is to highlight something I've been saying for a while:  politics are reactionary, and are a pendulum.   A pendulum that just swings in a predictable, measured way (there's one like this in the Franklin Institute in Philly that is cool as beans) is one thing; but a pendulum that swings as politics does, in a wildly unpredictable manner, and at an unpredictable amplitude, is exceedingly dangerous.   Schumer was likely blustering; but it was unconscionable for a man in that position to not see where that blustering might take us.   Reid was looking out for his best interests in the moment, but it was unconscionable for a man in that position to not see where that self-interest might take us.

So with Trump.  He's not an anomaly.  The reaction TO Trump is as important as the action itself, and the REACTION is what's going to resonate.    Our colleague here has expressed deep concern - a concern which I absolutely share, 100% - about what comes next.  The game is changing (and has changed).  Liberal or conservative, the next president is going to be working in a new environment.   It's going to get untenable very quickly, if you ask me (assuming it hasn't already gone past the tipping point). 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #200 on: September 05, 2018, 09:32:16 AM »
I might be missing something, but I'm unsure of what Reid or Schummer did that's even remotely comparable. What we're describing is two pitchers throwing inside with increasingly narrow margins, and then one of them walks to the plate and kicks the umpire squarely in the nuts. At that point you don't get to say "hey, I was just reacting to that guy trying to bean one of my teammates."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #201 on: September 05, 2018, 11:57:56 AM »
I might be missing something, but I'm unsure of what Reid or Schummer did that's even remotely comparable. What we're describing is two pitchers throwing inside with increasingly narrow margins, and then one of them walks to the plate and kicks the umpire squarely in the nuts. At that point you don't get to say "hey, I was just reacting to that guy trying to bean one of my teammates."

Schumer devised the scheme that McConnell followed with Garland.   Schumer spelled it out in a speech and made clear that he would do it if the opportunity arose, and that it was a legitimate and fair approach to a life-time commitment.   he gambled, that Bush would be presented with an opening (either by fate, or by an older judge looking for ideological continuity) and he lost.   

Reid upended the long-standing tradition of the filibuster.  It was not initially applicable to Supreme Court nominees, but - to steal your analogy - to not expect it to be extended to the Supreme Court, is like running from home plate to first, to second, to third, and three quarters of the way to home, and not expecting the runner to continue to the plate.

I don't see these logical and incremental extensions are akin to kicking the ump in the balls.   None of this should  have been a surprise or unexpected.   

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 924
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #202 on: September 05, 2018, 12:30:42 PM »
I might be missing something, but I'm unsure of what Reid or Schummer did that's even remotely comparable. What we're describing is two pitchers throwing inside with increasingly narrow margins, and then one of them walks to the plate and kicks the umpire squarely in the nuts. At that point you don't get to say "hey, I was just reacting to that guy trying to bean one of my teammates."

Schumer devised the scheme that McConnell followed with Garland.   Schumer spelled it out in a speech and made clear that he would do it if the opportunity arose, and that it was a legitimate and fair approach to a life-time commitment.   he gambled, that Bush would be presented with an opening (either by fate, or by an older judge looking for ideological continuity) and he lost.   

Reid upended the long-standing tradition of the filibuster.  It was not initially applicable to Supreme Court nominees, but - to steal your analogy - to not expect it to be extended to the Supreme Court, is like running from home plate to first, to second, to third, and three quarters of the way to home, and not expecting the runner to continue to the plate.

I don't see these logical and incremental extensions are akin to kicking the ump in the balls.   None of this should  have been a surprise or unexpected.   


What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote. Only that if after hearings and a vote, Democrats determined that the nominee was out of the mainstream and trying to hide it, they should have no qualms about voting no. Nor was there any hint that this idea that Democrats should oppose hard right ideologues should apply only in the fourth year of the president’s term. In fact, I said it should apply to this president, George W. Bush, or any future president whenever they nominated such a candidate.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #203 on: September 05, 2018, 12:58:16 PM »
And as for the so-called nuclear option, what the democrats finally did (after decades of both sides threatening to do it) was to remove a senseless stalling tactic. If somebody wants to get out there and Mr Smith his ass off he's still able to. Rand Paul seems to do it once a year or so to stay relevant. The procedural filibuster was pretty silly, and simply a construct that both sides allowed to continue based on a gentleman's agreement. For the record, I thought the democrats were foolish to remove it, for precisely the reason we're seeing now. However I don't think ignoring a nomination for a full year is even remotely comparable. Moreover, relating it to the dissolution of the procedural filibuster ignores McConnell's stated reason for doing it, which is simply that Obama shouldn't get to decide, despite having a most of a year left in his term.

And I stand by kicking the ump in the nuts. The procedural filibuster was the established norm and both sides threatened to nuke it time and time again. McConnell effectively invented a new rule to circumvent the established, and might I add constitutional, process. I would expect you to recognize that one was the exploitation of a common loophole, and one of them was a upfront and public "fuck you" to the rule of law.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #204 on: September 05, 2018, 02:10:12 PM »
And as for the so-called nuclear option, what the democrats finally did (after decades of both sides threatening to do it) was to remove a senseless stalling tactic. If somebody wants to get out there and Mr Smith his ass off he's still able to. Rand Paul seems to do it once a year or so to stay relevant. The procedural filibuster was pretty silly, and simply a construct that both sides allowed to continue based on a gentleman's agreement. For the record, I thought the democrats were foolish to remove it, for precisely the reason we're seeing now. However I don't think ignoring a nomination for a full year is even remotely comparable. Moreover, relating it to the dissolution of the procedural filibuster ignores McConnell's stated reason for doing it, which is simply that Obama shouldn't get to decide, despite having a most of a year left in his term.

And I stand by kicking the ump in the nuts. The procedural filibuster was the established norm and both sides threatened to nuke it time and time again. McConnell effectively invented a new rule to circumvent the established, and might I add constitutional, process. I would expect you to recognize that one was the exploitation of a common loophole, and one of them was a upfront and public "fuck you" to the rule of law.

Of course I recognize that; I'm coming at it from the perspective of strategic thinking.  Whether it's a procedural loophole, or a fuck you to the rule of law, if they had a purpose, and that purpose is valid, its worth understanding why we're willing to undermine that purpose.   Part of that is evaluating what the downstream consequences of that would be.  I would argue that if the "loophole" prevented the nonsense we're seeing now, it was more than a "loophole". 

And I made a mistake that I apologize for; it's not Schumer, it was Biden.   He said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.   Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, and laid down a process by which once the “political season” had started (for a lame duck President), the president should back down and wait until after the election.

They even called it the "Biden Rule". 

Look, let's be clear:  I'm against the Biden Rule, I think what McConnell did was wrong (I don't support it even a little bit, even if I understand the arguments and the procedural rationale; it wasn't illegal or against the rules of the Senate).  I think what Reid did was wrong (I liken it to Cruz's predilection for "shutting down government" which I also do not support).   I'm just more concerned with the short-term memory of our politicians and how facile and deft we've become at being partisan in the moment under the guise of "process".   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #205 on: September 05, 2018, 02:14:03 PM »
311, as we speak Kavanaugh is being asked about Net Neutrality.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 486
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #206 on: September 05, 2018, 02:37:25 PM »
context: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

What Biden was suggesting (in the wake of what happened during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings)  was that should a vacancy occur at that moment (it was june of 1992, only 4 months to the election) and the president decided to nominate someone, the senate should consider delaying the confirmation until after the election.   There would still be 2 and a half months left to confirm. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #207 on: September 05, 2018, 02:50:48 PM »
context: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

What Biden was suggesting (in the wake of what happened during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings)  was that should a vacancy occur at that moment (it was june of 1992, only 4 months to the election) and the president decided to nominate someone, the senate should consider delaying the confirmation until after the election.   There would still be 2 and a half months left to confirm.

No argument at all; but it was still considering that the nomination/confirmation process was subject to modification to fit the appropriate circumstances, and you, of course, missed the real part:  one of the main arguments by the Democrats was that it would be very problematic to have the court with eight members, and therefore unable to reach a majority in a tie.   Of course, Biden covered that (unfortunately not in the way the Democrats would have liked):  "Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.""

Again, the point is about the "playing" with procedure.  I think the Senate SHOULD have voted on Garland.   He would have been an able and qualified candidate.  My personal political leanings are irrelevant to the process, unless and until I'm elected President. 


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2018, 03:04:43 PM »
In no way, shape, or form was ignoring Garland's nomination appropriate to the circumstances.  If the democrats take the senate in a couple of months what happens if they decide "we're just going to ignore any nominations that come our way until a president we approve of gets elected"?  What's the difference between the bullshit argument "the people have a right to the process," and the slightly less bullshit argument "the president is a fucking moron and we're not going to give him a chance?"

If Hillary had won the election do you think we'd have a 9 member court right now?         (hint:  we wouldn't)

You're also overlooking a very real problem with your position. Biden might have spoken about it but he didn't do anything towards that end. McConnel did, and the fact that it might not have been his idea to begin with doesn't factor into it. If I publicly announce that I'm going to fly to Canada to axe xerocks in the back Groundskeeper Willie style, and then you actually go and do it, protesting to the jury that "it was Barto's idea!" isn't going to get you very far.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #209 on: September 05, 2018, 03:38:50 PM »
In no way, shape, or form was ignoring Garland's nomination appropriate to the circumstances.  If the democrats take the senate in a couple of months what happens if they decide "we're just going to ignore any nominations that come our way until a president we approve of gets elected"?  What's the difference between the bullshit argument "the people have a right to the process," and the slightly less bullshit argument "the president is a fucking moron and we're not going to give him a chance?"

If Hillary had won the election do you think we'd have a 9 member court right now?         (hint:  we wouldn't)

You're also overlooking a very real problem with your position. Biden might have spoken about it but he didn't do anything towards that end. McConnel did, and the fact that it might not have been his idea to begin with doesn't factor into it. If I publicly announce that I'm going to fly to Canada to axe xerocks in the back Groundskeeper Willie style, and then you actually go and do it, protesting to the jury that "it was Barto's idea!" isn't going to get you very far.

I'm not ADVOCATING what is happening - I would hope you would see my disgust and even anger at what's going down - I'm trying to point out what is happening.   I have said this before; I'm very much a fan of the idea of incremental progression.    The mile world record before Roger Bannister was not 18 minutes.   It was 4:01.4.  The record before that?  4:01.6.  Before that?  4:02.4.   Things progress incrementally far more often than they don't.  I believe politics is the same thing.  I've said this before a couple times (a couple times directly to you): politics do not exist in a vacuum.   ESPECIALLY politics; there's no advantage to being a real iconoclast.   Even the things you see Trump saying and doing, while he is on the other side of a line in many cases, he's not doing anything "new".   The Sex Pistols weren't "new", but they crossed the line.   Kiss wasn't "new" but they took it to a then-unseen extreme (there were bands playing the same bill with them in New York dressing in makeup and outfits; Kiss's gig wasn't the makeup, really, it was the black leather.  The New York Dolls wore heavy face makeup but dressed like chicks).    I'm trying here to draw lines.   I don't expect anyone's outrage to diminish, but I do - if I'm being honest - hope that the outrage gets properly focused.    Just like "gun violence" is a misnomer (and isn't about "guns"), so the "problem with Trump" isn't entirely Trump.  We bear a lot of the burden of responsibility here.   

Interesting question on Hillary:  I think we would, frankly, but that doesn't diminish your point; I think it would have been simply an extreme futility that got the nominated candidate confirmed.