That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Susan Collins: "I could not vote for a judge who had demonstrated hostility to Roe v Wade because it would indicate a lack of respect for precedent. He views precedent ... as rooted in our Constitution."
Kavanaugh today voted to overturn 4 years of precedent on abortion rights.
That they are leaving that one to last amps up the anxiety here.El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:44 amAt least Roberts is in "save the institution mode" and not "get everything for the conservative movement while we can" mode. Also a good indication that he won't invalidate the entire ACA, though this could be another chance to knock another brick out of the edifice.
Meanwhile....still waiting for Mazars.
Why is that? I was a little more anxious on Friday, as I was worried that they were going to drop a crazy pro-Trump decision on late Friday to try to minimize the controversial fallout.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:39 pmThat they are leaving that one to last amps up the anxiety here.El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:44 amAt least Roberts is in "save the institution mode" and not "get everything for the conservative movement while we can" mode. Also a good indication that he won't invalidate the entire ACA, though this could be another chance to knock another brick out of the edifice.
Meanwhile....still waiting for Mazars.
No, there's no filibuster on SCOTUS nominees now. If a vacancy arises between now and January, McConnell will sprint to confirm whomever Trump nominates as fast as possible.
Well, also assuming that the Democrats take the Senate as well. If McConnell is still majority leader in 2021, you better believe he's going to refuse to confirm any Biden nominees until 2023.
Why wait until 2023? He already (in this scenario) has a majority. If he's waiting that long, he's going to push it to the next election.
Well, right - he'd wait until there's another Republican in the presidency, and he (or another Republican) is Senate Majority Leader. The only reason I said 2023 is because there'd be new Senate elections in 2022 (that could give Democrats the majority).
It won't make a difference. IMHO, the only fix will be packing the courts as FDR proposed by increasing the number of appellate district judges. The long term fallout to our Government structure as a result of McConnell's Party over Country approach is going to be interesting, in the Chinese curse sense of the word.
Unfortunately that is considered a 'radical' plan and doesn't have Biden's support. Biden still says out loud at least that he will work the Republicans when he comes to power. It isn't hard to handicap the chance of success there. The analysis above I think is right, unless the Senate flips we will see no movement on this. Or Biden will need to capitulate in ways that'll undermine voter confidence. There is almost no plausible positive scenario ahead here with regards to the judiciary.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:38 pmIt won't make a difference. IMHO, the only fix will be packing the courts as FDR proposed by increasing the number of appellate district judges. The long term fallout to our Government structure as a result of McConnell's Party over Country approach is going to be interesting, in the Chinese curse sense of the word.
That depends. If the Senate flips and a bill is delivered, the question isn't whether Biden supports it, the question is would he sign it?malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:01 pmUnfortunately that is considered a 'radical' plan and doesn't have Biden's support. Biden still says out loud at least that he will work the Republicans when he comes to power. It isn't hard to handicap the chance of success there. The analysis above I think is right, unless the Senate flips we will see no movement on this. Or Biden will need to capitulate in ways that'll undermine voter confidence. There is almost no plausible positive scenario ahead here with regards to the judiciary.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:38 pmIt won't make a difference. IMHO, the only fix will be packing the courts as FDR proposed by increasing the number of appellate district judges. The long term fallout to our Government structure as a result of McConnell's Party over Country approach is going to be interesting, in the Chinese curse sense of the word.
The Supreme Court elated religious freedom advocates and alarmed secular groups with its Tuesday ruling on public funding for religious education, a decision whose long-term effect on the separation of church and state remains to be seen.
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the high court ruled 5-4 that states must give religious schools the same access to public funding that other private schools receive, preserving a Montana scholarship program that had largely benefited students at religious institutions.
...
Tuesday’s ruling focused on a program that offered indirect tuition assistance through tax credits rather than direct state aid to religious schools. The court left unresolved the extent to which religious schools may use public funding for explicitly religious activities, such as worship services and religious-education courses. Mach said that issue likely would be the focus of future litigation, given that many religious schools consider doctrinal education to be at the core of their mission.
...
Others tracking the Montana case stopped short of predicting a major expansion of state funding for religious education.
Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who co-authored a brief supporting the plaintiffs on behalf of multiple religious groups, described the decision as “incremental” and “building cautiously” on a 2017 case that ruled a Missouri church could use a state grant to resurface its playground.
“But incremental moves have been accumulating since 1986, and what would pretty clearly have been unconstitutional in the ’70s and early ’80s is now, sometimes, constitutionally required,” Laycock wrote in an email.
Hewitt may not be the most reliable source, especially as the GOP is desperately trying to find ways of changing the narrative of the election, the Supreme Court being one avenue being actively explored.Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:12 pm There are rumors that Alito may retire.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... reme-court
Merrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
I mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
Honestly, he shouldn't. Contrary to our current Oligarchy, a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be passed down like an inheritanceEl Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pmI mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
. Bush family and the Presidency, notwithstanding .He shouldn't, but he will with the Trump administration. He wouldn't (or at least would have much less influence) with a Biden administration.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:10 pmHonestly, he shouldn't. Contrary to our current Oligarchy, a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be passed down like an inheritanceEl Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pmI mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
Trump is fine with that (it dovetails quite nicely with his corrupt style), but he really doesn't know much at all.
Yeah and it isn't like the political class does anything but put up the barest pretense that the judiciary is non-political anymore. If you are a Conservative judge who wants to maintain the GOP firewall and want to retire, then you have to calculate against the high odds that Trump is going to lose. They know the score. It isn't like Supreme Court justices are above the fray anymore. For instance, the events around the Kennedy retirement and Kavanaugh's nomination look pretty shady when you dig in.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:15 pmHe shouldn't, but he will with the Trump administration. He wouldn't (or at least would have much less influence) with a Biden administration.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:10 pmHonestly, he shouldn't. Contrary to our current Oligarchy, a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be passed down like an inheritanceEl Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pmI mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
Trump is fine with that (it dovetails quite nicely with his corrupt style), but he really doesn't know much at all.
I won't be surprised at all to see Clarence Thomas retire in August and be replaced by some Federalist-approved 30-something secret neo-Nazi.malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:03 pmYeah and it isn't like the political class does anything but put up the barest pretense that the judiciary is non-political anymore. If you are a Conservative judge who wants to maintain the GOP firewall and want to retire, then you have to calculate against the high odds that Trump is going to lose. They know the score. It isn't like Supreme Court justices are above the fray anymore. For instance, the events around the Kennedy retirement and Kavanaugh's nomination look pretty shady when you dig in.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:15 pmHe shouldn't, but he will with the Trump administration. He wouldn't (or at least would have much less influence) with a Biden administration.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:10 pmHonestly, he shouldn't. Contrary to our current Oligarchy, a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be passed down like an inheritanceEl Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pmI mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
Trump is fine with that (it dovetails quite nicely with his corrupt style), but he really doesn't know much at all.
I doubt that one. The book deal would suck.Holman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:58 pmI won't be surprised at all to see Clarence Thomas retire in August and be replaced by some Federalist-approved 30-something secret neo-Nazi.malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:03 pmYeah and it isn't like the political class does anything but put up the barest pretense that the judiciary is non-political anymore. If you are a Conservative judge who wants to maintain the GOP firewall and want to retire, then you have to calculate against the high odds that Trump is going to lose. They know the score. It isn't like Supreme Court justices are above the fray anymore. For instance, the events around the Kennedy retirement and Kavanaugh's nomination look pretty shady when you dig in.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:15 pmHe shouldn't, but he will with the Trump administration. He wouldn't (or at least would have much less influence) with a Biden administration.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:10 pmHonestly, he shouldn't. Contrary to our current Oligarchy, a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be passed down like an inheritanceEl Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pmI mean....Garland definitely wasn't an Alito style conservative. One can quibble with "opposite" I suppose, but the bottom line is that you'd wind up with judicial conservatives getting replaced by judicial liberals of one type or another (and importantly, Alito wouldn't have any significant say in who that replacement is).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pmMerrick Garland wasn't "an ideological opposite". This is a fallacy.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:27 pm Yeah, it depends. The calculation for any / all of the conservative justices is that if they don't retire now, they may well not be able to retire for 4 - 8 years (maybe even 12) without their replacement being an ideological opposite. So Alito has to ask himself if he's prepared to spend the next decade of his life on the court or nto.
Trump is fine with that (it dovetails quite nicely with his corrupt style), but he really doesn't know much at all.
There were rumors he was going to retire last year that he shot down harshly. I could see him definitely leave this year in particular. His wife is all tied up in Trumpism to boot. It might be time to head for the 'country'.
I don't know the cases or the law super well, but I assume that there has to be a reasonable originalist type argument against these types of state laws, given that the original vision of the electoral college was that the electors would meet and cast votes based upon their own best judgment. But the 'discretion of the states' plus 'throwing democracy into chaos' are super compelling counter arguments.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:42 am I skimmed it because this one wasn't a surprise to me at all. The Constitution cedes this power to the States. What's interesting is it seems that you can still be a faithless elector...you just risk penalty. But yeah I agree it just highlights how far away we've gotten from the point of it. It also legitimizes that popular vote compact fwiw.
I can't find anything either on when the next release date is.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:32 am When is the Supreme Court releasing decisions next? I don't see any opinion issuance dates on the calendar (after yesterday).