Fundraising for 2020/2021: Currently at $1580. Fundraising has begun, see the global post for options. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 15542
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am
Alito is pointing out - "yeah, you've set up a new standard, and you're saying that the president has arguments under this standard, but be real - you've written this so that the president will lose under your standard." Which is true. So it's still kind of f'ing disgusting that Roberts is playing games seemingly just to protect Trump during the current election.
I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?
Hodor.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

From Scotusblog:
Justice Thomas dissents. He would hold that "Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents -- whether they belong to the President or not."
Jesus Christ. Bearing in mind that this is the future if Trump gets a second term and gets additional SCOTUS nominations.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am
El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am
Alito is pointing out - "yeah, you've set up a new standard, and you're saying that the president has arguments under this standard, but be real - you've written this so that the president will lose under your standard." Which is true. So it's still kind of f'ing disgusting that Roberts is playing games seemingly just to protect Trump during the current election.
I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?
They probably don't have a choice - without Roberts I don't think that they had five votes for "comply with the subpoena immediately". Once that's the case, they're probably negotiating with Roberts (and Gorsuch / Kavanaugh to a lesser extent) to make the balancing test language as hostile to the president as possible. That there are no separate liberal opinions would suggest that they were satisfied with the balancing test language within the context of a decision that doesn't require immediate compliance.

I also wonder if part of the reason why Mazars and Vance waited until the last day is that they were negotiating over the test language.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am
From Scotusblog:
Justice Thomas dissents. He would hold that "Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents -- whether they belong to the President or not."
Jesus Christ. Bearing in mind that this is the future if Trump gets a second term and gets additional SCOTUS nominations.
That thing that legislatures have been doing since we started this whole thing and is a practice stretching back hundreds of years through Parliament...yeah...I think that's too much power. He is a smart man but he is also a whack job.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:38 am
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am
El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am
Alito is pointing out - "yeah, you've set up a new standard, and you're saying that the president has arguments under this standard, but be real - you've written this so that the president will lose under your standard." Which is true. So it's still kind of f'ing disgusting that Roberts is playing games seemingly just to protect Trump during the current election.
I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?
They probably don't have a choice - without Roberts I don't think that they had five votes for "comply with the subpoena immediately". Once that's the case, they're probably negotiating with Roberts (and Gorsuch / Kavanaugh to a lesser extent) to make the balancing test language as hostile to the president as possible. That there are no separate liberal opinions would suggest that they were satisfied with the balancing test language within the context of a decision that doesn't require immediate compliance.

I also wonder if part of the reason why Mazars and Vance waited until the last day is that they were negotiating over the test language.
This is how I take it. Alito complaining about it in Vance gives you a hint that this is the case. 'You sent back a test that you know will fail but isn't a sham - you jerk! He is the PRESIDENT'. Anyway, this was always the likely 'best case' outcome which is infuriating in the justice delayed sense. We have a lot to think about in regards to keeping this nation corruption-free and this is another glimpse that perhaps we are going to eventually lose that battle. The judges act in a reliable and somewhat predictable way but the system takes so long that they delay itself can be abused. That isn't great.

Also, one reason this is last also could be because it was the last case argued. SCOTUS tea reading is often perilous. We're all probably getting it wrong in the end. :)

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »



This is helpful for dialing my irritation with Roberts down a bit. I do need to keep it in perspective that we did avoid the nightmare scenario, which was the SCOTUS declaring that the President is above having to comply with subpoenas full stop.

User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 17207
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Octavious »

He's totally losing his shit on Twitter. This is amusing.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

HOLY COW - this is big news.

never saw this coming.

edit: Not that we will see anything until after the elections.

lame

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

There's still another bomb coming in the McGahn testimonial immunity case:



Most likely the full DC Circuit will rule in favor of the House, then SCOTUS will stay it until after the election.

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14398
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Enough »

My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

If you have the time, read the Thomas dissents in the McGirt and Mazars case. He should probably retire if not to just preserve his legacy. They are beyond wacky.

In McGirt he goes out of his way to say that SCOTUS shouldn't even be reviewing the state case. Maybe I'm misreading it but he seems to be saying it is not even a matter of the jurisdiction. In other words, even if they didn't have jurisdiction we don't have the power to rule on that. Who does then? (Spoiler: It's God probably).

In Mazars he makes the claim that responding to House subpoenas is too hard. Wah. He writes, "In sum, the demands on the President’s time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary <snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.

Edit: Those are just the hot takes. I'm waiting on some better legal minds to dissect them but to a layman they sound...really off.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:50 pm
If you have the time, read the Thomas dissents in the McGirt and Mazars case. He should probably retire if not to just preserve his legacy. They are beyond wacky.

In McGirt he goes out of his way to say that SCOTUS shouldn't even be reviewing the state case. Maybe I'm misreading it but he seems to be saying it is not even a matter of the jurisdiction. In other words, even if they didn't have jurisdiction we don't have the power to rule on that. Who does then? (Spoiler: It's God probably).

In Mazars he makes the claim that responding to House subpoenas is too hard. Wah. He writes, "In sum, the demands on the President’s time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary <snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.

Edit: Those are just the hot takes. I'm waiting on some better legal minds to dissect them but to a layman they sound...really off.
Also like...he understands that Trump himself wouldn't be compiling the subpoena response?

User avatar
Eel Snave
Posts: 2681
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Eel Snave »

I think Thomas is hoping that we can adopt the fuero system.
Downwards Compatible
We're playing every NES game alphabetically! Even the crappy ones! Send help!

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

David Frum on the subpoena decisions.

Basically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.

User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate
Fretmute’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Fretmute »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:58 pm
malchior wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:50 pm
<snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.
Also like...he understands that Trump himself wouldn't be compiling the subpoena response?
We should ask him how he feels golf impacts the President's limited time.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pm
Basically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.
Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Little Raven wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:58 pm
El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pm
Basically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.
Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.
Yeah, Nate Silver was raising the question of whether Trump would really be worse off if we spent time in the fall debating his tax returns instead of debating his massive public failures on coronavirus, the economy, and racism. It's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:15 pm
It's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.
I just can't imagine anyone in 2020 America thinking...

You know, I'm really on the fence about Trump. Sure...we've had a horribly managed pandemic that is up to 30 9-11s and counting, our cities have been literally burning with the pent up rage of a entire demographic, and our economy is facing the bleakest outlook since the Great Depress...and yes, it's true that the President is not just tone-deaf in relation to these problems but actively engaged to make things worse at every junction....but I sure did like him on Apprentice...soooo....I dunno.....

Oh wait? He's a tax cheat? Why I never suspected such a thing! That does it....I'm voting for Biden!


:lol:
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

I'm ignorant of the law , so I have to ask if there is anything absolutely baked into the Mazars "test" that prevents things from moving fast enough for documents to be on the House desk before the election.

What would happen if the House put together a solid package that satisfied all the terms of the test by the end of August, then spent the whole of September and October arguing the need for celerity so that the American people might make an informed choice? What factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 26372
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by YellowKing »

We already know nobody cares about his tax returns. We beat this dead horse after he was elected, and all we got from the public was a collective shrug.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

Holman wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pm
What factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Little Raven wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:45 pm
Holman wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pm
What factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.
Also, given the Mazars opinion I think it's reasonably likely that Roberts doesn't *want* this stuff to be released before the election.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:58 pm
Little Raven wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:45 pm
Holman wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pm
What factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.
Also, given the Mazars opinion I think it's reasonably likely that Roberts doesn't *want* this stuff to be released before the election.
This raises a question: is Roberts merely a conservative, or is he a full-on Trumpist?

If I'm a conservative Chief Justice immune to political pressure, and I'm interested in an independent judiciary as well as my own legacy, it's not inconceivable that I might prefer Biden to Trump in 2020.

But course this is merely a theoretical question since we know the Supreme Court is far above petty political machinations...
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 15542
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

I find the idea of even suggesting that John Roberts is a full on Trumpist to be laughable.
Hodor.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:15 pm
Little Raven wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:58 pm
El Guapo wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pm
Basically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.
Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.
Yeah, Nate Silver was raising the question of whether Trump would really be worse off if we spent time in the fall debating his tax returns instead of debating his massive public failures on coronavirus, the economy, and racism. It's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.
I'm with Frum here but that is why I think down the field we've set a terrible precedent. Congress was stonewalled for basically half his Presidency and the courts gave us little help. The new normal will be stonewalling Congress if the other party is in charge. Even more dysfunction.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Ginsburg hospitalized again


User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Paingod »

I can hear McConnell salivating at this news.

We just need her to hang on a little longer and then retire after January 21st. If she quit the gig 3 days before then, McConnell would ram through a new justice without any process, and every Republican in there would stand by his side.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: Lotsa' Switch - Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Fire Emblem: Three Houses

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 25867
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

Unagi wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am
Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?
What's the opposite of a DNR? And I'm not joking - she needs to make it to 2021.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 17001
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by coopasonic »

Unagi wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am
Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.
Weekend at Bernie's if necessary.
-Coop

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

stessier wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am
Unagi wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am
Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?
What's the opposite of a DNR? And I'm not joking - she needs to make it to 2021.
This is what the wife and I were talking about, and I believe there is something just like that.

Perhaps it's an RSVP

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 40433
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by hepcat »

If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

hepcat wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am
If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 66134
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

coopasonic wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:06 am
Unagi wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am
Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.
Weekend at Bernie's if necessary.
Weekend at Bader's.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

If Trump and McConnell get to replace RBG, I think the odds of Democratic court-packing go to 100%.

We should probably do it anyway.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Holman wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:23 am
If Trump and McConnell get to replace RBG, I think the odds of Democratic court-packing go to 100%.

We should probably do it anyway.
Yeah, this is probably true. I think in general Biden's not inclined to do court packing, but if the GOP crams through an RBG replacement the demand for some type of court packing response would be overwhelming among Democrats.

Though that assumes that the Democrats retake the Senate.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:29 am
hepcat wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am
If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.
I assume you meant am, since Biden (if elected) would be sworn in at noon.

But the Senate switches at the start of January, so it could be that Mitch isn't in control for several weeks before then.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Defiant wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:22 am
El Guapo wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:29 am
hepcat wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am
If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.
I assume you meant am, since Biden (if elected) would be sworn in at noon.

But the Senate switches at the start of January, so it could be that Mitch isn't in control for several weeks before then.
Ah, for some reason I thought inauguration day was the 21st, so I was thinking the night before. And I forgot that the Senate changes earlier.

So maybe we're safe if it happens at 11:59 pm on December 31st.

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33302
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Remus West »

Can we all just agree that we are fucked if for any reason one of the "liberal" judges retires or dies at any point while the Republicans control the Senate? Timing doesn't matter. I'm sure they have something set up for if it happens seconds before they are supposed to turn over the keys. Wouldn't surprise me if they have some plan in place to delay handing control over if it even looks likely to happen.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »



[Stomach unclenches somewhat.]
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

Post Reply