Octopus Overlords

Little Raven wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:54 am

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:27 amBusinesses can still enact a vaccine mandate if they choose too, right?

Yes. The Court ruled that OSHA does not grant the Secretary of Labor the authority to issue such a sweeping mandate, especially since there has been no equivalent measures passed by Congress. But a private business can still enact a mandate if they so choose.

No. At least in Texas, where I have the tragic misfortune to live. Still.

How about that Breyer, though? Time's running out for retiring.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:35 am How about that Breyer, though? Time's running out for retiring.

God, I know. Last week I realized I had forgotten about that particular threat to the Republic. What a self-indulgent asshole.

What's the next plausible time that Breyer could announce his retirement - probably the summer? Probably not too late by that point, but it would be yet another opportunity for Manchin & Sinema to fuck over the country.

I don't think he's going to retire. He is above politics - not his problem if a Republican appoints his replacement.

stessier wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm I don't think he's going to retire. He is above politics - not his problem if a Republican appoints his replacement.

Yeah, unfortunately that's how I think he is thinking of it. Another obtuse asshole among the elites that should be protecting our democracy. How he can maintain this after the Merrick Garland and RBG / Amy Coney Barrett fiascos is beyond me.

It's like we're expecting a movie ending where the Muppets rally the support of the kind hearted people and the mustache twirling Federalists just give up having been exposed in their corruption.

What's the cynical explanation for why SCOTUS is doing this all of the sudden? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but I'm just a little confused about what the point of it is, other than simple impatience.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:47 pm What's the cynical explanation for why SCOTUS is doing this all of the sudden? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but I'm just a little confused about what the point of it is, other than simple impatience.

I think the more important part is that the way the court operates has shifted drastically in a short window of time. Combine this with the increasing amount of precedents they are overturning and we are starting to finally get a body of evidence pointing at conservative activism at the least.

Edit: It will also be interesting to see if there is a pattern of which cases are expedited. I'd be all for this if they were fast tracking review of endless Trump appeals for instance but those cases over and over seemingly are only fit for the slowest path.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:59 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:47 pm What's the cynical explanation for why SCOTUS is doing this all of the sudden? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but I'm just a little confused about what the point of it is, other than simple impatience.

I think the more important part is that the way the court operates has shifted drastically in a short window of time. Combine this with the increasing amount of precedents they are overturning and we are starting to finally get a body of evidence pointing at conservative activism at the least.

Edit: It will also be interesting to see if there is a pattern of which cases are expedited. I'd be all for this if they were fast tracking review of endless Trump appeals for instance but those cases over and over seemingly are only fit for the slowest path.

Yeah to the extent that this is a concern it would seem to relate to creating a de facto two-tier court track - quick processing for conservative activists, slow processing for anyone pushing claims hostile to conservative ideology.

UNC - race in college admissions
ZF Automotive - gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal,”
Alix Partners - same
U.S. v. Texas - abortion
Whole Woman’s Health - same
Gish - same
Higgs - same
Robinson v. Murphy - same
High Plains Harvest Church - public health attendance cap
Harvest Rock Church - same
McAleenan v. Vidal - DACA
Trump v. NAACP - same
Ross v. California - citizenship question on Census
Dep’t of Commerce v. NY - same
DHS v. Regents U-Cal - DACA

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:11 pmYeah to the extent that this is a concern it would seem to relate to creating a de facto two-tier court track - quick processing for conservative activists, slow processing for anyone pushing claims hostile to conservative ideology.

I was thinking about it and it can get a bit worse in context. When you realize the right has now potentially has a check on Presidential power (for Democrats) along with the legislative nonsense they've started pulling.

This is all a theory right now but it isn't hard to sketch a bad situation here. There are a lot of pieces but the puzzle is becoming clearer to the strategy. One piece is they have the ALEC Koch-network backed guys cooking up legislation at the state/local level. They manufacture controversies like the bounty scheme and then venue shop the cases to the most advantageous courts and then speed them through the system. Instead of years they might have cut addressing these legal questions down to a year or less in the case of the bounty scheme. It's an alternate power path that goes right around the issues in Congress. If that becomes a norm it is very undemocratic abusing the disproportionate Senate.

Then you have the curbs on Presidential power. IIRC Texas took about a dozen cases against Biden/the administration and sprayed them across several non-Austin districts where something like 75-80% of cases are heard by one judge. Exploiting that the districts are short-staffed. All of those cases ended up assigned to Trump appointed judges which when you think about it...is insane. Those judges have been dropping nationwide injunctions on many of the cases including: the contractor vaccine mandate, military vaccine mandate, the federal employee mandate, etc.

So they've got this pipeline where they cook up legislation or just block Presidential authority and just block action in Congress. They've potentially locked up all the levers of power and are just building a cage that protects all progress, prevents us from solving problems, substitutes judgement of experts for judges, and essentially begins an unwinding of federalism in the face of evidence that many of the powers devolved to the states...don't work very well. It's too early to say how it'll turn out but this is looking like another fairly bad path added to a march of bad paths.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:47 pm What's the cynical explanation for why SCOTUS is doing this all of the sudden? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but I'm just a little confused about what the point of it is, other than simple impatience.

My cynical view, which I think some of the other explanations touched on, is this: They've stopped waiting for opportunities to redefine the country to present themselves and started actively going out and looking for those opportunities. Can't risk it getting settled before they get to codify it their way.

And the idea that others are going out of their way to set up opportunities for them to do so fits in neatly.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:57 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:47 pm What's the cynical explanation for why SCOTUS is doing this all of the sudden? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but I'm just a little confused about what the point of it is, other than simple impatience.

My cynical view, which I think some of the other explanations touched on, is this: They've stopped waiting for opportunities to redefine the country to present themselves and started actively going out and looking for those opportunities. Can't risk it getting settled before they get to codify it their way.

And the idea that others are going out of their way to set up opportunities for them to do so fits in neatly.

"Legislating from the bench," as they say. That was my first thought, but I am not wise in the ways of the law.

He actually dug deeper.

News is breaking wide that Breyer is going to announce his retirement...#fakenews until it happens because this timing is really weird.

I thought we already established that we can't seat a new Justice during a midterm election year when there's a Democrat as President?

Looks legit: NBC News

The timing isn't that weird. Next year, Biden will no longer be able to replace a supreme court nominee, so it makes sense to do it this year.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:10 pm I thought we already established that we can't seat a new Justice during a midterm election year when there's a Democrat as President?

Also important is when you don't have Joe Manchin or Krysten Sinema in "your caucus". I can't wait to see what chaos they inject into this theoretical side show.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:11 pm The timing isn't that weird. Next year, Biden will no longer be able to replace a supreme court nominee, so it makes sense to do it this year.

Usually it is announced toward the end or just after the term in June/July. Perhaps they convinced him that they needed to have this done before midterms season is hot.

Phew.

Can they filibuster the nominee?

stessier wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:12 pm Phew.

Can they filibuster the nominee?

Not anymore.

Not sure this is a good idea during an election.

Oh thank god. I had resigned myself to him RBG-ing us.

Now I get to worry about Manchin + Sinema fucking us over on the confirmation.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:26 pm Not sure this is a good idea during an election.

Don't worry, the Republicans have a fair, reasonable, and evenly enforced rule about confirming justices close in time to elections.



But seriously though, it's better than doing this in 2023.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:27 pmBut seriously though, it's better than doing this in 2023.

Especially since they probably won't be able to do it in 2023. I wonder what did it take? Maybe the last few rulings and conferences made the scales fall from his eyes.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:31 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:27 pmBut seriously though, it's better than doing this in 2023.

Especially since they probably won't be able to do it in 2023. I wonder what did it take? Maybe the last few rulings and conferences made the scales fall from his eyes.

Yeah, it's a good question. Who knows - maybe staring down the prospects of the likely 2022 election results made this all more real to him.

Another topic is I have no idea what the shortlist looks like (though I've seen names thrown around already) but we have some reason to believe a black female is the current filter. Fun to think about but highly improbably, what if he nominated Harris?

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:46 pm Another topic is I have no idea what the shortlist looks like (though I've seen names thrown around already) but we have some reason to believe a black female is the current filter. Fun to think about but highly improbably, what if he nominated Harris?

I like the pick but boy do republicans hate her, as they seem to hate unto irrationality all democratic women and most especially of all democratic women whom aren't of pure Caucasian ancestry. She'll be a fight and one I'd hope the democrats win with flying colors.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:46 pm Another topic is I have no idea what the shortlist looks like (though I've seen names thrown around already) but we have some reason to believe a black female is the current filter. Fun to think about but highly improbably, what if he nominated Harris?

I know this is meant as more of a fun flier of an idea, but man would that be a bad idea. Not only would it make the confirmation harder, but assuming it succeeded Biden would also then need to get a new VP confirmed in the House and the Senate.

One thing is for sure. If we can't get everyone on the Dems to vote in a new person we're 100% f'd. "Should" be a slam dunk, but I'm sure it won't be.

How would that work, would she step down as VP and we elect a new one?

Oh, Biden just picks one that is then approved/not? Hmm.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:46 pm Another topic is I have no idea what the shortlist looks like (though I've seen names thrown around already) but we have some reason to believe a black female is the current filter. Fun to think about but highly improbably, what if he nominated Harris?

I'm hoping for Michelle Obama.

A SCOTUS confirmation battle during a midterm fight during a pandemic during a possible European war during a potential government shutdown during key domestic legislative wrangling LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The name I hear being kicked around the most is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Apparently just elevated to the DC Court of Appeals with votes by all 50 Dems and 3 Reps.

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:20 pm Oh, Biden just picks one that is then approved/not? Hmm.

Yes. If there's a vacancy in the VP then the president nominates a new VP, who needs to be confirmed by majority vote of the House and Senate.

One question is whether the Senate confirmation is subject to filibuster. If it is, then that idea is even more of a non-starter than I thought.