SCOTUS under Trump

[CraigM]

Two things:

One, it’s coming from the office of a GOP politician. I’m sorry, but I treat any statement they make as a lie or fabrication until evidence shows otherwise. Remember Scott Pruitt claiming he had death threats to justify various expenses, but once the EPA responded they not only failed to provide evidence, but admitted none had occurred?

Two, if that is the standard applied, a single call fielded by a staffer as evidence, then I’m sure every single senator is ‘bullied’ over every single vote. Or do you not think tea party types have called democratic senators frequently with threats?

So a thin claim backed by a single dubious incident as justification to ignore all those with grievances? That’s some ripe bull. And even if the call was genuine, I don’t give a fuck. We have many actual people bringing their stories to try and petition their senator. To dismiss them because of such a weak reason and lump that under the banner of ‘bullying’ is shameful.

[MrGrumpy]

To dismiss them because of such a weak reason and lump that under the banner of ‘bullying’ is shameful.

I don’t know if you went back but triggercut amended his original post that you responded to - Kasie Hunt is not reporting that Collins felt bullied by sexual assault victims. That said, the other day Collins directed the Senate police to turn away a handful of women that attempted to deliver a box of letters with victim’s stories. The media outnumbered them.

But for anyone who thinks protesters are trying to blame Kavanaugh for every woman’s assault (comments I’ve seen from the brainwashed mob) - the point they are trying to make is that women don’t report precisely because of the way the Senate Republicans treated Dr. Ford.

[Clay]

Is there any reason to believe Kavanaugh won’t be more thoroughly examined, including lying to Congress, etc… when Dems have the power to do so? I don’t see him riding off into the sunset anytime soon. It’s entirely possible he could be charged with one or more crimes within the next year alone. What does that near-term future look like?

[scottagibson]

Pass good, well written laws. The scotus doesn6t get involved.

That seems not to be the case. The result in Sebelius — that Congress couldn’t compel states to extend health care to poor people using funds provided by Congress — is absurd and was totally unexpected given all prior precedent.

Sebelius was hardly a clear Republican victory.

Yes, I know that, but for tens of millions of people living in the wrong states, it was a clear harm. Yet it cost Republicans nothing in political terms.

More generally, democracy does not mean that the good guys always win.

Yes, I know that too. I’m not naive. I’m responding to your notion that political backlash will correct overreaching by partisans on the Court by pointing out that it does not seem to. Maybe you can point to some examples where it did.

[scottagibson]

It’s entirely possible he could be charged with one or more crimes within the next year alone.

What crimes? The bad behavior may all be old enough that it is long past any statute of limitations. The lies to the Senate under oath will not even be investigated if the Senate does not refer them to the DOJ for investigation and prosecution, and the very likely Republican Senate will not refer them. Even if the Senate flips, and makes a referral, the DOJ will be under the control of an AG even more pliable than Sessions. And, in the end, the likely result would be that Kavanaugh’s answers were misleading but not perjury because it is very are to prove perjury beyond reasonable doubt and prosecutors therefore rarely pursue it.

[scottagibson]

This proposal requires a constitutional amendment and therefore will never happen. I don’t really know why left and left-leaning media loves to engage in this sort of pie-in-the-sky proposal, but they do seem to love it.

[Woolen_Horde]

Yeah. Like there are folks proposing moving Election Day to a weekend even though it’s clearly written in the Constition that it’s a Tuesday. Getting that changed would be as hard as getting a repeal on the 2nd Amendment.

So the solution is easy. Pass a law that makes Election Day a national holiday. No Constituional Amendment required.

Start thinking outside of the box.

[Menzo]

So the solution is easy. Pass a law that makes Election Day a national holiday. No Constituional Amendment required.

And the next Republican congress overturns it. They don’t want it easier for people who need to ask for time off to vote. Rich people and white-collar workers can take the time easily.

[Clay]

Not only that, but many businesses ignore the current national holidays, so there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t ignore Election Day.

[ravenight]

even though it’s clearly written in the Constition that it’s a Tuesday.

Where?

[Clay]

Ally Maynard (missmayn)

[kerzain]

Obviously the GOP gives voice to the genuine marginalized U.S. minorities.

[Rightbug]

Alexandra Petri again:

Opinion | What a terrifying time to be a son

[Gordon_Cameron]

Yeah, I just did a text search for ‘Tuesday’ and couldn’t find it. Article I section 4 states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[CraigM]

I don’t know if you went back but triggercut amended his original post that you responded to

No, I was unaware of said edit. Thanks for the update.

[Mark_Crump]

I don’t think making it a national holiday solves more problems than it creates. The people forced to work 2 or 3 jobs, or work in a service industry that doesn’t shut down for holidays are still screwed. They are exactly the ones people would want to make sure don’t vote.

For white collar people, I bet a lot of people vote on the way too and from work. Now, with a holiday it would just become a 4-day weekend. People would take the Monday off and decide it’s a nice fall weekend and go away, I think.

[triggercut]

I don’t know if you went back but triggercut amended his original post that you responded to

No, I was unaware of said edit. Thanks for the update.

Ack, my bad. I should’ve put Kasie Hunt’s tweet in a separate post.

[triggercut]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/9/6/17827786/supreme-court-packing-brett-kavanaugh-hearings

The first is changing the Supreme Court from nine permanent justices to a rotating group of justices, similar to a panel on the court of appeals. Every judge on the federal court of appeals would also be appointed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court “panel” would be composed of nine justices, selected at random from the full pool of associate justices. Once selected, the justices would hear cases for only two weeks, before another set of judges would replace them.

We call our second approach the Balanced Court. On this proposal, the Supreme Court would have fifteen justices. Ten justices — five Republican and five Democratic — would be chosen through a political process much like our current system, and thus would be expected to vote in line with their party affiliation. The key to the proposal is that these politically appointed justices would need to unanimously pick five additional justices, drawn from the courts of appeals, to sit with them for a year. To ensure that the justices come to consensus, the Court would need to agree on all five additional justices or else it would be deemed not to have a quorum, and thus unable to hear cases.

Thanks for posting, but what in the world, Vox.

“A simple plan for saving the Supreme Court” involves amending a key portion of the Constitution. Not sure I’m seeing the “simple” there.

[magnet]

for tens of millions of people living in the wrong states, it was a clear harm

You are assuming that whenever the Court makes a decision that you don’t like, it must be an example of overreach.

The ACA is controversial. That means your notion of “clear harm” is not universally shared. Hopefully we will all eventually reach a consensus regarding health care, but it hasn’t quite happened yet. And in a democracy there is no guarantee that the “other side” will eventually see things your way.

I’m responding to your notion that political backlash will correct overreaching by partisans on the Court

My notion is that once a public consensus is achieved, that sentiment will usually be shared by political representatives.

The Court is currently politically insulated. They are the branch least likely to be affected by public sentiment, unless we start regularly packing the court whenever there is a power shift.

[Sharpe]

unless we start regularly packing the court whenever there is a power shift .

That quote should read “unless we start packing the court by refusing to consider the other party’s nominees, even 8 months before an election”

In other words, this norm has already been broken. This precedent has already been set. We are already there, and yet it’s bad, but that is 100% the GOP’s fault.