talkpolitics | Entries tagged with scotus

Good, this conformation will upset all the right people.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Was Confirmed As The First Black Woman To Serve On The US Supreme Court

In 2016, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s daughter Leila wrote President Obama urging him to consider nominating her mom to the Supreme Court.

Last week, her wish came true.

Well deserved.

Graham and Paul are a disgrace for their blatant disregard for the dignity of the process. Of course the Right will cheer on their lack of respect.

Shame on the 47 Senators who voted against Jackson’s confirmation. Those senators personify Confederate mentality.

A special thank you to the three Republican Senators, Murkowski (Alaska), Collins (Maine) and Romney (Utah), who supported Jackson’s confirmation.

luzribeiro

The end of a republic (democracy) is when a President claims, EVEN BEFORE THE RESULT IS IN, that the election will be decided in the courts.

Read the tweet again. It's not even a suggestion on Trump's part. He states it as a matter of fact; It WILL end in the courts.

He reiterated this intention in his post-election speech, where, of course, he essentially claimed victory long before all votes had been counted. Another stunt right out of Trump Playbook, which was soundly condemned by both Republicans and Democrats.

He has said he'll only accept the election result if he wins.

Trump completely ignores the fact that the voting-result will decide the election. And the result IS the democratic process, whatever republic or monarchy or institution you live under.

The American people, if Trump loses, DO NOT ASK HIM to burden the nation with his bad-loser behavior. They will demand that he vacates the White House.

But let's not fool ourselves. This isn't going to happen easily. We're in for a long court battle.

kiaa

Much has been said regarding the religious beliefs of Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett as to whether she should be confirmed because she's extreme far-right politically. I have no problem with anyone with deep religious faith, no matter what that faith is. I may be naive, but I just think that a person that sits on the Supreme Court and may remain there for 40 years ruling on laws that affect 328 million people, should have a bipartisan, centrist ideology, one that is more in alignment with the majority, not a small minority.

To put it in perspective, the only things that Amy Coney Barrett and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common is that their names have three words, that's it. Otherwise their doctrines are diametrically opposed. Amy Coney Barret, ('ACB') has been a lifelong member of a far-right religious group called 'People of Praise'. If I could compare this particular group to any other, I would compare it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints or other Evangelical Protestant groups.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

Back in 2013, the then Dem controlled Senate used the so called nuclear option, in a vote 52 to 48, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. Then in 2017, the Rep controlled Senate did the same, in a vote 52 to 48, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees. Just to remind, 60% supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation.

The GOP took the Dem filibuster rule change. That was the mistake of the Dems who timed their move poorly, as the polls were showing they were headed for a loss in 2014, and essentially made themselves powerless in the minority. If they were going to do what they did, they should have done it in the beginning of Obama's term and taken advantage of it from 2009 to 2014 - not just a few months from the end of 2013 to early 2014. The timing was dumb on the part of the Dems. It could have been Obama that would've filled all those judicial seats, not Trump, if the Dems had pulled that trigger earlier to include the SCOTUS pick which they did not do but McConnell did instead. If you are going to pull the trigger, make sure you make a hole big enough to get everything you want while you can as early as you can.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs during next year's presidential election, he would work to confirm a nominee appointed by President Donald Trump. That's a move that is in sharp contrast to his decision to block President Barack Obama's nominee to the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. At the time, he cited the right of the voters in the presidential election to decide whether a Democrat or a Republican would fill that opening, a move that infuriated Democrats.

Oh, he didn't mean he wouldn't fill the SCOTUS spot in an election year, period? Now he means he'd fill the SCOTUS spot in an election year if the President and Senate were of the same party? Hmmm. But that wasn't what he said back then... *confus'd*

In reversal from 2016, McConnell says he would fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy in 2020

Well, McConnell didn't just block Merrick Garland, he also blocked many of Obama's 2nd term federal judge picks. This has led to a record amount of Trump appointments to the federal bench. These lifetime appointments are 88% white, 76% male, 0% black, and 100% like-minded, by the way.

Surprised yet?

johnny9fingers

With the news of poor Ruth Bader Ginsburg's fall we can now see that 45 will soon have yet another nomination for SCOTUS to appoint; which will be his third.

This will make a tidy difference to SCOTUS. With Trump's two appointments so far it sits at five Republican nominations to four Democratic ones. After this, it will be six-three to the Republican's favour.

( Read more... )The Dems will only get better results when they start to think strategically as well as tactically. Deep strategy seems to evade them, the Dems being happy in the noble causes of enlightenment and justice, and thinking the world will come to them because other folk pay lip service to the same ideals. And that is why they get kicked in the crutch time and time again. I think it will take someone from the GOP to take down Trump, and I have a feeling the GOP will get the timing right on this one; it is what they are good at.

That's all right I suppose,
As it goes.

luzribeiro

( SEE MORE )

fridi

Saying the quiet part loudly. Since this is the case (and has been for some time) I think SC judges should not get a lifetime appointment and should be elected like every other politician. In an ideal world that would've been the case a long time ago. But we don't live in that world, do we?

Sarah Sanders: "Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh! Instead of a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton, we now have a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court under President @realDonaldTrump, cementing a tremendous legacy for the President and a better future for America"

The problem might be the illusion that we can have judges who are not political. At a minimum they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, and the way the system exists, it’s the President who nominates, and the Congress that confirms. So right now it’s a double whammy against liberals.

However note that Obama’s pick Garland was a moderate judge, so it’s the Democrats who still display principles, while the Republicans are going for the throats of those who oppose them. It’s the primary way backwards principles can still prevail in a modern world.

How can incentive be made to pick moderate judges? It’s what the US desperately needs, unless you want the ideological war to continue.

As for lifetime appointments, I suppose there is an argument for stability in the court versus being churned over every election cycle, but the thought of a conservative court with their heads up theirs asses does make me a bit nauseous. Corporations are people, freedom of religion is putting people under your big theist thumb, and other such bullshit.

luzribeiro

Susan Collins does not realize she has set women's rights back some 50 years. But that's hardly a surprise...

"People who expected Sen. Susan Collins, allegedly one of two remaining Republican moderates in the Senate, to save us from Brett Kavanaugh have not studied her record. The Maine senator has reduced the choreography of legislative head-fakes to a sublime art, in order to preserve her bogus reputation as an independent-minded centrist. When a contentious issue arises, Collins will elaborately explain that she hasn’t made up her mind yet. She needs to give the issue careful study. And then, wondrously, after very careful and well-advertised study, she almost always votes with Mitch McConnell. Funny how her research invariably leads to that conclusion."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-susan-collins-kavanaugh_us_5bba611ee4b028e1fe3e99e4

Spot on, that one. There's a reason McConnell knew he had the votes. All she did was drama, act like she was conflicted. She's a part of the beltway swamp. And btw, Flake did some drama of his own too. All they had to do was pretend they had a conscience. But it was temporary, just an act.

( Read more... )

asthfghl

“So how did our politics get so poisonous?” - Colbert

Well...

Stephen Colbert ‘Late Show’ writer: ‘I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life’

There you've got your answer. Or do you?...

What an awful, horrible tweet. Folks like these are doing a huge disservice to lots of moderate dems by providing ammo to their opponents to paint them all with the same brush. I think that the majority of them would be appalled by this. I understand they may have a different view of the whole Kavanaugh issue but most of them must be full of ideals, not hatred and spite. And attitude like the one displayed by this (now deleted) tweet doesn't help at all.

( Read more... )

fridi

Surprising in this day and age to find any contract between independent and client/employer that does not contain some resolution of conflict clause. I thought deciding on state and county of jurisdiction is almost assumed when signing up a new client. I wonder if any of the judges was asked why such a clause was absent in the agreement. An answer one way or another could go a long way in determining what both parties believed at the time of signing.

Supreme Court, missing a justice, considers a trucking case that could rattle the economy

- A closely watched case could saddle the industry with higher costs that could hit consumers and ripple throughout the economy.
- The case, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340, pits business interests against labor groups in the first major case of the term that could have consequences for hundreds of thousands of American workers and potentially millions of consumers.
- It comes amid a bruising confirmation battle for Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump nominated in July to succeed Anthony Kennedy, long considered the court's swing vote.

This may become a landmark case in employment law. I don't think Congress is likely to repeal the exemption for contracts of employment to the Federal Arbitration Act. It will be interesting how SCOTUS addresses the misclassification issue.

( Just an opinion )

luzribeiro

What a fallout, Re: the whole Kavanaugh thingy. I've been observing it with morbid fascination of some sorts, frankly. And I've been having yet another one of those "WTF, America!?" moments. Seriously.

First of all, is Brett Kavanaugh, like, the ONLY judge left in America? I mean, WTF? Why not just move on from this royally flawed time-bomb of a man and nominate someone who can actually cruise through the whole nomination process? The GOP has to die on THIS hill? Why!?

What amazes me that the more unhinged about these guys' supporters would genuinely believe Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant - but won't believe a sexual assault victim who passed a polygraph.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

Just as expected. He showed the temperament of a teenager. He was being interviewed for a position on the highest court in the land. Beyond the lies, and lack of credibility, he showed a lack of emotional control that is unacceptable for the position for which he is being considered. Not to mention he was screaming about Democrats like he was Trump or something. NOT acceptable behavior for that position. He proved to be arrogant, entitled to the max, disrespectful to senators.

Oh, and I almost forgot the "Renate Alumnius" thing where he tried to pretend he was doing a nice thing for this lady that clearly hates his guts (because him and his friends were implying she was a slut). Instead he acted all hurt and pretended it's because "they cared for her very much". What a shit show.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

Breaking: five accusers now. Two new ones, anonymous, just surfaced today. Five. And counting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Yea but they MUST all be liars... right?!?! I mean ask any Republican and they will tell you that all 5 of them are just making it up. Even though they don't actually know that. They also don't know Kavanaugh personally. They also weren't there. They also don't know any of the women personally. But just ask them and they will tell you... Fake News and dirty liars. All 5.

Here is Sarah Huckabee Sanders response, "Last I can remember we're still a country where you're innocent until proven guilty; except when you're a conservative Republican. It's absolutely shameful what the Democrats have done and the way they've turned this into a political process".

Pot, meet kettle, I suppose?

( But seriously. )

luzribeiro

Still in the celebration mood from his late-hour tax triumph, Turtleman had even more reason to jubilate, beside his 1,5 trillion dollar gift to the rich. There's actually another, far bigger move which he could call his crown achievement - as a matter of fact, he came short of doing just that in a recent Bloomberg interview:

McConnell Says Tax Overhaul Is His Second-Greatest Achievement

To translate his remarks, while tax reform is awesome for his gang, actually blocking Garland from getting a SCOTUS seat, with zero electoral cost to it, should actually count as Turtleman's biggest achievement so far. Why? Because it'll have deeper and longer-lasting consequences.

( This is not looking good at all, baby. )

oportet.livejournal.com

In any given American political debate - both parties are somewhat full of shit - but usually they at least try to hide the fact. But occasionally, the hypocrisy is so thick - covering it up is useless. Now is one of those times.

Republicans don't think a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his term, unless that President is Republican.

Democrats absolutely believe a President should be allowed to fill a vacant seat, as long as that President is a Democrat.

When the situation suits them, one party will cite the constitution, and the other will cite an unwritten rule.

With video evidence of almost every major political figure in the country arguing the exact opposite point they're arguing now when the roles were reversed - whether they are full of shit isn't really in question - but you have to wonder why neither side has the tact to present a better argument than 'they did it so we can do it too'.

I really don't know much about this Garland fella (I suppose I could google him but my ignorance will make the post seem more genuine - maybe I'll look into him more after I send this through).

He seems nice - obviously qualified - and gracious for the opportunity. Shame on both sides - those who refuse to even consider him given his service so far, and those who threw him into the spotlight as a political statement already knowing the outcome - apparently giving more of a shit about a line in the middle their legacy than the first paragraph of his.

Even though I know it isn't true, I'd like to at least be able to pretend I'm naive enough to think the Supreme Court is distinguished, somehow separated from and above all the day-to-day Republican vs. Democrat bullshit we pay attention to.

If you're on the right - would you rather take Obamas pick, or take your chance with Hillary or Trumps pick? If you're on the left - pretend you're on the right and answer the first question - or fast forward to maybe 4 or 8 years from now when the tables are turned and convince me you'll want to end the cycle of following unwritten rules over written ones.

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Is it true that the death of SCOTUS justice Scalia has immensely raised the stakes of the presidential campaign, and is about to make it literally about the future of all three branches of government?

I mean, the latest GOP presidential debate seemed to indicate this, as most candidates were very eager to make it clear that Obama should not be allowed to tip the balance of power of the SCOTUS by nominating a new justice, now less than a year before he goes out of office.

Obama is expected to ignore this and announce a nomination anyway, but a mainstream, moderate one rather than a liberal.

Speaking of the GOP debate, Trump's proneness to speak his mind may've backfired last night, as he refused to pander to the South Carolina GWB faithfuls, preferring to actually call W the liar that he is, and protest against conclusions from Rubio and Jeb that W had "kept America save" ("Hundreds of my friends died there! How is this safe!?") This earned him boos from the crowd, and cost him the upper hand in the debate eventually, as the pile-on from his rivals got him increasingly frustrated. Is Trump reaching the limit of his Teflon-ness, or was this just a temporary glitch that won't cost him too much in the long run? (Remember, he can still stand on 5th Ave and shoot somebody)...

Ps. Sorry about the tangent here, but couldn't miss mentioning this as well: seems like the religious community has finally found a golden opportunity to subtly troll back at Mr Atheist Douche, Richard Dawkins, now that he has suffered a minor stroke, and they've rallied behind the meme that they're gonna "pray for him" even if he probably doesn't deserve it. Well played, religious folks. The score has been equalized: Jesus Trolls 1, Atheist Douche 1, I guess.

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, found dead:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia was certainly one of the more polarizing figures on the Supreme Court. One of the most vocal defenders of originalist interpretation, the loss puts the ideological split on the court at a 4-4, and leaves an election year vacancy for Obama with a Republican Congress and two Senators running against each other in the primary.

Consider it an open thread, because there are just so many wrinkles to this breaking news.

mahnmut.livejournal.com

So, this time the Kenyan-in-chief has hit the nail on the head, because his decision to light the White House facade in the rainbow colors in celebration of the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, has got quite a few folks permanently situated at the wrong side of history reeling and rumbling, and waving their fists helpessly in the air and yelling at the clouds. Rainbow clouds, to be precise.

From ordinary bigots on the forums**, to more prominent political talking-heads*, lots of feathers have been ruffled, quite some foam has bubbled at the corners of some mouths, and lots of spittle has been tossed into Barack Hussein's general direction. And for a reason. This is a momentous change, and changes of this magnitude, as imminent as they might be, are bound to cause a shake-down. And I'm loving it. I'm loving the decision, the implications that it brings, and I'm particularly loving the head-assplosion that I'm witnessing on the right. Because these folks must be finally realizing that they've been wrong, and nobody likes being wrong.

( Did I hear you say citation needed? )

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

A ton of cases are set to be handed down in the next few days. Among the big ones:

* National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which involves the President's recess appointment powers and Congress's "pro-forma" sessions.

* American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, a fairly complicated case involving streaming of broadcast television over the internet (I am simplifying this significantly)

* Riley v. California, concerning police and cell phone searches.

* Harris v. Quinn, which concerns whether Medicaid recipients can have their home-care providers classed as public employees, thus pushing them into a union and collecting dues whether they join or not.

* Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores/Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, regarding the contraception mandate.

* McCullen v. Coakley, regarding free speech and abortion clinic "buffer zones."

I'm personally most interested in Hobby Lobby, Mccullen, and Harris, although the Aereo case, from the oral arguments, seems like a giant mess all around considering the lack of technological knowledge on the bench (although that could have changed since the case was argued).

Are you looking at any specific cases we're waiting on? Any new thoughts (or old) on what's coming up?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with scotus

Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed

This looks bad

The Person of Praise

Learn from your rival's mistakes, or else

Hypocrite much?

With the news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's fall... A few predictions.

Friday offtopic. Seen around the Webs

SCOTUS: the obvious problem

Susan the double-tongued

This looks bad

This is potentially huge

Hmmmm...

Kavanaugh hearing: no surprises

Kavanaugh

Well done, Turtleman

(no subject)

The stakes are getting higher

OPEN THREAD: R.I.P. Antonin Scalia

Looks like someone's got their knickers in a twist

Open Thread: SCOTUS Christmas 2014

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary