The U.S. Supreme Court

yea fuck that

yeah, agreed, c'mon, man. Don't treat her like Harriet Miers.

also i know bald hypocrisy is just SOP so i don't even know why im asking but are there any recent interviews in which someone simply asks one of these republicans "if this was a republican president would you still be saying we need to wait until after the election?" just curious

This theoretical Republican would respond, "Ask Chuck Schumer in 2007."

rand paul has thoughts:

Paul suggested to Kentucky radio host Leland Conway that because there are cases challenging policies of the Obama administration, including lawsuits targeting his clean power plan and executive actions on immigration, the President should not be able to choose a nominee.

The senator said that the Supreme Court reviews cases that are "trying to figure out who has the power to do what."

i'm trying to imagine an alternate reality where rand paul becomes the president, a supreme court justice dies, and then paul explains to a weary nation that he can't replace the justice because there is a conflict of interest, explaining that these cases are "trying to figure out who has the power to do what" as his legal advisers (who are paid actors) nod in the background

obama should just wait until the supreme court has no cases where they try to figure out who has the power to do what

would love it if a journalist asked a supreme court judge what they thought of the current situation

here:

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/3573699/alito-not-true-o.gif

I would assume every President Paul press conference would include some phrase like "Well, the Constitution doesn't saying anything about the EPA, so we're just going to have to figure out who has the power to do what."

"It would be an obvious conflict for me to appoint myself to the court, but I have gotten the cell numbers of the existing justices so that I can ring them up if ever I have a question for them. I think best at 3am".

Handy history of Senate votes for most recent Supreme Court nominees.

Antonin Scalia (1986): 98-0
Anthony Kennedy (1987): 97-0
Clarence Thomas (1991): 52-48
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993): 96-3
Stephen Breyer (1994): 87-9
John Roberts (2005): 78-22, 20 of 42 Democrats in favor
Samuel Alito (2005): 58-42, 4 of 45 Democrats in favor
Sonia Sotomayor (2009): 68-31, 9 of 40 Republicans in favor
Elena Kagan (2010): 63-37, 5 of 40 Republicans in favor

the Anita Hill thing is another example of 'clever' online liberals deserving a hatchet to the skull

also

David Souter (1990): 90-9

xp

after Anita Hill got that Saturday morning call on her office phone from "Ginny" Thomas, I would be terrified of leaving my state if I were she.

Maybe they should just nominate a pubic hair on a coke can ha ha

should've mentioned the elevation of Rehnquist to chief justice: 65 to 33

FWIW Thomas gets a way disproportionate amount of shit to Roberts and Alito. I have a theory about liberals having designated hateable minority figures/women to take all their repressed animus out on.

"Do tell."

http://theposhreportonline.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/clarence_thomas_102210-thumb-640xauto-1377.jpg

White House, January 22, 2017

"I'm afraid that must recuse myself from this daily intelligence briefing. you see, as President of the United States, *glancing eyes at the far side of the table, quiet mumbling* I clearly have decision-making authority *knowing nods from the paid actor legal advice team* and THEREFORE a conflict of interest *a slow clap begins, spreading like wildfire down the briefing table* or INDEED, my interests are in conflict, from this day on *uproarious applause, rand paul is now being carried out of the room on the shoulders of actors impersonating the secret service* i shall never attend any meeting where i have decision-making authority *the ritual candles are lit, the blood of the sacrificed goat is cold and thick* and i request that no other person with decision-making authority consult me on any briefings *new chords become possible; the dead rise* due to inherent conflicts of interest."

FWIW Thomas gets a way disproportionate amount of shit to Roberts and Alito. I have a theory about liberals having designated hateable minority figures/women to take all their repressed animus out on.

To be fair he is both objectively worse than those two and by all accounts a complete pig to boot (and been around longer and thus had given more reason to be hated). I'm not sure he got more shit than Scalia either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

i would never rule out race as a factor in, well, basically anything that happens in america. but nonetheless, he is very very hateable.

i also 100% expect alito to step proudly into the most-hated spotlight without scalia around. somebody's got to write all the most dickish, vile opinions, and thomas is not that guy. rather he's the guy who (imo obnoxiously) felt the need to distance himself from scalia's lawrence ruling with his dumb two-paragraph thing about how he thought it was a stupid law but it wasn't his job to strike down stupid laws. alito OTOH took the wheel for the obergefell dissent with some ridiculous sky-is-falling crap couched in a scalia-esque jurisprudence that gets conservative law students nodding their heads thoughtfully. we can look forward to him doing the same for another 15-20 years easy.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, said conservatives are still mourning Scalia. But, she added, “if the president tries to pack the court, as it is apparent he may, then JCN will be leading the charge to delay a Senate vote until the American people decide the next president.”

god the totally ahistorical nonsense - and this is from a lawyer

pack the court

“if the president tries to pack the court,

Hadn't even thought of that. Maybe Obama should consider nominating three or four liberal justices to take Scalia's place.

I took that to mean that Obama is going to force the remaining judges into a small suitcase that Michelle will need to sit on in order to close the latch

Obama's going to stuff them in a picnic basket and eat them for lunch

But, she added, “if the president tries to sew the court's assholes closed, and keep feeding them, and feeding them, and feeding them, as it is apparent he may, then JCN will be leading the charge to delay a Senate vote until the American people decide the next president.”

“if the president tries to pack the court exercise his constitutional powers, as it is apparent he may, then JCN will be leading the charge to delay a Senate vote

Unutterably stupid remarks from a political operative with a law degree shocker!

As we all remember, a switch in bait saves eight, or something.

hey c'mon y'all, this person is the chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, i think she probably knows a little more about how seriously our judiciary is in crisis than you do

the Anita Hill thing is another example of 'clever' online liberals deserving a hatchet to the skull
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:35 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed on this. it’s horribly patronizing to hill, for one thing.

What does it matter if one horribly patronizes a reluctant and private person who finds the limelight painful, if one can score an empty-headed, but slightly amusing point that will be bandied about by 100,000 people and then quickly forgotten?

i'm sure when the person who posted that anita hill returns, he'll hedge and say it was just a joke, he didn't mean it

are you guys figuring out how the internet works

not quite, Rome wasn't trolled in a day

lol

orrin hatch was on npr trying to defend his indefensible position and when cornered he busted out ROBERT BORK as the original sin of democrats on getting any supreme court nominee confirmed.

the circlejerk of NPR News over Scalia's corpse was sickening even by their low standards

GREENE: Why not let the process play out? Instead of sort of assuming who you know will be nominated, let President Obama name someone, and then you, in committee, will be able to hold those hearings. And, you know, you're a very respected voice. You'll be able to listen to the nominee and express your opinion and let the process go forward.

HATCH: Well, that could happen. I doubt it. Because, you know, President Obama and the Senate Democrats, they don't have any room to complain about Republican hesitancy to confirm a nominee this year. After all, they politicized the confirmation process starting with the politics of personal destruction, as they used without compunction against Robert Bork, one of the greatest legal minds that this country's ever had, and Clarence Thomas. They tried to destroy Clarence Thomas. Fortunately, he was able to get on the court and is now writing some of the most important decisions.

Robert Bork, one of the greatest legal minds that this country's ever had...and Clarence Thomas

Robert Bork was a fucking troll who even looked like a troll and performed like a bumbling idiot during his confirmation hearings.

they're still really pissed about him aren't they

Robert Bork courageously fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on behalf of Richard Nixon, when his spineless boss, Attorney General Richardson, caved in and resigned rather than do as he was told. This, more than anything else, marked him out as a man on the rise, a man you could count on when the chips were down because he put principles ahead of expediency.

They tried to destroy Clarence Thomas. Fortunately, he was able to get on the court and is now writing some of the most important decisions.

this is baldly untrue, no?

like, what important decisions has Thomas writte?

Bork said that Richardson, etc insisted he stay as acting attorney general or the Justice Department would fall apart.

I mean, I don't know the whole truth. His role as public scold and GOP martyr for the next thirty years was worse.

Here's a clip of Richardson testifying on his behalf:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?10187-1/bork-nomination-day-11-part-2

File also under "Interesting details in wikipedia articles" and "Hoist on one's own petard"

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.[31] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.[32]

btw Bork's confirmation hearings are good TV: the last time a SCOTUS nominee gave full answers about his jurisprudence.

Grassley already backtracking: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/politics/senator-charles-grassley-hearings-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0