The U.S. Supreme Court

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

like, what important decisions has Thomas writte?

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, February 16, 2016

good question. if you mean main opinions, I can't think of any. seems to me his opinions are too radical (e.g., on stare decisis) for a majority to sign on to, so they end up as concurring opinions at most.

God I really assumed 'pack the court' was a basketball reference I mean that sounds like a good Obama move, he's 'packed the court' now the GOP are really up against it in these final plays, that Obama he's a smart guy he's got all the moves in his head, I'm quite disappointed that somebody could yknow just use a phrase as pleasing as 'pack the court' and literally mean nothing more than putting too many people into a room reserved for the purposes of hearing legal argument

it is a reference to a specific historical/political crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

http://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/his1005spring2011/files/2011/03/courtact.jpg

Yanksplainin' to dmac

lol

http://fee.org/media/12131/fourhorsemen-2.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&height=466&widthratio=2.0171673819742489270386266094&rnd=130875139150000000

:)

the Four Horsemen of Judicial Reaction

Republicans and conservative columnists are also vowing revenge for 2013, when Reid (during period Dems had control of the Senate) eventually invoked nuclear option to allow lower level judges and certain Exec branch appointees to be voted on by mere majority, rather than a filibuster-proof one. Republicans were blocking lots of nominees and this Reid move allowed a number of Obama appointees to finally get a vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-process-sure-to-be-an-epic-debate/2016/02/14/63cd2cd6-d32a-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

In 2013, when Democrats were in the Senate majority, they forced a controversial rules change, invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” to allow the approval of ­lower-court judges by a simple majority. Those changes did not apply to Supreme Court nominations, which can be filibustered, and are therefore subject to the higher 60-vote threshold. Republicans were furious about the 2013 changes, and that residual anger could be a huge obstacle for any Obama nominee.

@chrisgeidner
OMG! CNN just asked about "The Supremes" episode of The West Wing, and whether RBG might retire and both Dems and GOP would get a nominee.

‏@dick_nixon
That program is the worst influence I've ever seen. Every day we get letters from kids who think it's the truth.

Do members of the Supreme Court ever fly on the same plane?

ride tandem bicycles iirc

They use Air Force Nine, obv.

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/sites/motorcyclecruiser.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/header_images/1007_crup_01_oo%2Bharley-davidson_sidecar%2B.jpg?itok=IHf3K7fs

Josh Marshall on what Chuck Schumer actually said in 2007:

"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."

http://i.imgur.com/C7iWhr6.png

deep thoughts from a Corner-ite:

What if this year’s elections result in a Republican president — Ted Cruz, say — and a Democratic Senate? After the new Senate convenes, Obama would still have a couple of weeks left in his term, so he could nominate some extreme living-Constitutionalist, who would surely be confirmed. And when another vacancy came up and Cruz sent the Senate a nominee, they could say, “Drop dead! You wouldn’t consider Obama’s nominee, so we won’t consider yours.”

republicans could still filibuster

I will be pleasantly surprised if they don't -- I'm not convinced the political fallout for them would be all that high, but maybe I'm underestimating voters. Republicans know what's at stake, and they don't pay much mind to civility, consistency, bipartisanship etc. anymore.

Cruz will def filibuster

yeah I'm not persuaded that filibustering hurts the GOP.

Majorities don't filibuster.

under the hypothetical circumstances we're discussing the dems have won the senate

I got that that was where you were coming from, but folks seemed to be drifting afterwards...

I hate the guy, but that'd be a helluva note for Harry Reid to go out on.

i have not been paying attention, is it remotely possible that dems will win the senate this election?

definitely possible if a presidential victory leads to any sort of wave election. it's the 2010 seats that are up this year which are mostly republicans who themselves rode in on 2010 midterm R-wave.

Yeah Dems can take the Senate, looking likely imo

the House, not so much