U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Totally sounds like something Joe Biden would do

just because Joe Biden is a fucking idiot I have to pretend aimless is right?

Biden could nominate and the Senate could confirm a new SCOTUS Justice *without* an announced retirement, and just stockpile it until a vacancy arose.

I can recall SCOTUS confirmations going back to the withdrawal of the Abe Fortas nomination during the LBJ administration. I cannot recall a Senate-confirmed justice ever being "stockpiled" just in case a sitting justice ever felt like resigning. If this is so common as all that, perhaps Matt Glassman might have cited some recent examples.

the stockpiling scenario is an observation about how the rules are written, not a suggestion. conditional retirement is the thing he's saying is common.

in any case your post rests on a procedural assumption that is not true, and the reality is the tautological argument for not doing this is "Sotomayor and Biden would not do it".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKmLwV-WMAEbo33?format=jpg&name=large

Can you condition your retirement on your replacement being picked by the current President?

Or withdraw your retirement if the wrong guy wins the Presidency?
Maybe. But these are not things Washington people do.

i'm not saying Biden and the democratic majority would *actually* do something that might appear gauche to like 4 columnists (3 NYT, 1 WaPo). I'm just saying they *should*, and the excuse aimless gives for their inaction is bs.

President Keyes is putting his finger on some excellent questions. I'll step aside and see if there are any good answers before offering any of the further questions I have in mind.

🙄

That Matt Glassman tweet is responding to an argument that Senators like Manchin and Sinema might not play ball by proposing an idea that they absolutely would reject.

manchin sure. sinema maybe not. the cost of putting her on the spot is not high unless you care a lot about what oped columnists who have no object permanence think of your ethics.

Yeah, that’s what I mean. The people making these decisions do care about that stuff.

Recent precedent also suggests that a sitting Justice can be threatened, persuaded or coerced into sudden retirement if the party establishment is sick and tired enough of him bucking the party line on key issues, and if the current president is familiar and comfortable with mob tactics, in a “favor for a favor” sort of way, if you will.

I'll step aside and see if there are any good answers before offering any of the further questions I have in mind.

You sure the president will nominate your successor?

Can't say. I'm not sure anyone else would want to put up with the snide comments.

Never mind. I'm convinced now. Nate brought the Maths.

Yes, Sotomayor should retire. Not a remotely close call if you want to avoid a 7-2 conservative majority. I work through some of the math here.https://t.co/SVRdt8MSVY

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 8, 2024

Another question is how moderate Democrats — particularly Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, who is also retiring — would feel about replacing a Supreme Court justice in an election year. But Republicans just did exactly that with Barrett. Manchin and Sinema, meanwhile, have generally been loyal to Biden on court appointments, both having voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance. And if need be, Sotomayor could make her retirement contingent on the confirmation of a suitable replacement.

What an argument. "Suitable" not doing a lot of unclear work there.

just want to point out for future historians, who may very well be civility mongers so favored by our current rulers, that aimless’s first stumbling into this discussion was to defend sotomayor’s right as a public servant to personal self-determination against “political calculation”, then after a bit of googling pivoted to political calculation of his own.

I mistakenly glanced at Silver's comments section.

What happened to Five Thirty Eight?

What happened to Five Thirty Eight?

Silver sold it to become a full-time Twitter crank, and ABC News assimilated it.

future historians will be able to consult the source material on their own and decide how to characterize it, but no doubt they will appreciate the courtesy

cmon man you completely outed yourself with that humiliating post

should decide it on her own terms or whatever lol

At least alfred caught the joke. I see it flew right by you.

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

"future historians" *snort*

Let future historians wonder how ilx reacted when you broke its heart

how do u mend
a broken thread

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/12/billionaire-leonard-leo-rejects-senate-subpoena-supreme-court-gifts?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=edit_2221&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1712920683

The big-money rightwing donor Leonard Leo said he would not comply with a subpoena issued by the US Senate judiciary committee, as it investigates undisclosed gifts to conservative supreme court justices that have stoked an ethics crisis at a court already held in historically low public esteem...
Referring to Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the committee, Leo said: “I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [a Democrat from Rhode Island] and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition.”
Progressive groups welcomed the Leo subpoena but protested the lack of one for Crow.“The entire country has been waiting too long for Durbin to take action, and subpoenaing Leonard Leo without simultaneously subpoenaing Harlan Crow is a half-baked attempt at doing his job as judiciary chair.”

Interesting use of the word "lawless" there

hot dog will holler etc

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0uKpWS1-fiVZNc4GetsybEZRYxkg-jDqWXg&s

^ lawless

I met Johnny Cochran at a wedding in Florida a few years before he died. He was charming and funny. I asked him point blank if he thought OJ did it.

He laughed and said, "I can tell you are a smart man. You don't even need to ask me that question!" Then he winked and laughed and that was that.

ah wait that was for the OJ thread lol

It's all good. Was Breyer there too?

x-post-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/11/leonard-leo-subpoena-senate-supreme-court-gifts/

The committee did not respond when asked for comment on why only Leo received a subpoena. And when asked why so much time elapsed between the vote and Leo’s subpoena being sent, Durbin’s office declined to expand on his original statement.
...With Leo’s refusal, Democrats would be forced to hold a Senate vote if they wanted to seek enforcement of the subpoena in court — a nearly impossible task in a narrowly split chamber with 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-misses-supreme-court-arguments-rcna147826

🤞🏻

Please die mister Thomas

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24080080/supreme-court-mckesson-doe-first-amendment-protest-black-lives-matter

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

That seems illegal

Thomas is just out for a few days receiving a transplant of vital organs from his clone in Clonus.

i changed his wiki page to say he was deceased today.

it only stayed up 4 minutes ;_;

Maybe he has one of his law clerks assigned to monitor his wiki page for just such contingencies.

Hey guys, I saw on Wikipedia today that Clarence Thomas was DEAD! But then a few minutes later it was gone! Cover-up!

Deep State imo

Derp State

x-post = That Supreme Court majority action to leave in place for now the McKesson 1st Amendment ruling is ridiculous because it comes from the extreme crazy 5th Circuit. As the Vox article explains:

Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South.

For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016.

The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock.

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder"