U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch

Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

that actress looks like Ginny!

that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit

I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino

right?

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Supreme-Court-upholds-same-sex-adoptions-6875630.php

that is the same story that DJP linked, no?

ah sorry

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-five-judges-the-white-house-is-considering-for-the-supreme-court/2016/03/06/2e785858-e0a4-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

One of my wife's classmates from undergrad (Ketanji Brown Jackson) made the shortlist.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by an anti-Muslim group who wanted to post ads on buses in Washington state showing photos of wanted terrorists

the Scalia Effect in full effect

hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward

were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?

I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man

*crumples sketch, fumes*

(xpost)

The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.

(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).

It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-pinata-scotus-nom

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata."

"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.

When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."

"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.

I urge President Obama to nominate a properly-decorated, sufficiently brightly-colored, amply candy-filled judge.

http://pinataboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/155-682x1024.jpg

that's a vulture. Would Cornyn-shaped maggots ooze out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isye5-k6P8I

Encouraging:

For Democrats, the Supreme Court fight is “a godsend,” asserted one senior Democratic aide. Senate Democrats aren’t talking about the Iran nuclear deal they greenlighted, or the controversial trade agreement they authorized the president to negotiate. The challenges facing the U.S. economy or growing budget deficit? Off the radar.

For Senate Democrats at this moment, it’s all about the Supreme Court vacancy — and why Republicans claim they should be able to keep open the seat that Scalia once held, for at least another year.

“The Republican Committee members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide that this committee — and the Senate as a whole — will simply refuse to consider a Supreme Court nominee this year,” the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), said at a panel hearing Wednesday. “This is not only a dereliction of our constitutional duty, but also denies the American people the chance to participate in the public consideration of the nominee.”

Senior Senate Democrats are holding daily calls with White House officials to coordinate their message, according to Democratic staffers. Two former top White House aides, Stephanie Cutter and Katie Fallon, have been working with outside groups as they try to hammer Republicans.

oh well:

But those familiar with the thinking of White House officials said Obama is disinclined to name an outspoken progressive as a probable sacrificial lamb. Instead, they said, the White House thinks it may be able to apply the greatest pressure on resistant Republican senators by choosing a highly qualified federal judge regarded as moderate and non-ideological.

Even one of the moderate candidates, administration officials think, could significantly shift the balance of the court after Scalia, the outspoken anchor of the court’s conservative wing for three decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-five-judges-the-white-house-is-considering-for-the-supreme-court/2016/03/06/2e785858-e0a4-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

lol that is totally predictable. why sacrifice somebody. and a swing voter is still better than hardcore ideologue. Since no one's gonna be confirmed anyway it makes sense to just play the politics angle of it, make it as difficult/embarassing/costly for the GOP as possible.

has something changed on that link since I posted it 2 days ago?

Ha, I thought the Post did do an update but couldn't find the link. I think they have narrowed the picks even more. Posted that bit from it for those who didn't read the link, and didn't see what the White House approach is on this.

Even one of the moderate candidates, administration officials think, could significantly shift the balance of the court after Scalia

here is how soft I've gotten: a moderate's fine with me, I actually don't want Obama to nominate some heavy progressive who'll give ammo to the GOP. just pick somebody who'll reopen the clinics and I'm cool

What nominee of Obama's, whatever their ideological stance, WON'T infuriate the GOP?

curious as to how the GOP doing what they have successfully been doing for 8 years going to suddenly work against them

Senate has not been v successful fyi

Now that they've announced their position, the less that Senate republicans say about it, the better off they'll be. The more the democrats can goad them into defending themselves, the better off the democrats will be.

If the nominee appears as someone who should be perfectly acceptable to both sides, then voters in the mushy middle, when forced to think about it, will become angry at Republican intransigence. The only voters who'll agree with this stonewall nonsense are voters who already hate Obama and are beyond reach.

Voters are already mad at gop about this, including yr mushy middle independents

A majority of those surveyed — 54 percent — said they believed Obama would nominate a liberal justice and that his pick would tip the balance of the Supreme Court. And nearly 56 percent said justices should follow the original intent of the Constitution, in the mold of Scalia.

"Our findings show that a majority of U.S. voters share the concerns of the GOP in regard to tipping the ideological balance of the Court and the need for the next Justice to strictly interpret the Constitution," the memo reads.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/senate-supreme-court-scalia-220552

"The survey found almost unanimous awareness of the death of Justice Scalia"

Wait, who the fuck did they ask?

Strimple found that 54 percent of those surveyed were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia

It does seem like a high number...

Cornyn, like the vast majority of his 54-member conference

... they just asked senators, didn't they?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/antonin_scalia_s_death_has_changed_the_way_the_supreme_court_and_conservative.html

Reuters reported Friday that President Barack Obama has selected three top candidates to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

According to Reuters, Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

from the Slate article:

In an incredibly short time frame we have seen, for instance, a major antitrust appeal from Dow Chemical settled for $835 million last month, when the company determined that it wasn’t worth the risk to spin the wheel at a 4–4 court. Having only last month granted a completely unprecedented stay in a challenge to President Obama’s new environmental regulations—before the case had even been adjudicated in a lower court—Roberts batted away a similar request challenging a different pollution regulation without comment last week. Not here, he seemed to be cautioning Michigan and the other states that wanted to challenge the law. Not anymore.

Consider, too, that in New York this week a key gun rights group opted to drop its challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s SAFE Act—the big post–Sandy Hook gun control initiative—out of a concern that it could not prevail at the high court without Scalia on the bench. According to the New York Daily News, a National Rifle Association board member explained that the challenge had been halted en route to the court because “it’s just the wrong time.” His lawyers advised that “going forward could damage the case because the High Court at the very least would likely deliver a split 4-4 decision that would leave the law in place.”

Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP.

I want Sri to get the nod so I can hear senators try to pronounce 'Srinivasan' during the hearing

and their undoubtedly ridiculous questions about hinduism

"Where were you on Christmas Day?"

I'd give him points if he recycled Kagan's answer.

i guess i'm in the tank for watford, though he seems the least likely of the final three

"again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP."

Srinivasan sure, not so sure the other two fit that mode.

once again - are SCOTUS justices SUPPOSED to be feminist activist heroes in their actual role? part of being a justice involves issuing rulings you don't necessarily agree with due to precedence/interpretation of law.

Is it?

I no longer think so. If the GOP nominates outright partisans, so should we.

Jurisrashness

If a belief in "originalism" affirms white male power before 1865, then we should make clear what "we" believe in.

Biden thinks a Dem partisan rules 'shoot him in the leg'

are SCOTUS justices SUPPOSED to be feminist activist heroes in their actual role?

SCOTUS justices are supposed to nullify or modify laws which infringe upon the valid rights of citizens. This is not activism, but duty.

Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years https://t.co/QIynBWPZkh pic.twitter.com/T7iQXBwzVm

— Reuters (@Reuters) September 25, 2020

wouldn't this require an amendment?

i suppose it's more an attempt to introduce the idea that they're willing to fight back, which i endorse

otm

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

cool, so this would only affect justices chosen by future Dem presidents. Problem solved!

i mean 'ex post facto' laws are barred via the Constitution, so any reform going forward is going to run into that

i don't think ex post facto clause would apply to this but the article said it exempts current justices from the term limit

its a good idea and it should have been implemented decades ago. the fact that the future of our country was staked on the health of a cancer-ridden 86 year old is insane

It's crazy that there should be lifetime appointments for a living, evolving thing that affects so many, like the law. It would be like lifetime doctor appointments at a hospital.

that Madison, he keeps on givin'

ex post facto is a principal typically applying to criminal law stating that you can't punish someone for something that wasn't a crime when they committed the act. I don't think it has any bearing on SCOTUS term limits.

It's honestly sort of incredible, considering how much power they hold, that no one has ever gone full Pelican Brief.

Here's a good explainer about one possible version of the term limit proposal (which IDK if the current bill is based on) that would arguably not require an amendment
https://fixthecourt.com/2019/11/myth-facts-scotus-term-limits/

sure do wish someone would have had this idea more than 18 years ago

I kind of agree with Alfred way upthread that we should probably start a new thread soon. Whatever you think of RBG, the post-RBG era deserves its own thread title, for obvious reasons no matter what happens over the next few months.

― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Monday, September 21, 2020 10:45 PM

Alfred & El Tomboto otm

Done.

U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsberg Edition