RIP RBG and possibly the American Justice system

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So what were you referring to?

The wikipedia entry (which, of course, is not comprehensive but hits some of the high points) was posted literally one post after yours (and before all your others).

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - RIP RBG and possibly the American Justice system

SI

[Radii]

Democrats Raise $100 Million in Court Fight, Republicans Mum

ActBlue, a key fundraising platform for the left including Joe Biden’s campaign against President Donald Trump, took in more than $103 million between the announcement of Ginsburg’s death and just after noon Sunday. Using ActBlue, donors earmark money for Democratic candidates and causes they want to support.

After the initial sadness at her death, and the followup despair of what the GOP will certainly be trying to do next, making donations aimed at helping fight the GOP Senate Majority was the next thought I had as to a thing I could actually do that has a prayer of a chance at actually making a difference. Guess that thought process has ended up being pretty darn common.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, Catholicism. One of the oldest, largest, and most well known religions in the world is a fringe church?

(I guess that makes my denomination of 70-odd million, which was founded a mere 500 years ago when a guy nailed 95 complaints to their door, a tiny cult)

SI

Er ... your denomination actually is a cult. And BTW, you guys are missing several books from the real & original Bible but admittedly there was a lot of abuse re: indulgences.

(But that's for another thread)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Er ... your denomination actually is a cult. And BTW, you guys are missing several books from the real & original Bible but admittedly there was a lot of abuse re: indulgences.

(But that's for another thread)

I like to think of us as a fraternity (and sorority) of complainers

SI

[ISiddiqui]

We are the best complainers though (is it because we know we have grace in case we complain too much?). Complain boldly!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Noop]

I feel like democrats need to go ahead and pack the court. Republicans seem hell bent and doing whatever it takes to "win." Democrats continue to hold on to the idea of being fair. Fairness is dead. Civility is dead. These people will complain no matter what.

Give them something to really complain about. Pack the Court.

[BillyMadison]

Already division amongst the Dems on SCOTUS plan going forward. Senator Dick Durbin of IL who sits on the Judiciary Committee basically just basically said on Illinois' statewide NPR show that Dems shouldn't even think about packing the courts or any constitutional changes to SCOTUS.

All I know is that Dems better figure out how to be lock-stepped because you know the Republicans will and if there is division within the Dems on SCOTUS plans they/we are fucking doomed.

[JPhillips]

If Dems aren't willing to confront the anti-majoritarian elements of our system, they can't accomplish anything. The Dem leadership isn't prepared for this moment. They're surrendering before there's even a nominee.

[Warhammer]

Reading all of these posts cracks me up. Republicans have said for years Dems don't play fair. Dems say Republicans don't play fair.

Call a spade, a spade, they are politicians and in their play for power they will use whatever they feel they can get away with to either grow or consolidate their power. Why are we surprised?

[Butter]

Thank God Captain Both Sides is here, don't know what we'd do without you.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I like to think of us as a fraternity (and sorority) of complainers

SI

Monty Python's take, it comes down to:

"... 400 years later, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas"

https://youtu.be/nr1rtz20g94

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Butter

Thank God Captain Both Sides is here, don't know what we'd do without you.

Hey, calling it as I see it. As I get older and more jaded, neither side is looking out for people, only themselves for power. Its why I advocate looking out for yourself first and foremost rather than relying on the government to handle things.

[ISiddiqui]

For the life of me, I can't get the 'both sides' stuff when the people who are the heads of the Democratic Party - Biden, Durban, etc. are saying let's slow down on this court packing thing. You know that Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren are the Senate Majority Leader? And that AOC isn't the Speaker of the House? And the people on the left can't stand Schumer or Pelosi?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Hey, calling it as I see it. As I get older and more jaded, neither side is looking out for people, only themselves for power. Its why I advocate looking out for yourself first and foremost rather than relying on the government to handle things.

If you're interested in protecting the Constitution, there's one party that has used it as toilet paper in the last 4 years, but I'm sure you don't see it that way because "both sides".

[albionmoonlight]

NEVER underestimate the power of Democrats to misplay something horribly and turn public opinion against them.

But the early polling is showing that this issue might be at least . . . more complicated than we thought for the GOP

Look, we'll see how this ultimately plays, but folks who thought a Supreme Court vacancy would be a good thing for the GOP in the election... are not seeing polls vindicate that point of view.

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) September 21, 2020

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I also wonder if the closer you get to an election polling about anything just becomes a proxy for the candidate you were going to vote for anyway.

You could make up a country, say that Trump is in favor of expanding trade with it, and Biden is against it, and you'd have 90% of Republicans in favor of expanding trade and 90% of Democrats against expanding trade.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

I also wonder if the closer you get to an election polling about anything just becomes a proxy for the candidate you were going to vote for anyway.

This.

You could make up a country, say that Trump is in favor of expanding trade with it, and Biden is against it, and you'd have 90% of Republicans in favor of expanding trade and 90% of Democrats against expanding trade.

Only 90???

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

Already division amongst the Dems on SCOTUS plan going forward. Senator Dick Durbin of IL who sits on the Judiciary Committee basically just basically said on Illinois' statewide NPR show that Dems shouldn't even think about packing the courts or any constitutional changes to SCOTUS.

All I know is that Dems better figure out how to be lock-stepped because you know the Republicans will and if there is division within the Dems on SCOTUS plans they/we are fucking doomed.

Quick drive-by to point out that the number of SCOTUS justices is a matter of federal law and not the Constitution. Justice tenure (good behavior/life), however, is a Constitutional condition.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

Already division amongst the Dems on SCOTUS plan going forward. Senator Dick Durbin of IL who sits on the Judiciary Committee basically just basically said on Illinois' statewide NPR show that Dems shouldn't even think about packing the courts or any constitutional changes to SCOTUS.

All I know is that Dems better figure out how to be lock-stepped because you know the Republicans will and if there is division within the Dems on SCOTUS plans they/we are fucking doomed.

Most Democrats want to just dress up and play Senator on TV. That is why they always lose.

[JPhillips]

With Gardner, it looks like McConnell has the votes.

And Dems seem committed to not retaliating.

edit: Dems are going to spend way too much time attacking Coney for her religious views, which will backfire. They shouldn't even engage and just say the nomination is illegitimate. But that would require them to commit to expanding the courts, and well...

[ISiddiqui]

A lot of chatter that Lagoa may be climbing in the horse race for the nomination, since she's a Latina from Florida and Trump may not be able to resist.

[Ben E Lou]

#TeamLagoa

Cause I ain’t ready to have anyone on the Supreme Court who is younger than I.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

#TeamLagoa

Cause I ain’t ready to have anyone on the Supreme Court who is younger than I.

Is this like the "Is there an MLB player older than I am" game? Sadly, I think Bartolo was the last one.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With Gardner, it looks like McConnell has the votes.

As soon as GOP senators started coming out saying that we should wait, you knew that they already had 51 in the bag behind the scenes.

[Edward64]

Am also reading that McConnell has the votes. This fight will be interesting to see what the Dems do but ultimately I think Trump is going to get his third pick in.

Not quite an Oct surprise/opportunity but if he goes Lagoa, can definitely see that helping him in FL.

Politics aside, this process makes me think about how special SCOTUS is. Such a select group that can make these very important decision that can shape/steer/nudge the US in one direction or another. To be under serious consideration or the nominee must be the highlight of one's career (if only the rest of us were so lucky in ours).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With Gardner, it looks like McConnell has the votes.

And Dems seem committed to not retaliating.

edit: Dems are going to spend way too much time attacking Coney for her religious views, which will backfire. They shouldn't even engage and just say the nomination is illegitimate. But that would require them to commit to expanding the courts, and well...

How exactly do you expect Dems to retaliate?

[albionmoonlight]

I think that the play here is for Biden to keep talking in terms of "I'm not going to make threats. I'm going to ask my colleagues and friends in the Senate to do the right thing." Continue to be the adult in the room. Continue to talk about confirming someone as a moral failing and he has faith that his friends can do better. If you threaten, then it becomes bothsides. If you simply say "the escalation should stop now for the good of the country," then you keep moral high ground.

Biden also need to make this about the ACA. The battle lines are already drawn on the question of whether the government has the power to force you to get an abortion or whether the Constitution protects reproductive freedom. You aren't really going to change minds on that question.

But if you make this about the 5th vote to take away protections for pre-existing conditions, you get the discussion back to Democrat-friendly topics like health care, the economy, whether people who get coronavirus complications should have access to health insurance, etc.

[Edward64]

I like this approach but can see where it could hurt some of the more radical left (but who else do they have to vote for) who want a more vocal fight.

[JPhillips]

I can live with Biden saying he isn't going to talk about that now, but I can't accept surrendering the court. If the Dems refuse to deal with the obstacles to majority rule, they'll fail to accomplish anything, which will lead to losses in 22 and 24, and we'll be dealing with someone who is as authritarian as Trump, but is also smart and a hard worker.

They don't get a do over if cooperation doesn't work. The courts are going to strike down legislation and I bet they're going to fuck with redistricting and the census to lock in GOP gerrymandering for another decade. The Senate is on track to have 50% of the population represented by 16 Senators by as early as 2030. Refusing to be radical in regards to anti-democratic elements of the system can't be the startegy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How exactly do you expect Dems to retaliate?

Expand the courts. Eliminate the filibuster. Add states. Pass a new VRA. Work on an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. Commit to restoring democracy and majority rule.

Pining for the days of Tip and Ronnie sharing drinks isn't going to work.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree.

If the GOP crams through a nominee and if the Dems win the House, Senate, and WH, then the Dems should start to play by McConnell rules. DC and Puerto Rico statehood for sure. Maybe an East Puerto Rico and a West Puerto Rico. Each state would still be significantly bigger than Wyoming. Maybe see about breaking California into two or three states.

Pack SCOTUS. Strip the Court of jurisdiction over certain cases.

Pack the federal circuit and district benches, too.

BUT, before the election, take the high ground.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree.


...Strip the Court of jurisdiction over certain cases.

What do you mean by this? Which cases should be out of the Court's jurisdiction?

[NobodyHere]

I definitely think we should give DC statehood (or attach them to a neighboring state or something).

But for Puerto Rico, I need to be more convinced that they want statehood. I'm not for making them a state just to give the finger to Trump.

Kind of the same thing with Californians. Do they want to be divorced from Sacramento?

[BillyMadison]

According to polls released today, Jaime Harrison is within 1 point of Lindsey Graham. Did anyone see a scared Lindsey Graham on Fox News last night squirm and look terrified and beg for donations? Sadly he'll get about 100 million worth of free ads as the Judiciary Committee chair in the run up to the election but hopefully everyone sees through his hypocrisy and Jaime takes it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What do you mean by this? Which cases should be out of the Court's jurisdiction?

I don't know what albion would want to strip, but I wanted to just note that jurisdiction stripping has a tradition in the US - though the Court can also decide when the stripping is unconstitutional (so it's a dance):

Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia

[Jas_lov]

Won't DC statehood be challenged in the courts and go up to the Supreme Court? They can just strike down anything they don't like and there's nothing Roberts can do.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Won't DC statehood be challenged in the courts and go up to the Supreme Court? They can just strike down anything they don't like and there's nothing Roberts can do.

It depends on how they do statehood. Congress has the power and authority to define how large the 'federal district' is (it has in the past). So it could just shrink the federal district to the Mall area and then the rest can be a state.

Even though folks like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito were appointed by conservatives I don't think they'll just nakedly rule against that based on past precedent. Remember Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both ruled on the 'liberal' side in certain cases (Gorsuch famously so).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Won't DC statehood be challenged in the courts and go up to the Supreme Court? They can just strike down anything they don't like and there's nothing Roberts can do.

The text of the 23rd Amendment does not forbid it.

The spirit of the 23rd Amendment does.

So a lot depends on how committed Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and New Justice X are to textualism, and how much they are committed to GOP-always-wins-ism.

Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are textualists who will also like the result, so I see them allowing it.

And Alito will vote for the GOP.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

But for Puerto Rico, I need to be more convinced that they want statehood.

I have no strong opinion on PR statehood but looked up the history.

2020 Puerto Rican status referendum - Wikipedia

A referendum of the status of Puerto Rico is set to be held on November 3, 2020, concurrently with the gubernatorial and other elections. It was announced by Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced on May 16, 2020. This will be the sixth referendum held on the status of Puerto Rico, with the previous one having taken place in 2017. This will be the first referendum with a simple yes-or-no question, with voters having the option of voting for or against becoming a U.S. state. The New Progressive Party (PNP), of whom Vázquez is a member, supports statehood, while the opposition Popular Democratic Party (PDP) is against.

The referendum will be non-binding, as the power to grant statehood lies with the United States Congress. The referendum was not approved by the United States Department of Justice. The party platforms of both the Republican Party and Democratic Party continue to affirm Puerto Ricans' right to self-determination and be admitted as a state, as both have for decades, at least in theory, though individual Republican legislators have been more skeptical.

According to Senate Bill 1467, which placed the referendum on the ballot, voting "No" on the referendum would mean that a seven-member commission would be appointed to negotiate with the federal government for the free association or independence of Puerto Rico.[1][2]

Apparently there was a boycott in the 2017 and hence the 23% turnout.

Puerto Rico has had five previous referendums on its status.[8] A vote in 1967 rejected statehood.[9] The next three referendums produced no clear majorities.[4] The non-binding 2017 referendum was in favor of statehood, but had only a 23% turnout.[3]

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So a lot depends on how committed Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and New Justice X are to textualism, and how much they are committed to GOP-always-wins-ism.

Gorsuch has shown he will stand with textualism even when it gives a liberal win (LGBTQ+ discrimination). Thomas is not a textualist - so he'll go with 'intent'. The question will be Roberts and Kavanaugh.

So there are two ways it could go about. If a federal area is limited to the Mall area, they can say that alone is what the Constitution text mandates, so a new state of formerly federal district would be Constitutional. Or they could say that Congress can give the residential areas back to Maryland and Virginia (as Congress did with Arlington) but not create a state around the federal area.

[QuikSand]

In all seriousness, didn't the GOP abandon the notion of even having a party platform this cycle, beyond MAGA?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are textualists who will also like the result, so I see them allowing it.

And Alito will vote for the GOP.

Breyer is a textualist. Kagan and Sotomayor believe the constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In all seriousness, didn't the GOP abandon the notion of even having a party platform this cycle, beyond MAGA?

They literally copied and pasted the 2016 platform, with no changes. All of the stuff about how 'the current administration is bad' was left in.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In all seriousness, didn't the GOP abandon the notion of even having a party platform this cycle, beyond MAGA?

That's my understanding. They first went with the 2016 platform, but then after they were embarrassed by some elements of it they decided the platform was whatever Trump wants.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Breyer is a textualist. Kagan and Sotomayor believe the constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document.

Kagan is arguably the most textualist Justice on the Court. And, out of the three liberals, Breyer is the least textualist.

We'll agree to disagree on this point because if you think that Kagan isn't a textualist, then our definitions of some pretty fundamental terms are so different that we will just be talking past each other like ships passing in the night.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's my understanding. They first went with the 2016 platform, but then after they were embarrassed by some elements of it they decided the platform was whatever Trump wants.

And then I think that they had this weird press release where they blamed it on the pandemic and not being able to get together and said that if the media criticized them for not having a platform it showed anti-GOP prejudice.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

then our definitions of some pretty fundamental terms are so different that we will just be talking past each other like ships passing in the night.

Maybe Edward can find a definition for you!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maybe Edward can find a definition for you!

Happy to help the cause on having structured discussions, hope wiki is good enough.

Textualism - Wikipedia

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]

The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words."[2] The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and was advocated by United States Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia; the latter staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."[3] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured this philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: "We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."[4]

Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole); second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment.

— John F. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine", 97 Colum. L. Rev. 673, 1997, JSTOR 1123360
Strict constructionism is often misused by laypersons and critics as a synonym for textualism. Nevertheless, although a textualist could be a strict constructionist, these are distinctive views. To illustrate this, we may quote Justice Scalia, who warns that "[t]extualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."[5] Similarly, textualism should not be confused with the "plain meaning" approach, a simpler theory used prominently by the Burger Court in cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, which looked to the dictionary definitions of words, without reference to common public understanding or context.

EDIT: not that it was an ask, but I can't judge the degrees or nuances of textualism.

[Edward64]

Great pic.

[IMG]

More than 100 of Justice Ginsburg's former clerks meet her casket at the Supreme Court steps https://t.co/uwRWzBSAwj pic.twitter.com/xraaNCPh94

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) September 23, 2020

[/IMG]

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Happy to help the cause on having structured discussions, hope wiki is good enough.

Textualism - Wikipedia



EDIT: not that it was an ask, but I can't judge the degrees or nuances of textualism.

I have to confess.

I'm a transtextual.