What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

NPR says Trump has had two negative tests now.

[Sheilbh]

A total disaster has occured on my watch! Vote for me!

I do love that a huge chunk of his campaign boils down to him not being President

[Syt]

https://twitter.com/ResisterSis20/status/1316398225713135617?s=20

Lindsey Graham: "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

If I was charitable, I would surmise he was trying to joke/troll Democrats?

[DGuller]

https://twitter.com/ResisterSis20/status/1316398225713135617?s=20

Lindsey Graham: "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

If I was charitable, I would surmise he was trying to joke/troll Democrats?

Meh, I'm pretty sure there was a sarcastic inflection somewhere.  It seems pretty common to highlight how the past was less rosier than remembered by pairing "good old days" with something obviously horrible immediate afterwards.

[grumbler]

https://twitter.com/ResisterSis20/status/1316398225713135617?s=20

Lindsey Graham: "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

If I was charitable, I would surmise he was trying to joke/troll Democrats?

Segregationists find it hard to get the laughs they hope for by being sarcastic about segregation.

[Barrister]

https://twitter.com/ResisterSis20/status/1316398225713135617?s=20

Lindsey Graham: "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

If I was charitable, I would surmise he was trying to joke/troll Democrats?

Meh, I'm pretty sure there was a sarcastic inflection somewhere.  It seems pretty common to highlight how the past was less rosier than remembered by pairing "good old days" with something obviously horrible immediate afterwards.

You can listen to the clip by following the link.

I didn't hear any inflection, but I think it was obviously implied from the longer clip.  His question is about how Brown v Board of Education is a strong precedent because no one anywhere was trying to go against its ruling by going back to the "good old days of segregation".

[crazy canuck]

https://twitter.com/ResisterSis20/status/1316398225713135617?s=20

Lindsey Graham: "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

If I was charitable, I would surmise he was trying to joke/troll Democrats?

Meh, I'm pretty sure there was a sarcastic inflection somewhere.  It seems pretty common to highlight how the past was less rosier than remembered by pairing "good old days" with something obviously horrible immediate afterwards.

You can listen to the clip by following the link.

I didn't hear any inflection, but I think it was obviously implied from the longer clip.  His question is about how Brown v Board of Education is a strong precedent because no one anywhere was trying to go against its ruling by going back to the "good old days of segregation".

The clip is part of a much wider discussion that has occurred over many Senators regarding how Stare Decisis is dealt with and why Brown is one of the few cases that could never be overturned.  One reason is that for it to get back before the Court somebody would have to legislate segregation and that would never occur.

That was his clear meaning but politics is cheap on both sides in this age of Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Barrett's testimony and her Texas law review article suggest that the concept of "superprecedent" is a settled notion in US legal academic discourse; that's not really true.  It's based on a law review article by one scholar (Michael Gerhardt) that was really more about some inside baseball among predominately conservative academics.  Gerhardt was trying to explain the survival of controversial precedents like Roe v Wade despite many Republican President court appointments and conservative hostility towards the, - in response, he made an argument similar to one I made here a couple of weeks ago - that to find someone ready and willing to buck the accumulated decades of jurisprudence on Roe you end up having to vet barnburners willing and eager to tear down all sorts of foundational precedents - and most conservative presidents and Senators aren't willing to go that far.  The article was explicitly about how GOP presidents and Senators handle and think about nominations and about the political implications of judicial decision-making, not a abstract, platonic analysis of the concept of precedent in thinking about stare decisis.  Barrett, however, appears to have repurposed the superprecedent concept for the latter purpose - i.e. coming up with an intellectual explanation for respecting some precedents but not others.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, an academic sought to discern a principled basis upon which some precedents stand the test of time.

I would not characterize it as an attempt to provide an explanation for why some should not be respected though.

[Berkut]

Isn't that exactly WHY you should not have any such thing as  "superprecedent"? It could be easily used as a way to weaken anything NOT a superprecedent.

IE, just theoretically, you could have someone make their way through academia and the judiciary talking about how Roe v Wade, when asked, is established precedent. What a good answer!

Then when they get to the SC, they could overturn RvW, and say "Well sure, it was precedent, but it wasn't SUPER Precedent!"

[crazy canuck]

Isn't that exactly WHY you should not have any such thing as  "superprecedent"? It could be easily used as a way to weaken anything NOT a superprecedent.

IE, just theoretically, you could have someone make their way through academia and the judiciary talking about how Roe v Wade, when asked, is established precedent. What a good answer!

Then when they get to the SC, they could overturn RvW, and say "Well sure, it was precedent, but it wasn't SUPER Precedent!"

I don't quite follow how something that would be unthinkable to reconsider can be used to weaken other jurisprudence that has nothing to do with that case. 

It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that Roe would never be reconsidered since there is litigation around its edges almost constantly.

[The Brain]

Let's worry about a superpresident when we get one.

[grumbler]

Isn't that exactly WHY you should not have any such thing as  "superprecedent"? It could be easily used as a way to weaken anything NOT a superprecedent.

IE, just theoretically, you could have someone make their way through academia and the judiciary talking about how Roe v Wade, when asked, is established precedent. What a good answer!

Then when they get to the SC, they could overturn RvW, and say "Well sure, it was precedent, but it wasn't SUPER Precedent!"

That's precisely the point.  The doctrine of stare decisis depends on precedent being precedent, only to be overturned if there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so.  By restricting stare decisis to "superprecedents" one can overturn RvW with no compelling reason to do so other than that the Pope and republican voters would like it.

[Barrister]

Isn't that exactly WHY you should not have any such thing as  "superprecedent"? It could be easily used as a way to weaken anything NOT a superprecedent.

IE, just theoretically, you could have someone make their way through academia and the judiciary talking about how Roe v Wade, when asked, is established precedent. What a good answer!

Then when they get to the SC, they could overturn RvW, and say "Well sure, it was precedent, but it wasn't SUPER Precedent!"

That's precisely the point.  The doctrine of stare decisis depends on precedent being precedent, only to be overturned if there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so.  By restricting stare decisis to "superprecedents" one can overturn RvW with no compelling reason to do so other than that the Pope and republican voters would like it.

Never in my life heard of a "superprecedent" in my life until today.

It's fairly rare for a prior binding precedent to be explicitly overruled, but it does happen.  It's fairly straight-forward - you'll get a lot of obiter dictum in other cases which says "maybe this isn't a very good precedent, but that's not for us to decide today".  Until eventually some judge writes a decision which cites all of this criticism and who says "well yes this past case is clearly no good, it's time to overturn it".

British Justice Lord Denning was famous (infamous) for this - he'd be the one writing all that criticism, and then he'd cite his own words when it came time to overturn the precedent!

[crazy canuck]

Isn't that exactly WHY you should not have any such thing as  "superprecedent"? It could be easily used as a way to weaken anything NOT a superprecedent.

IE, just theoretically, you could have someone make their way through academia and the judiciary talking about how Roe v Wade, when asked, is established precedent. What a good answer!

Then when they get to the SC, they could overturn RvW, and say "Well sure, it was precedent, but it wasn't SUPER Precedent!"

That's precisely the point.  The doctrine of stare decisis depends on precedent being precedent, only to be overturned if there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so.  By restricting stare decisis to "superprecedents" one can overturn RvW with no compelling reason to do so other than that the Pope and republican voters would like it.

But that is not her argument.  She is saying that there are some cases that are beyond being subjected to the normal test of overturning a precedent.  And she is quite accurate that the number of those cases is very limited.  All other cases can only be overturned after going through the legal test for doing so.