What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

What's the deal here?

Wisconsin doesn't want to change election rules because of Corona etc. The Dems take them to court over it. Kavanaugh's opinion said that other states also don't do it, e.g. Vermont. Vermont points out that actually they did change their rules. This is now going viral because LOL BEER JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE DOES.

Does the SC typically amend their opinions based on letters from parties mentioned in the opinion, or is it just grandstanding by Vermont?

[Syt]

What's the deal here?

Wisconsin doesn't want to change election rules because of Corona etc. The Dems take them to court over it. Kavanaugh's opinion said that other states also don't do it, e.g. Vermont. Vermont points out that actually they did change their rules. This is now going viral because LOL BEER JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE DOES.

Does the SC typically amend their opinions based on letters from parties mentioned in the opinion, or is it just grandstanding by Vermont?

Possibly something Minsky can answer.

[Berkut]

Whether it makes a difference or not in how the SC might amend their decision, I think pointing out that a sitting SC judge has his head up his ass and actively fucking lied about what has happened in an effort to engage in straight up partisan vote suppression is not "grandstanding".

[crazy canuck]

What's the deal here?

Wisconsin doesn't want to change election rules because of Corona etc. The Dems take them to court over it. Kavanaugh's opinion said that other states also don't do it, e.g. Vermont. Vermont points out that actually they did change their rules. This is now going viral because LOL BEER JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE DOES.

Does the SC typically amend their opinions based on letters from parties mentioned in the opinion, or is it just grandstanding by Vermont?

Not sure about Courts in the US, but in Canada when a factual or clerical error is drawn to the attention of the Court, the Court will often write a corrigendum judgment correcting that error.  The reason for doing it is to ensure a correct record when the case is considered by later cases.

Now, of course it rarely happens at the highest court, but this was a decision that did not have the benefit of lower court processes, so like a lower court factual errors can happen.

[crazy canuck]

Whether it makes a difference or not in how the SC might amend their decision, I think pointing out that a sitting SC judge has his head up his ass and actively fucking lied about what has happened in an effort to engage in straight up partisan vote suppression is not "grandstanding".

I am not sure I would be that harsh, but it certainly shows the frailties of direct appeals and what can happen when the Court does not have the benefit of a full factual record.

And that of course is going to be a problem if all the other cases people are speculating about hit the SCOTUS.

[Berkut]

Kavanaugh got very, very little benefit of the doubt from me before this, and this particular example, plus his entire reasoning on these cases makes it clear that he didn't deserve that benefit either.

He is not a judge, he is a political lackey.

[Razgovory]

Kavanaugh got very, very little benefit of the doubt from me before this, and this particular example, plus his entire reasoning on these cases makes it clear that he didn't deserve that benefit either.

He is not a judge, he is a political lackey.

Kavanaugh might prove useful to Democrats... If Democrats win the Senate and Biden wins the Presidency Kavanaugh might solve the problem that Democrats have concerning packing the court.  Senate Democrats could reopen the rape investigation and declare a cloud like this can't exist over the head of a Supreme Court Justice.  They could declare that a Justice must have an impeachable reputation and then impeach him.  No court packing required.

[The Minsky Moment]

What's the deal here?

Wisconsin doesn't want to change election rules because of Corona etc. The Dems take them to court over it. Kavanaugh's opinion said that other states also don't do it, e.g. Vermont. Vermont points out that actually they did change their rules. This is now going viral because LOL BEER JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE DOES.

Does the SC typically amend their opinions based on letters from parties mentioned in the opinion, or is it just grandstanding by Vermont?

Possibly something Minsky can answer.

It's not common for the result of the opinion to change, but justices do sometimes correct issued opinions for factual or other errors.  In fact, the line in Kavanaugh's opinion describing the Vermont laws was amended yesterday in response to the Vermont letter. 

[Syt]

Thank you.

[The Brain]

What's the deal here?

Wisconsin doesn't want to change election rules because of Corona etc. The Dems take them to court over it. Kavanaugh's opinion said that other states also don't do it, e.g. Vermont. Vermont points out that actually they did change their rules. This is now going viral because LOL BEER JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE DOES.

Does the SC typically amend their opinions based on letters from parties mentioned in the opinion, or is it just grandstanding by Vermont?

Possibly something Minsky can answer.

It's not common for the result of the opinion to change, but justices do sometimes correct issued opinions for factual or other errors.  In fact, the line in Kavanaugh's opinion describing the Vermont laws was amended yesterday in response to the Vermont letter.

Cool.

[Syt]

But stuff like this (heh - butt stuff) is why such highly politicized candidated, rammed through after significant controversy, are problematic. They are under a microscope from the other side. Any error they make, will be viewed as either incompetence or partisanship, regardless of whether it's an innocent mistake by them or one of their clerks. And it will reduce the acceptance by the population of their rulings unless they act "cleanly".

[Eddie Teach]

But stuff like this (heh - butt stuff) is why such highly politicized candidated, rammed through after significant controversy, are problematic.

Heh, "rammed".

[The Larch]

In this picture, an independent judiciary. 



Did other presidents have such photo-ops with the judges they succeeded in nominating for the Supreme Court?

[crazy canuck]

On the eve of an election?  No.

Was that her swearing in ceremony? 

[Barrister]

On the eve of an election?  No.

Was that her swearing in ceremony?

It was weird.  She was sworn in by Justice Thomas in the White House ceremony.

She was later sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts in a private ceremony.

ACB participating in that stunt was definitely a mistake for her.