Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:
Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?
Will the Republicans in the Senate be able to block/filibuster Obama's appointee or does it work differently from other appointees (such as ambassadors)?
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?
Doesn't really matter, it will always tilt to the right, as liberal judges insist on retiring during conservative presidencies, fucking shit up.
QuoteWill the Republicans in the Senate be able to block/filibuster Obama's appointee or does it work differently from other appointees (such as ambassadors)?
Still goes through the same bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2014, 03:31:40 PM
Still goes through the same bullshit.
True, but at least in the case of SC nominees the public is paying attention. Eventually there will be a vote unless the nominee pulls out.
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?
I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?
I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.
Unspoken rules are meant to be broken when the stakes are high. Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly. Then again, how badly do they really want the fifth abortion vote? To me it seems like a very useful journey and a very dreadful destination for them politically.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:01:41 AM
Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly.
Not really clear to me how they could expect to do that with Obama making the nominations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:06:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:01:41 AM
Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly.
Not really clear to me how they could expect to do that with Obama making the nominations.
What if she dies in May 2016?
to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.
Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.
Does it have to be either/or?
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.
Does it have to be either/or?
President Bernie Sanders?
He's thinking the Republicans filibuster long enough to get a Republican nominating. Of course, in this scenario the voters have the power to validate the stratagem or not. Unless the justice dies during the lame duck term, but Congress never works that fast anyway.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2014, 01:28:27 AM
He's thinking the Republicans filibuster long enough to get a Republican nominating. Of course, in this scenario the voters have the power to validate the stratagem or not. Unless the justice dies during the lame duck term, but Congress never works that fast anyway.
:cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?
I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.
Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 20, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?
I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.
Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? :(
He was rejected by majority vote, not filibustered.
Indeed. His nomination was blocked. In the biggest way possible. :P
Quote from: Viking on October 20, 2014, 01:19:19 AM
to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.
Overturning RvW wouldn't be a vote to ban. It would be a vote to return it to the states to decide like the recent gay marriage one did. The next day, a couple dozen states would pass laws allowing abortion. Eight or ten might manage to pass some banning it eventually, but it seems unlikely.
Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?
I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.
Reno got on the radar as a divorce town for exactly that reason.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 20, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? :(
His nomination suffered from being an asshole.
Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?
I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.
Is there actually a push to jail women that have an abortion vs just the doctors that perform it? Not even fascist, ultra-Catholic Spain under Franco did that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 20, 2014, 04:22:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 20, 2014, 01:19:19 AM
to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.
Overturning RvW wouldn't be a vote to ban. It would be a vote to return it to the states to decide like the recent gay marriage one did. The next day, a couple dozen states would pass laws allowing abortion. Eight or ten might manage to pass some banning it eventually, but it seems unlikely.
Is that a given that it's only going to go that far? This is a court that decided that corporations have a free speech right. Giving unborn the right to life doesn't seem that outlandish by comparison.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2014, 06:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 20, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? :(
His nomination suffered from being an asshole.
Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.
I don't think the whole Saturday Night Massacre thing worked for him either.
Quote from: celedhring on October 20, 2014, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?
I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.
Is there actually a push to jail women that have an abortion vs just the doctors that perform it? Not even fascist, ultra-Catholic Spain under Franco did that.
Ireland tried that I think, that's why the ECJ ruled on the matter.
That being said, Polish ultra-conservatives tried (and failed) recently to introduce an amendment to anti-abortion law that would jail women for having a "negligent miscarriage". So yeah, if left unchecked, conservatives do not really have a limit.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:
Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?
Ginsburg is the oldest and has had a few health issues over the years. But she has made it clear she is not retiring in the Obama administration. I think she will probably stay on the job as long as physically and mentally possible, she has no interest in retiring. the next oldest are Scalia and Kennedy (and then Breyer) but all three of those are healthy and appear to enjoy being on the Court.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2014, 06:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 20, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? :(
His nomination suffered from being an asshole.
Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.
I don't think the whole Saturday Night Massacre thing worked for him either.
Yeah, but by the time it trickled down to him, he was just the camp guard at Nuremberg; i dont think the Senate had as much of a problem with that than they did with the fact that he was smarter than they were, and he told them so.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2014, 10:27:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:
Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?
Ginsburg is the oldest and has had a few health issues over the years. But she has made it clear she is not retiring in the Obama administration. I think she will probably stay on the job as long as physically and mentally possible, she has no interest in retiring. the next oldest are Scalia and Kennedy (and then Breyer) but all three of those are healthy and appear to enjoy being on the Court.
That's the thing. Justices don't generally time their retirements based on who gets to nominate their successor on the bench--they time it based on hanging on to the position as long as possible. Can't much blame 'em--it's a good gig.
Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases. But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases. So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2014, 01:28:00 PM
Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases. But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases. So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.
Now break it down based on how many words in its decisions the Court produces per year. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2014, 01:28:00 PM
Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases. But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases. So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.
Or maybe they're so overburdened with their caseload that 70 is all they can handle. I recommend adding some justices right away to ease the burden.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 02:01:48 PM
Or maybe they're so overburdened with their caseload that 70 is all they can handle. I recommend adding some justices right away to ease the burden.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.authentichistory.com%2F1930-1939%2F2-fdr%2F5-courtpacking%2F1937sc_09.jpg&hash=4ed1b42c3a242f7e7aace9d7aec193460971a890)
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2014, 01:47:54 PM
Now break it down based on how many words in its decisions the Court produces per year. :)
Word length in majority opinions jumped up sharply in the early/mid 70s from about 2500 words to over 4000. Roughly concurrent with this was an assumption of more substantive duties by Supreme Court clerks.
Also - at the same time, the number of unanimous opinions has trended up steadily since 1946, so presumably fewer concurring and dissenting opinions are being written.
Now this is awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9prhPV2PI
Funnily enough, I recognised Ginsburg immediately. :ph34r:
I don't know anyone else who watches that show.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
I don't know anyone else who watches that show.
Fascinating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
I don't know anyone else who watches that show.
I watch it. Only takes a fifth as much effort as watching the Daily Show to stay informed. :sleep: