US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

[Tywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The election cycle is likely being warped by this overwhelming response to this poll question: a -36 point response to the 'do you think the US is heading in the right track. As  well as a 50 point disapproval rating for congress.

I've never been fond of that question. It's too open ended. You could have two people say we're on the wrong track for diametrically opposed reasons (i.e. person A says the country is moving too far to the left while person B says we're not moving to the left fast enough).

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I've never been fond of that question. It's too open ended. You could have two people say we're on the wrong track for diametrically opposed reasons (i.e. person A says the country is moving too far to the left while person B says we're not moving to the left fast enough).

That's totally fair, but there are a whole lot of people who are just angry with how things are going and want to hit "rock bottom" to fix things. For them, how we go is way less important than blowing everything up. These people usually don't quite have a handle on what rock bottom means or are likely not going to be particularly affected by said bottomness - they're overwhelmingly white men, and wouldn't be hurt by 11 million people being deported or being interred after a terrorist attack. 

[Maithanet]

I do not at all understand the "we need to bottom out" theory.  Yes, a lot of Americans are in a very, very tough spot financially, and rightfully feel that the American Dream just isn't possible for them.  But as a nation, America is nowhere near the bottom.  We are, as of 2016, quite arguably the richest nation in the history of the world.  The problem is the distribution of said wealth. 

When people say we need to bottom out, do they want to live in a country that doesn't build roads?  Or where all public officials expect a bribe to do anything?  Or where the rule of law is just a fading memory?  Because that's what the bottom looks like, and it sounds really really unappealing to me. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I do not at all understand the "we need to bottom out" theory.  Yes, a lot of Americans are in a very, very tough spot financially, and rightfully feel that the American Dream just isn't possible for them.  But as a nation, America is nowhere near the bottom.  We are, as of 2016, quite arguably the richest nation in the history of the world.  The problem is the distribution of said wealth. 

When people say we need to bottom out, do they want to live in a country that doesn't build roads?  Or where all public officials expect a bribe to do anything?  Or where the rule of law is just a fading memory?  Because that's what the bottom looks like, and it sounds really really unappealing to me. 

Who the fuck really knows. I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of those supporting the "hitting rock bottom" theory are not sitting anywhere near the bottom of the totem pole, and are not going to be the ones who bear the brunt of the pain if we do "hit bottom." Plus, as you've intimated, I'm not sure if these people have really thought about what "hitting rock bottom" tends to actually, really mean. It's not pretty. 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's totally fair, but there are a whole lot of people who are just angry with how things are going and want to hit "rock bottom" to fix things. For them, how we go is way less important than blowing everything up. These people usually don't quite have a handle on what rock bottom means or are likely not going to be particularly affected by said bottomness - they're overwhelmingly white men, and wouldn't be hurt by 11 million people being deported or being interred after a terrorist attack.

But it's a bad way to quantify their anger.

And rock bottom is Trump. Plain and simple.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But it's a bad way to quantify their anger.

And rock bottom is You-Know-Who. Plain and simple.

I think rock bottom isn't Trump. I don't think it's far off, though. Trump is more of the jump the shark moment - if elected, the moment that you knew that the US wasn't ever going to be great again. 

[TerraPrime]

13 hours ago, Tempra said:

Alas, anyone who views Thomas as a dimwit is either ignorant or worse. While liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin thinks Thomas' silence is "disgraceful," he does not fall into the same trap believing Thomas is stupid:

Well, good thing I have not fallen into that trap, either, then. Whewww.

11 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

12 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

 

In the vast majority of cases, oral argument has an incredibly limited utility. As an attorney, what are you really going to be able to say in 30 minutes - which is half of the 60 minutes usually allotted for oral argument - that hasn't already been said better, at length, with pin citations, in the thousands upon thousands of pages of briefs that have been filed in the matter? I can guarantee that you are not better on your feet than you were when you wrote that brief with an army of associates and clerks backing you up, double checking your references, and constantly honing your legal framing to get it as sharp as possible. A thirty minute author interview is no substitute for the book they actually wrote - and that's basically what you get at oral argument.

The idea that a few pointless questions about killer tomatoes or some absurd hypothetical is a better judge of your judicial philosophy than what you actually write is absurd and laughable, and you would never, EVER take that position except as it suits your politics against someone you don't like in a field you don't know or understand. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the education, and the free condescension. I see now why none of the other 8 Justices, nor most of the Justices prior to them, eschew this useless portion of the SCOTUS' working. It is very illuminating. It certainly dissuades me from holding the belief-that-which-I-did-not-hold about the oral argument being useful in evaluating the judicial merit of the cases at hand. I applaud your out-reach.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

6 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I do not at all understand the "we need to bottom out" theory.  Yes, a lot of Americans are in a very, very tough spot financially, and rightfully feel that the American Dream just isn't possible for them.  But as a nation, America is nowhere near the bottom.  We are, as of 2016, quite arguably the richest nation in the history of the world.  The problem is the distribution of said wealth. 

When people say we need to bottom out, do they want to live in a country that doesn't build roads?  Or where all public officials expect a bribe to do anything?  Or where the rule of law is just a fading memory?  Because that's what the bottom looks like, and it sounds really really unappealing to me. 

Basically this, but replace "Biff" with "Trump"

[MerenthaClone]

7 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Who the fuck really knows. I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of those supporting the "hitting rock bottom" theory are not sitting anywhere near the bottom of the totem pole, and are not going to be the ones who bear the brunt of the pain if we do "hit bottom." Plus, as you've intimated, I'm not sure if these people have really thought about what "hitting rock bottom" tends to actually, really mean. It's not pretty. 

Accelerationists are shortsighted people lashing out in frustration and bitterness as they urge actions that will undoubtedly hurt others far more than themselves, yes.  

[The Fallen]

On 3/3/2016 at 10:32 PM, TerraPrime said:

Which is a pretty direct and straight-forward admission that he doesn't have a shred of original judicial insight.

That's a possibility, I'm not denying that.

But there's only so many questions you can ask about any particular subject. So if you're not one of the firsts to ask questions ...

It's like Senate hearings, where the same questions get asked over and over and over ...

[TerraPrime]

28 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

That's a possibility, I'm not denying that.

But there's only so many questions you can ask about any particular subject. So if you're not one of the firsts to ask questions ...

It's like Senate hearings, where the same questions get asked over and over and over ...

Don't you think it's a bit peculiar that over all these years, over all these number of cases, that Justice Thomas had not had more than a handful opportunities to ask his questions, if he had wanted? I would find it hard to believe that his colleagues were all just rolling over him all the time. 

And honestly, I know the questioning isn't about getting better information or about reaching the right conclusion. I have no idea how much these question actually influence each Justice's final ruling. At best, I think it is a chance for them to seek clarification on the written briefs. But what the questioning does, though, is to showcase each Justice's perspective during their deliberation process, and perhaps by proxy listen to what other Justices are thinking. The fact that Justice Thomas doesn't participate in this does say something about him and his approach.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 9:36 AM, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Lany,

I have hesitated in responding because I am usually quite tactless and I understand that this is a very personal topic for you - which I completely respect. Professionally, I deal with these issues every day as divorce is my field of law. Domestic violence issues are my pet issues, for both personal and professional reasons, and I volunteer my time on a regular basis with a number of different domestic violence organizations, running legal clinics and representing people pro bono in domestic violence cases. 

The law in question deals with misdemeanor offenses - pretty much the lowest form of minor criminal offense. And there's a quirk with how the state law deals with mens rea vs. the federal law. And that raises legitimate questions as to how severely a protected constitutional right can or should be curtailed after a finding under this misdemeanor state law criminal statute. And it's perfectly fair for these questions to be asked. And it's perfectly fair for us to think about the ways in which 2nd amendment rights are restricted in more substantial ways than say, first amendment rights. And maybe it's okay for that disparity to be there. But maybe this is a bridge too far. And I think this is an area where reasonable people can and should disagree, and the questions themselves should not be considered offensive.  

I appreciate that.  (I needed some reflection time too, to try and think rationally about it, instead of emotionally)

I know, this is a difficult issue, and I know the crimes are often "misdemeanors"  and sometimes not even that in the case of protective orders. State laws also very widely about the classifications.

There is also documented evidence that the violence does tend to escalate. Thinking in a (mostly  ) rational way, I just don't agree with the direction of his questions about what other misdemeanor crime would result the permanent loss of the right to bear arms. To me this was bothersome to me because not all crimes are equal just because they are listed in the same general category. Violence towards an intimate partner is not the same as shoplifting or possession.

Right now, the law agrees with me, and I hope that it continues to do so.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/04/supreme_court_halts_louisiana_abortion_law_that_mirrors_texas_s_hb2.html

Supreme Court Halts Louisiana Abortion Law That Mirrors Texas’ HB2

[SkynJay]

Wow 7-1 decision.  

[Shryke]

On 3/3/2016 at 2:58 PM, Tywin et al. said:

I've never been fond of that question. It's too open ended. You could have two people say we're on the wrong track for diametrically opposed reasons (i.e. person A says the country is moving too far to the left while person B says we're not moving to the left fast enough).

That doesn't matter. The whole point is to look at the cross-tabs of the answer to determine the rest of the questiosn you are asking.

And just flipping through a few polls there, the results are kinda what you'd expect. "Wrong direction" seems pretty flat across region and income. And is heavily skewed in age, race and political identification.

Or, more simply, old white conservative people are the most likely to say the US is on the wrong track right now by like 10 to 20 points or so on average.

Which, you know, I wonder why that is....

[Shryke]

On 3/4/2016 at 11:43 AM, TerraPrime said:

Don't you think it's a bit peculiar that over all these years, over all these number of cases, that Justice Thomas had not had more than a handful opportunities to ask his questions, if he had wanted? I would find it hard to believe that his colleagues were all just rolling over him all the time. 

And honestly, I know the questioning isn't about getting better information or about reaching the right conclusion. I have no idea how much these question actually influence each Justice's final ruling. At best, I think it is a chance for them to seek clarification on the written briefs. But what the questioning does, though, is to showcase each Justice's perspective during their deliberation process, and perhaps by proxy listen to what other Justices are thinking. The fact that Justice Thomas doesn't participate in this does say something about him and his approach.

It says he thinks it's useless. About which, again, he's not exactly wrong.

Generally oral arguments are considered to be the justices talking to each other with the lawyers representing the case as being nothing more then props.

[Shryke]

There's been alot of reports coming out of the post-Scalia SCTOUS about that Texas case suggesting that without Scalia there the liberal wing is running roughshod over the pro-life side who probably expected a much different court with a different tenor.

[Inigima]

58 minutes ago, Shryke said:

There's been alot of reports coming out of the post-Scalia SCTOUS about that Texas case suggesting that without Scalia there the liberal wing is running roughshod over the pro-life side who probably expected a much different court with a different tenor.

I'd be interested in that commentary. Do you have a link handy?

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

I'd be interested in that commentary. Do you have a link handy?

Here's a couple I was reading from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/03/in_oral_arguments_for_the_texas_abortion_case_the_three_female_justices.html

Here's the Notorious RBG basically eviscerating Texas' entire shitty argument in about 5 sentences, just for funsies:

Quote

 

Seconds after Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller began to speak Wednesday morning, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg zeroed in on the “undue burden” question—quickly and mercilessly knocking Keller off balance and setting the tone for the rest of his nearly 40 minutes at the lectern. Ginsburg asked Keller how many women would live 100 miles or more from a clinic if the Texas law went into effect. About 25 percent, he responded—but that didn’t include the clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, just over the border from El Paso. The existence of this clinic featured heavily in the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas statute; it asserted that the law did not impose on “undue burden” on abortion-seeking El Paso women, because they could simply cross state lines for the procedure.

“That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.

“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”  

 

And the larger point:

Quote

Looming over most of the morning, of course, is Justice Scalia, who is three times larger in his absence than even his outsize presence used to be. Scalia, recall, once referred to clinics in an opinion announcement as “abortion mills.” Justice Alito seems exhausted trying to play both his own part, and Scalia’s, and Justice Clarence Thomas, silent today, chatters and laughs with Breyer. One senses that the chief justice, two weeks into this new post-Scalia era, is worn out just trying to keep the women at bay. And with today’s facts in hand, the pugilistic culture warrior Scalia would have been incomparable. Without him on the bench, the court’s conservative wing is reduced to demanding more and more proof that the closure of 11 clinics on the day HB 2 passed was really a result of the law. This is, as Scalia would never say, weak applesauce.

 

[lokisnow]

The Supreme Court voided a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court without even bothering to hear arguments. The Alabama Supreme Court said that contracts made in a not-Alabama state were void in Alabama if they conflicted with Alabama law. The Supreme Court just unanimously told the Alabama Supreme Court they are bigoted idiots.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-gay-adoptions-20160307-story.html