U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[TrackerNeil]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

With good cause.  It seems the only rational response to Republican's actions regarding Judge Garland and his nomination.  If they reversed themselves and pushed through RBG's replacement before Trump left office "court packing" is the only way for a newly Democratic majority to counter that action. 

I think Democrats should add seats to the Supreme Court regardless. Make no mistake: By refusing to vote on Garland, Republicans were court-packing, plain and simple. The only question left is whether we're going to let them get away with it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think Democrats should add seats to the Supreme Court regardless. Make no mistake: By refusing to vote on Garland, Republicans were court-packing, plain and simple. The only question left is whether we're going to let them get away with it.

It's dangerous though on the meta-level.  I agree the Garland stall was a Republican court packing scheme.  Repeated "court packing" efforts (in response to other court packing efforts) could create a new legislature.  Further, looking at Gorsuch's response to Trump Administration cases there is no guarantee that those placed on the court will actually behave as predicted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump always has the classiest and selfless tributes to recently deceased legends:

 

Did you see the clip from the same interview of him discussing statistics in a way that would make even Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader go "Come on man."

It's been said before, but it becomes more apparent by the day. The President is noticeable declining cognitively. We're probably well past the point of asking, "Do we need to take grandpa's car keys away?"

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

@A Horse Named Stranger,

I hope this translates right.

So funktionieren die Dinge nicht.

You cannot be so selective in how you want to apply the greater question at hand.

Dasvidaniya.

 

It's: Do svidaniya!

 

 

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump always has the classiest and selfless tributes to recently deceased legends:

Here lies

A man who did not attend Donald Trump's inauguration

John Lewis

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Here lies

A man who did not attend Donald Trump's inauguration

John Lewis

*Nor any of Donald Trump’s State of the Union speeches

How can he Rest In Peace?

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Further, looking at Gorsuch's response to Trump Administration cases there is no guarantee that those placed on the court will actually behave as predicted.

This is really only a concern for the right.  That's why they turned the Federalist Society into an indoctrination camp.  There are many examples of justices shifting left throughout their tenure throughout recent history.  I can't think of any Dem-nominated example of a justice shifting right, at least since, like, FDR.  Anyway, as I've said in the past, I'm all for court packing - it has the rather unique quality as an institutional reform of being the right thing do to politically, practically, and normatively.  The Supreme Court should have more representation than 9 justices - and it should also have enough justices to take on a considerably larger caseload.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

*Nor any of Donald Trump’s State of the Union speeches

How can he Rest In Peace?

Happily and with dignity for having played no part whatsoever in this farce.

[IheartIheartTesla]

The last 3 Senate polls out of SC have Graham +1, +4 and +2. How can he be in (some) trouble and not Mitch?

In a different timeline it would be feasible the Trump red wall of NC, SC and GA could be bulldozed through. I'm not a big fan of geographical correlations in voting patterns (for instance, the midwest/rust belt 'blue wall' in 2026), but at the same time I wonder about these polls.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is really only a concern for the right.  That's why they turned the Federalist Society into an indoctrination camp.  There are many examples of justices shifting left throughout their tenure throughout recent history.  I can't think of any Dem-nominated example of a justice shifting right, at least since, like, FDR.  Anyway, as I've said in the past, I'm all for court packing - it has the rather unique quality as an institutional reform of being the right thing do to politically, practically, and normatively.  The Supreme Court should have more representation than 9 justices - and it should also have enough justices to take on a considerably larger caseload.

Courts are not representative bodies.  Their loyalty should be to the law not to the electorate.  If you prefer law interpeted by legislative bodies, do away with courts.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

A bizarre thing that Trump said today and that I forgot to mention, but a NYT story popped up on my Facebook page.

As I’m sure you know, he has threatened to ban Tik Tok in the US (I have no idea how that would work), but it turns out that Microsoft is interested in buying the US operations. I heard a lot of people being rather mistrustful of that idea, but if they buy it they’ll probably get a fire sale price. Might be worth buying some Microsoft shares, even 10 of them, because owning Tik Tok will make money for them.

Anyhow, Trump actually said money should flow to the US Treasury should the deal occur, like 30% of the sale price. WTF? He now wants 30% of the cost of an acquisition to go to the US government? Sure sounds like a tax to me.

”Because this deal wouldn’t happen without me!” 
 

eta: he’s given until September 15th for a deal to happen, or the app will be shut down

ps Apple shares are splitting 4 for 1. Again, you might think about picking some up.

I called my adviser the minute I heard about the Apple split; I'm deliberating on whether to acquire some Microsoft shares as well. I'd already have grabbed some, but I'm concerned about Trump blowing up the deal.

Apparently the U.S. government is a broker in transactions between private companies now? I mean, I'm obviously very sympathetic to the idea that there should be some distribution of wealth when transactions like this happen, but not like this.

[DMC]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Courts are not representative bodies.  There loyalty should be to the law not to the electorate.  If you prefer law interpeted by legislative bodies, do away with courts.

The Supreme Court is a political institution.  It has been since Marbury v. Madison.  Judicial review means interpreting the law and ordering your collective political interpretations of said law upon the competing two branches.  It was always meant to be that way since Federalist 78.  I have no problem with that.  But one of my big pet peeves with lawyers is this completely deluded naive conception of SCOTUS - or really any appellate court - as simply "adjudicating the law."  Give me a fucking break.  Politicians make the law, politicians implement the law, and politicians rule on the legitimacy of the law.  That's how it's always been. 

And in that respect, as a political institution, the Supreme Court would do well with recognizing that minority rights - which I'm pretty sure all you "purist" lawyers always crow about being one of the pillars of the judicial branch - are better protected with more diverse representation.  Best way to get that done is increasing the number of justices.  Moreover, just look at how many justices are in any of the Federal courts of appeals.  All have more justices than SC, and many much more, even double.  Since, with polarization, the SC has come out of the closet as "activist" on both the right and left, you might as well increase its influence by enabling it to take on more cases than 9 old to very old people can handle.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The last 3 Senate polls out of SC have Graham +1, +4 and +2. How can he be in (some) trouble and not Mitch?

In a different timeline it would be feasible the Trump red wall of NC, SC and GA could be bulldozed through. I'm not a big fan of geographical correlations in voting patterns (for instance, the midwest/rust belt 'blue wall' in 2026), but at the same time I wonder about these polls.

South Carolina has a lot more democratic voters than Kentucky.  Trump won SC by 14 points and he won KY by 30.  The things that make McConnell unpopular with Republican voters in Kentucky are not things that make them likely to vote for a Democrat.  Flipping that seat was always the longest of long shots. 

In comparison, I can definitely imagine a scenario where Biden wins the popular vote by 9 points, loses SC by just 4-5 points, and Harrison edges out Graham.  It would take both good luck and good execution to get there, but Graham is consistently polling behind Trump, and Harrison seems like a good candidate.  

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It's dangerous though on the meta-level.  I agree the Garland stall was a Republican court packing scheme.  Repeated "court packing" efforts (in response to other court packing efforts) could create a new legislature.  Further, looking at Gorsuch's response to Trump Administration cases there is no guarantee that those placed on the court will actually behave as predicted.

A Republican court hollowed out the Voting Rights Act. So, yes, although justices do not always rule as expected, they do so often enough--too often. Besides, if the GOP gets away with Gorsuch, they'll try this again.

("Getting Away with Gorsuch" sounds like the name of a sitcom.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Supreme Court is a political institution.  It has been since Marbury v. Madison.  Judicial review means interpreting the law and ordering your collective political interpretations of said law upon the competing two branches.  It was always meant to be that way since Federalist 78.  I have no problem with that.  But one of my big pet peeves with lawyers is this completely deluded naive conception of SCOTUS - or really any appellate court - as simply "adjudicating the law."  Give me a fucking break.  Politicians make the law, politicians implement the law, and politicians rule on the legitimacy of the law.  That's how it's always been. 

And in that respect, as a political institution, the Supreme Court would do well with recognizing that minority rights - which I'm pretty sure all you "purist" lawyers always crow about being one of the pillars of the judicial branch - are better protected with more diverse representation.  Best way to get that done is increasing the number of justices.  Moreover, just look at how many justices are in any of the Federal courts of appeals.  All have more justices than SC, and many much more, even double.  Since, with polarization, the SC has come out of the closet as "activist" on both the right and left, you might as well increase its influence by enabling it to take on more cases than 9 old to very old people can handle.

If we are going to do away with any judicial restraint and just call the Judicial Branch a political branch of government we should elect judges and justices for set terms.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

South Carolina has a lot more democratic voters than Kentucky.  Trump won SC by 14 points and he won KY by 30.  The things that make McConnell unpopular with Republican voters in Kentucky are not things that make them likely to vote for a Democrat.  Flipping that seat was always the longest of long shots. 

In comparison, I can definitely imagine a scenario where Biden wins the popular vote by 9 points, loses SC by just 4-5 points, and Harrison edges out Graham.  It would take both good luck and good execution to get there, but Graham is consistently polling behind Trump, and Harrison seems like a good candidate.  

I could see Graham losing, I would be mildly surprised if Graham does lose, but it is within the realm of possibility.  Harrison is running a good campaign playing upon family and "local values".  He's not slapping at Graham and is giving everyone a reason to vote for him as a candidate, not against Graham.

Tracker,

 

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

("Getting Away with Gorsuch" sounds like the name of a sitcom.)

I like that...

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

("Getting Away with Gorsuch" sounds like the name of a sitcom.)

"Waiting For Godot For Dummies".

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we are going to do away with any judicial restraint and just call the Judicial Branch a political branch of government we should elect judges and justices for set terms. 

No.  As I mentioned a couple nights ago, there is no discernible difference between elected and appointed judges in terms of their behavior - especially at the appellate level.  So, in that way it doesn't really matter.  But, I don't want SCOTUS justices in particular - and even federal circuit court judges - to have to run for election.  That would just introduce a shitshow that's primed to exacerbate polarization.  Not to mention dramatically increase the flood of money during federal campaign cycles.  I don't really care either way on the state level, and I'd be fine with having federal district court justices being elected too, but definitely not for SC. 

I agree that the SC has a vested interest in maintaining their legitimacy - keep the robes!  But even the robes, paradoxically, are a political statement in signaling that they are above the partisan bickering of the other two branches.  That can be preserved while still expanding the size of the court considerably.  Again, look at the size of the circuit courts.  Why shouldn't the highest court in the land have a similar size considering their (appellate) jurisdiction is ultimately the entire country?

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

("Getting Away with Gorsuch" sounds like the name of a sitcom.)

Sounds like Vince Gilligan's next project.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  As I mentioned a couple nights ago, there is no discernible difference between elected and appointed judges in terms of their behavior - especially at the appellate level.  So, in that way it doesn't really matter.  But, I don't want SCOTUS justices in particular - and even federal circuit court judges - to have to run for election.  That would just introduce a shitshow that's primed to exacerbate polarization.  Not to mention dramatically increase the flood of money during federal campaign cycles.  I don't really care either way on the state level, and I'd be fine with having federal district court justices being elected too, but definitely not for SC. 

I agree that the SC has a vested interest in maintaining their legitimacy - keep the robes!  But even the robes, paradoxically, are a political statement in signaling that they are above the partisan bickering of the other two branches.  That can be preserved while still expanding the size of the court considerably.  Again, look at the size of the circuit courts.  Why shouldn't the highest court in the land have a similar size considering their (appellate) jurisdiction is ultimately the entire country?

I'd prefer to do away with nominations and approvals altogether.  Create a list of qualified (and willing) candidates (as the ABA determines qualifications) for the Federal Appellate bench (including the SCOTUS) and let them rotate onto the courts as positions become available.