Jaxom 1974 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Well that took a dark turn. I really don't want the courts to be packed, but face it, the Republicans have already done it. They played dirty, but within the letter of the law. Packing the courts, expanding the House and awarding statehood to D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands would just be doing that too. And besides, fuck them. Heard today that the idea of packing the court as high as 17 or 19 justices would take the weaponization of appointing a new one or three during a term as there wouldn't be anything special about getting your judge on there...though I might be misremembering how that worked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 I will say that, having read Gorsuch's concurrence, I'm still quite worried but a bit less so. His opinion seems much more along the lines of Roberts', rather than Kavanaugh's (and though Kavanugh joined Gorsuch's concurrence, Gorsuch did not join Kavanaugh's). I think my read of Gorsuch is hopefully still true; which is that he'll allow no leeway on voting access beyond the literal text of state law, but isn't going to blatantly steal the election either. Which means it'll come down to what the lawsuits are alleging and what the specific laws of those states are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 31 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Heard today that the idea of packing the court as high as 17 or 19 justices would take the weaponization of appointing a new one or three during a term as there wouldn't be anything special about getting your judge on there...though I might be misremembering how that worked... 15 seems like a good start, but I am opinion to the notion of 27 @DMC discussed a few months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 14 minutes ago, Fez said: I will say that, having read Gorsuch's concurrence, I'm still quite worried but a bit less so. His opinion seems much more along the lines of Roberts', rather than Kavanaugh's (and though Kavanugh joined Gorsuch's concurrence, Gorsuch did not join Kavanaugh's). I think my read of Gorsuch is hopefully still true; which is that he'll allow no leeway on voting access beyond the literal text of state law, but isn't going to blatantly steal the election either. Which means it'll come down to what the lawsuits are alleging and what the specific laws of those states are. Except that doesn't matter when the swing vote is Kavanaugh and barrett is on. You're counting on Roberts - the guy who said that the Muslim ban was fine and that we didn't need the VRA because it had worked so far - to uphold more voting rights as if that is actually going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 9 minutes ago, Killjoybear said: Except that doesn't matter when the swing vote is Kavanaugh and barrett is on. You're counting on Roberts - the guy who said that the Muslim ban was fine and that we didn't need the VRA because it had worked so far - to uphold more voting rights as if that is actually going to happen. It does matter. Robert+Gorsuch+three liberals is a majority, Kavanaugh isn't the swing justice. Roberts has had plenty of bad rulings, but its also been clear that he's been trying to protect the court's reputation from getting completely destroyed. Also, Republicans' haste to confirm Barrett before the election rather than in the lame duck is a pretty clear indication that they don't trust Roberts and want a majority without him. But they need Gorsuch to actually have that majority. At this point, I'm not concerned about voter suppression or ballot access, those ships have sailed for the time being. Right now, I'm concerned about shit like "not counting all the ballots that are already physically in the possession of the boards of election". I always thought Alito, Thomas, and Barrett would go for that if it helped Trump. I wasn't sure about Kavanaugh, but it looks like he will too. I don't think Gorsuch will though, and I'm confident Roberts won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Yeah, him making the VRA null and void, making the most racist scotus decision since Korematsu and deciding corporations are people is definitely the person to back for respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted October 27, 2020 Author Share Posted October 27, 2020 3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Welcome to Poland, comrades! Welcome to Poland! ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 13 minutes ago, Relic said: ?? The Polish government just passed some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. Women are protesting in the streets by the thousands. The church had been demanding the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Killjoybear said: him making the VRA null and void Shelby did not make the VRA "null and void." The importance of striking down the coverage formula of Section 4b - and subsequently rendering the preclearance of Section 5 moot - should not be understated. But Shelby didn't have anything to do with Section 2 - still the most important provision of the act - and also did not deal with the "bail-in" provision of Section 3c. Importantly, the bail-in provision has been used since Shelby to circumvent the decision and require jurisdictions undergo preclearance - to mixed results, and SCOTUS has yet to rule on it thus far. Point is, stop selling the VRA short by saying it's void without 4b's coverage formula. Anyway, I don't know why you're laughably dismissing the notion Roberts' prioritizing of the court's legitimacy may make him rule differently than the conservative bloc on election challenges. Especially considering Roberts voted with the liberals in the very similar 4-4 PA case just last week. Not to mention his overarching concern in institutional legitimacy has clearly guided his decision-making throughout his 14 year tenure, let alone he's explicitly stated this priority multiple times. Discounting all that based on cherrypicking his worst decisions is a vapid argument devoid of nuance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 He made those decisions when he was swing and it would matter. He's not going to do the same when he's the chief justice and can't be on the winning side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Killjoybear said: He made those decisions when he was swing and it would matter. He's not going to do the same when he's the chief justice and can't be on the winning side. Well, the context of your discussion with Fez clearly assumed that Gorsuch would vote with the liberals. I'm much more skeptical of that, but you seemed to concede the point (at least as a hypothetical) when describing Kavanaugh as the swing vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, DMC said: Well, the context of your discussion with Fez clearly assumed that Gorsuch would vote with the liberals. I'm much more skeptical of that, but you seemed to concede the point (at least as a hypothetical) when describing Kavanaugh as the swing vote. Gorsuch probably will occasionally vote with liberals, probably in a losing effort. But I think the issue is that roberts didn't want to be the swing vote in too many conservative BS decisions before this. Now, well, he won't be, and he can get back to his first love of utterly dismantling every voting rule he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Killjoybear said: he can get back to his first love of utterly dismantling every voting rule he can. If we're talking Roberts' general inclinations towards voting rights cases in the longterm I'd agree. But not when it comes to controversial cases that threaten the court's legitimacy after next Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 5 hours ago, Fez said: I always thought Alito, Thomas, and Barrett would go for that if it helped Trump. I wasn't sure about Kavanaugh, but it looks like he will too. I don't think Gorsuch will though, and I'm confident Roberts won't. Worrying that democracy in the US hinges on Roberts and Gorsuch not choosing to hand the election to Trump regardless of how many people vote to oust Trump has me sick to my stomach and unable to sleep. The next week will be hell on a lot of people's nerves. Please, if anyone hasn't voted yet, vote as soon as you can. Don't trust the mail to get your ballot in on time. Either take it to a official drop box or vote early in person. If you can be sure to track your ballot. And, please, vote Biden/Harris. This is not the election for third party protest votes. Trump and his enablers have got to be voted out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted October 27, 2020 Author Share Posted October 27, 2020 Does anyone have an electoral map based on current polling? How is Biden doing in Penn, and Florida? Can he win without winning either state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Relic said: How is Biden doing in Penn, and Florida? Can he win without winning either state? His best chance to win without PA (and Florida and North Carolina) is to win Arizona along with Wisconsin and Michigan. Still, PA (where he's about 5 points ahead) looks better than AZ, FL, and NC (where he's ~2 points ahead) based on current polling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, Relic said: Does anyone have an electoral map based on current polling? How is Biden doing in Penn, and Florida? Can he win without winning either state? I believe this shows the current state of the electoral college map based on the most recent polling as weighted by 538. And if you click here, you'll see what the forecast says if you assume FL and PA go Trump. OTOH, if you give PA to Biden, then he's now at a 91% chance to win vs Trump being down to a 7% chance (I don't know where the other 2% goes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted October 27, 2020 Author Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ran said: I believe this shows the current state of the electoral college map based on the most recent polling as weighted by 538. And if you click here, you'll see what the forecast says if you assume FL and PA go Trump. Thanks. Pretty cool little program. The model predicts Biden as a slight favorite if Trump wins Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ran said: I don't know where the other 2% goes To the House! 269-269 tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 12 minutes ago, DMC said: To the House! 269-269 tie. In which case Trump would be a virtual lock since each state gets one vote and Republicans control more state delegations, even with a minority overall. What a way to run a country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.