The Supremes

[Balcones 417]

On 4/23/2021 at 9:04 PM, Chewbacca said:

On 4/23/2021 at 8:53 PM, RPM said:

To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

She was the worst candidate in my lifetime. Literally the only person Trump could have beaten.

What are his chances against someone like Harris?

[Balcones 417]

On 7/1/2024 at 10:57 PM, troph said:

This decision has me in full support of a pack the court strategy. Take it to 15. Hell appoint moderates that’s fine. This court is rogue, overturning precedent left and right. This isn’t all about Trump, I don’t want a stronger executive. It’s time to reign the judicial branch back in. 

I assume we are still in favor of doing this? Now that Trump has the House and Senate he could get this done for both R and Ds? 
 

Are you still thinking 15?

[Balcones 417]

On 6/29/2023 at 3:12 PM, David Dennison said:

Would Democrats be willing to get rid of the filibuster to pack the court?

Let’s do this! 

[troph 24559]

4 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I assume we are still in favor of doing this? Now that Trump has the House and Senate he could get this done for both R and Ds? 
 

Are you still thinking 15?

You won, glad you’re having fun. Go asshole on someone else, I’m not interested. 

[Balcones 417]

Just now, troph said:

You won, glad you’re having fun. Go asshole on someone else, I’m not interested. 

Fair enough. 
 

The treasure trove of pack the court ideas from a few years ago may have me up for a while. 

[troph 24559]

5 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Fair enough. 
 

The treasure trove of pack the court ideas from a few years ago may have me up for a while. 

 

[tx 3 putt 76287]

great idea ….

 

[Goofyboy 3191]

I like this idea.

[wildcat09 29213]

Not to quash hope, but there's no way Manchin or Sinema goes along with an effort to replace any SCOTUS justices now.

[Anastasis 23390]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor retires.

Yeah. No way that could backfire. 
 

 

[Frank Drebin 5611]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

great idea ….

 

Have we ever had a SCOTUS justice who failed the bar exam on their first try?

[Chewbacca 7729]

18 hours ago, Balcones said:

What are his chances against someone like Harris?

You're such a pussy coming in to talk shit after the election.  Where were you the past several months?

[Balcones 417]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

You're such a pussy coming in to talk shit after the election.  Where were you the past several months?

I read your post below and felt like there was literally no reason chime in....  Seriously, though, could you have been more wrong?

 

Quote

To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

She was the worst candidate in my lifetime. Literally the only person Trump could have beaten.

 

[David Dennison 18646]

On 11/7/2024 at 2:31 PM, Anastasis said:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor retires.

Yeah. No way that could backfire. 

Republicans couldn't block her replacement. Democrats could.

But it doesn't matter. 

 

Edited Monday at 07:01 PM by David Dennison

[tx 3 putt 76287]

he’s been discussed many times as a sc justice ….

 

[Bateshorn 9897]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans couldn't block her replacement. Democrats could.

But it doesn't matter. 

 

Yes.  Very frustrating.  If the Democrats wanted to come back into session, vow to work throught T-giving, and Biden nominated some very young progressive, they could have it done very quickly.  McConnell has a few roadblocks he could throw up, but they are temporary.  This is just a lack of desire to retire on her part and the Dems being very Democrat: Playing Checkers while the GOP plays Football. 

[Bateshorn 9897]

On 11/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Frank Drebin said:

Have we ever had a SCOTUS justice who failed the bar exam on their first try?

Well, I'm going to really blow your mind: 7 Justices didn't go to law school. Although most were from the wayback.  Lots were nothing more than non-practicing attorney's who were appointed according to political connections. The current supreme court of nothing but Yale/Havard judges who graduated at the top of their class and served as lower court judges is actually atypical in US history. 

[David Dennison 18646]

8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Well, I'm going to really blow your mind: 7 Justices didn't go to law school. Although most were from the wayback.  Lots were nothing more than non-practicing attorney's who were appointed according to political connections. The current supreme court of nothing but Yale/Havard judges who graduated at the top of their class and served as lower court judges is actually atypical in US history. 

Technically, do you even have to be a lawyer?

[Bateshorn 9897]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Technically, do you even have to be a lawyer?

I don't believe technically, but I do believe everyone has been an attorney of some variety, but many states either didn't have a bar exam, or it was very informal.  So attaching a "lawyer" title to a Supreme Court justice before the 1930s is a pretty damn loose term.  It pretty much meant you either graduated from law school and/or possibly took a relatively simple oral or written test.   

A lot of lawyers in the Colonial/Revelutionary times just read a bunch of books & did some indepth discussions/study with a local judge/attroney, and were declared fellow lawyers. 

Edited Monday at 08:52 PM by Bateshorn

[Gap03 3264]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans couldn't block her replacement. Democrats could.

But it doesn't matter. 

I'd be careful counting Manchin as a Democrat, especially on a vote to appoint a liberal SC justice, and we all know Sinema is not to be trusted (especially as an "Independent" with a future at Fox News), which is why I referred the Dems senate majority as fragile. 

I suspect that Sotomayor is assuming the Dems wouldn't be able to get any successor "worthy of replacing her" through the Senate, which is why she's not stepping down.  The liberal justices unfortunately don't seem to be good at objectively assessing their own mortality in connection with these sorts of calculations - to the country's unfortunate peril.  I mean, what could go wrong?

[Bateshorn 9897]

3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I'd be careful counting Manchin as a Democrat, especially on a vote to appoint a liberal SC justice, and we all know Sinema is not to be trusted (especially as an "Independent" with a future at Fox News), which is why I referred the Dems senate majority as fragile. 

I suspect that Sotomayor is assuming the Dems wouldn't be able to get any successor "worthy of replacing her" through the Senate, which is why she's not stepping down.  The liberal justices unfortunately don't seem to be good at objectively assessing their own mortality in connection with these sorts of calculations - to the country's unfortunate peril.  I mean, what could go wrong?

This is probably the best reason, tbh.  If you aren't 100% sure that you have a rock solid 50 are going to be with you, it makes the ability of McConnell to draw everything out much more powerful.  You need that 50+Harris standing around basically ready to take votes. 

Edited Monday at 08:58 PM by Bateshorn

[tx 3 putt 76287]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Technically, do you even have to be a lawyer?

 

no

[chainsaw 9836]

I think all three liberals can hang on, they're not nearly as frail as RBG was during Obama's term.

[CooterBrown 17901]

It doesn't fucking matter any longer.  If Trump doesn't get his way, he can easily expand the court to 13 and appoint 4 more judges.  That play is always fair game for anyone willing to do it.