Retromelon
Member
No poligaf discussion on the supreme court is truly complete until hyliantom weighs in
Shit there are many old people here. You fought hard bernie
Shit there are many old people here. You fought hard bernie
PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
theprodigy
Member
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I lived in NY for almost a decade and got confused when i went back last year. It's that first swipe that messes you up. If for some reason the computer doesnt pick it up you try something different and end up completely messing it up.
Doesn't matter since Hillary has stolen 120k votes out from Brooklyn as of this morning.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
How many minorities in New York are even registered Republicans?
Officerrob
Banned
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 2m2 minutes ago Washington, DC
If all of the 17 states Sanders won got to vote again, he would then be tied with Clinton in the pledged delegate count
Kinda puts into perspective how far behind Bernie is
If all of the 17 states Sanders won got to vote again, he would then be tied with Clinton in the pledged delegate count
Kinda puts into perspective how far behind Bernie is
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Segall, himself a liberal, is making the case why you should settle. Simply saying, "I'm not going to settle for an eight-justice court!" doesn't really respond to his arguments. And since limiting the Court to eight justices would eliminate the seat Republicans are trying to fill, I'm not sure how it could be seen as a win for them.
Who does best against Trump in your district? Vote for that guy.
Unless it's Ben Carson. Then vote for the next-best competitor.
I think Segall's suggestion would go a long way to resolving this sort of vindictive partisanship when it comes to the Supreme Court. Republicans would be just as disappointed when Kennedy (or a consistently liberal justice) leaves office as you are now.
balladofwindfishes
Member
But the seat wouldn't be eliminated. It would just be a ticking time bomb waiting for a conservative president.
I'm not having any of it. I'm not settling. That would reward obstruction, and that would be a disaster for the country
Aaron Strife
Banned
No, we need a full court.
4-4 is better than 5-4 conservative, but there's no reason to leave the seat vacant.
I hope you're not suggesting meta that a Republican would see it your way. They would fill the seat if elected and the Senate doesn't blink on Garland.
4-4 is better than 5-4 conservative, but there's no reason to leave the seat vacant.
I hope you're not suggesting meta that a Republican would see it your way. They would fill the seat if elected and the Senate doesn't blink on Garland.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No, Segall is suggesting that the Court be formally limited to eight justices. Congress could do that by law. I also assume they could require its membership to consist of 4 conservatives and 4 liberals.
EDIT: Actually, I may be misreading Segall slightly. Late in the article, he writes:
Eric Segall said:
But I don't see any way to do that other than by codifying it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Requiring an institution that is ostensibly nonpartisan to have an even partisan divide is fucking stupid. It's both sidesism at its finest. I don't believe that filling the court with conservative justices is inherently a good thing and I don't believe bipartisanship is inherently a good thing. The Patriot Act was bipartisan, sure it was a steaming pile of shit, but isn't it great that both parties came together to fuck us over?
His argument also seems to based on the theory that if the Court is deadlocked, that will force them to come together. The alternative is that the Court will simply be deadlocked, constantly, all the time. That is putting a lot of faith in a court that's currently stacked with hardliners.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Did you guys know that in the 90s, Clinton had a collection of 100 different hot sauces in the White House?
RustyNails
Member
I would nominate metamucil to SC. He has scalia avatar.
StopMakingSense
Member
Waiting on George Clooneys wire transfer to go over.
Macho Madness
Member
Retromelon
Member
So did billl ack ack ack. Get home safe folks
Brawndo Addict
Banned
The majority of SC cases are not 5-4 affairs anyway. It's a rather blunt instrument to use against a problem that implicitly requires you to accept the court as a partisan tool. And if we accept the court as a partisan tool, then we know that partisan actors will try to stack it regardless of the total number of justices. It doesn't solve the underlying problem, it just makes it harder to accomplish (5-4 vs 5-3). What do we do then?
Furthermore, if your objective is to deadlock, then we're interested in the proportion and not the total number. Effectively, there is no difference between even numbers in that case (if you assume equal partisan split). What makes eight better than six or four or two? Or better than 10 or 12 or 14?
Furthermore, if your objective is to deadlock, then we're interested in the proportion and not the total number. Effectively, there is no difference between even numbers in that case (if you assume equal partisan split). What makes eight better than six or four or two? Or better than 10 or 12 or 14?
I actually kind of like this idea. I am not sure I'm convinced that the American political results pipeline, which looks something like:
Get Senate -> Get Presidency -> Appoint Justices until court shifts -> Wait 30 years for SCOTUS decisions to change political landscape
Is necessarily the best possible way to run a country.
Having an officially balanced SCOTUS would kind of remove it from the political (rather than constitutional) veto point system and allow it to return to a more, dare I say, judicial role.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
"Ostensibly" being the key word in your first paragraph, particularly when it comes to public perception. On this very page, you have people rejecting Segall's suggestion because what we really need are liberal justices who can overturn conservative precedent. But it's totally nonpartisan, guys!
"Seems to [be]" is the key phrase from your second paragraph. It isn't. He writes:
Eric Segall said:
It bears noting that since the Supreme Court selects which cases it will hear, we should expect fewer 4-4 splits in future terms, since they'll be less likely to select cases that reach such a result when they know they'll only have eight justices.
On the other hand the court would stay deadlocked on divisive issues which isn't a good thing considering the divisive issues of our time.
balladofwindfishes
Member
When has it ever filled its purpose of being a non-bias non-partisan no nonsense legal judicial body?
JesseEwiak
Member
The Supreme Court has never been a nonpartisan body. It's been a political body since day one. Now we're just not acting like it isn't.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Glad you see my point
Black Mamba
Member
And any 4-4 decision is does come to means it only stays law in that region, so we're going to have different laws for different regions of the country.
It's an interesting thought to think that 4 on each side might force some decision avoiding 4-4 splits but would it work in practice?
I'd rather not gamble.
It's an interesting thought to think that 4 on each side might force some decision avoiding 4-4 splits but would it work in practice?
I'd rather not gamble.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's interesting how these sorts of things only come up when the court is looking to shift to be more liberal focused.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
As Segall points out, that's already the case for the vast majority of issues.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Fall 2016 - Congress enacts the "Modern Judiciary Act" and the Supreme Court is codified as having 8 Justices.
Spring 2017 - Ginsburg or Thomas dies, leaving the composition of the court uneven.
Now what happens? If political gridlock prevents another justice from being appointed, we're right back where we started just with seven instead of nine. And if political actors appoint someone who is ideologically opposite of the deceased justice, then we're back to the original fear of a stacked court.
It's a fool's errand.
Spring 2017 - Ginsburg or Thomas dies, leaving the composition of the court uneven.
Now what happens? If political gridlock prevents another justice from being appointed, we're right back where we started just with seven instead of nine. And if political actors appoint someone who is ideologically opposite of the deceased justice, then we're back to the original fear of a stacked court.
It's a fool's errand.
Black Mamba
Member
But that's not a proper analysis.
Most decisions aren't 5-4 because most decisions are simply more obvious to the Court, regardless of their left-right persuasion.
It's not like most of these cases are 5-4 originally and then one side persuades the other side and it becomes 7-2 or 9-0.
The simple truth is that most cases are uncontroversial for the SCOTUS and the outcomes would likely be the same whether there were 7 conservatives or 7 liberals.
But for the handful of divisive cases, it fucking matters. And there's no evidence 4-4 split would change in these cases.
As an aside, I'd also like to point out that the GOP would put a 5th conservative on the Court the moment they get the chance again because they don't give a fuck about anything else but maintaining their power. The GOP would never play nice so why should the liberals?
This is a fantastic piece, and really lays out why the whole anti-identity politics backlash is so misguided.
It goes kind of hand in hand with the stereotype that white people only like bland unseasoned food, kind of like adam.
Politics is the art of compromise, so hopefully this will help:
And yeah, fuck only considering this whole deadlocked SC thing right after the most partisan Justice dies. Not buying that kind of concern trolling for one second.
HA! Good, man! Verily, this doth make me laugh!
But didn't you use to be independent?
Fenderputty
Banned
We could raise our Supreme Court Justices like universal soldiers.
I think everyone's done one at one time or another, those things don't work half the time. I can't wait until we finally make the swap to card taps.
No, I've always been a republican. Now give me a tax cut.
VendettaRed07
Member
Retromelon
Member
this is what I think of your dumb ass primary rules ny
i didnt know the chinese characters tho
But I thought you were a black lesbian dixiecrat?
Yup, I'm not the slightest bit inclined to take this kind of thing seriously. We have their king cornered on the board with a queen and a rook, and now they're wanting to stave-off defeat by offering-up a sacrifice bishop as bait? Fuck that.
Glorious!
this is what I think of your dumb ass primary rules ny
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Few things won't change about NYC, turnstiles fucking you up and the Whitestone ruining any chance of getting to JFK on time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked