• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

User 406

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
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.
Click to expand...

The end game, of course, is a zero member Supreme Court. That will finally end the whining about no cameras being allowed during oral argument.


Retromelon da bess
 
C

CCS

Banned
#NYPrimary election judge says people who feel have been purged have remedy...go get court order in front of a judge
Click to expand...

The mental image of the entirety of r/s4p filing past a judge is hilarious.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Retromelon said:
ko2DHnC.jpg


this is what I think of your dumb ass primary rules ny
Click to expand...

Cruz isn't Satan, he's the Zodiac. Your entire ballot is borked!
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
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?
Click to expand...

This isn't a point about 5-4 decisions, but all Supreme Court decisions:

Eric Segall said:
There are several responses. First, even now the Court only hears 75 cases or so a year giving the courts of appeals effective final say in most areas of federal law. Judge Richard Posner made this point in a debate that he and I had over whether Supreme Court Justices do their jobs differently than lower court judges in any way that matters. Posner pointed out that the Court only reviews “one tenth of one percent” of lower court cases and thus lower courts “already have the last word in most cases.”
Click to expand...

And, again, the point would be to eliminate the ninth seat and require bipartisan membership along a 4-4 split. It'd be a lot harder for either side to later amend the law to add a seat than it is to fill a ninth seat currently provided by law. Either side could add seats now, but nobody so much as suggests that.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
This isn't a point about 5-4 decisions, but all Supreme Court decisions:
Click to expand...

Right, but the SCOTUS upends about 2/3 decisions and a lot of the decisions it doesn't upend are simply to re-affirm established law, fix different court opinions, are simply restricted to that one case.

Most Appellate Courts agree on most issues. So the point made here isn't actually relevant.



And, again, the point would be to eliminate the ninth seat and require bipartisan membership along a 4-4 split. It'd be a lot harder for either side to later amend the law to add a seat than it is to fill a ninth seat currently provided by law. Either side could add seats now, but nobody so much as suggests that.
Click to expand...

But again, I need evidence it would lead to anything positive, of which there is none. It's all hypothesis. No thanks.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
adam387 said:
I need to see Satan's birth certificate to make sure he's eligible.
Click to expand...

If an angel is born in heaven outside of US airspace, but falls below the surface underneath US territory and becomes a demon, do we consider the transformation or the original birth as "natural born"?

We need a scotus ruling
 
U

User 406

Banned
VendettaRed07 said:
If an angel is born in heaven outside of US airspace, but falls below the surface underneath US territory and becomes a demon, do we consider the transformation or the original birth as "natural born"?

We need a scotus ruling
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz fell down from Canada.

America is Hell, confirmed.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
And, again, the point would be to eliminate the ninth seat and require bipartisan membership along a 4-4 split. It'd be a lot harder for either side to later amend the law to add a seat than it is to fill a ninth seat currently provided by law. Either side could add seats now, but nobody so much as suggests that.
Click to expand...

I am kind of shocked that you are suggesting such a condition. Putting aside the problems associated with constitutional principles that mandating partisanship from Justices would raise, the idea that such a solution could actually be implemented with any degree of success seems ridiculous. How on earth would you even write such a condition in terms of specifics and particulars that doesn't just leave it to the eye of the beholder? It would inevitably become outdated as new questions create new divisions along ideological lines.

More importantly, how would you even successfully enforce it in such a way that would prevent partisan actors from stacking the court?

This is one of the most nakedly reactionary stances I've seen you take in a long time. I cannot even fathom a scenario in prior years in which someone else could have floated this idea and you would have done anything other than savage it.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Kristoffer said:
A Democrat did not try that this election.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

I mean it sort of ended up that his campaign had vast majority white appeal but it wasn't intentional. It was through terrible misreadings, gafs, mistakes, incompetence, etc.

Bernie absolutely tried. But when his bread and butter "brand" and appeal didn't resonate with demographics outside of his usual targets he didn't know how to effectively pivot.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
Right, but the SCOTUS upends about 2/3 decisions and a lot of the decisions it doesn't upend are simply to re-affirm established law, fix different court opinions, are simply restricted to that one case.

Most Appellate Courts agree on most issues. So the point made here isn't actually relevant.
Click to expand...

Do they? What percentage of issues?

Black Mamba said:
But again, I need evidence it would lead to anything positive, of which there is none. It's all hypothesis. No thanks.
Click to expand...

He's already pointed to the unusual order in Zubik. Justice Kagan claims that the justices are "working really hard" to avoid deadlocks--an unnecessary effort when one side has the upper hand. And we've seen for decades now how partisan the confirmation process has become, all because Republicans and Democrats are fighting over which side gets the upper hand. For instance, until Justice Alito's confirmation, the two justices who were confirmed with the most No votes were Justice Thomas (48 No) and Chief Justice Rehnquist (33). Justices Alito (42) and Kagan (37) both received more No votes than Rehnquist, and Justice Sotomayor received only two less than him (31).

Segall's suggestion is a way to cut back on the partisan bickering over confirmations and encourage the Court to continue doing what Kagan says they're doing now--"working really hard" to find a consensus.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Macho Madness said:
So they have to take it up with each county if they have a registration concern but the judge refused to do anything today.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they can get it changed for 2020 so that independent New Yorkers too can vote to re-nominate President Clinton as the Democratic candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom