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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :(
 
The Technomancer said:
Never having lived in a city with an actual subway system the turnstiles always get me tripped up. I had to hop one in Shanghai because after scanning my ticket I wasn't sure if it had gone through so I pushed on it to test if it would move and it flipped and locked me out

The moral of this story is that feedback is important in interface design or something
Click to expand...

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.

Captain Pants said:
Normally that would be the case, but between Bernie growing up in New York, hotsaucegate and the blessing from the pope, I think his luck is about to change.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter since Hillary has stolen 120k votes out from Brooklyn as of this morning.
 
P83LiGJ.gif
 
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
 
balladofwindfishes said:
We aren't going to "settle" for 8 justices. The GOP is just biding time hoping for a miracle Presidency win. I refuse to believe you don't see what's going on.

To ask liberals to settle for 8 justices is to say "yep, here you go conservatives, have a win. On us. Because you were whiny little babies"
Click to expand...

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.

Retromelon said:
META!!

Who should i vote for! Its trump, kasich, cruz or (lol) carson! Please respond
I will obey any directive cept cruz
Click to expand...

Who does best against Trump in your district? Vote for that guy.

Unless it's Ben Carson. Then vote for the next-best competitor.

Frank the Great said:
I agree that a 4-4 SCOTUS wouldn't be bad in an ideal world. But after so many years of Republican domination and terrible partisan decisions, fuck that noise. Give me my liberal majority, we need to reverse that damage.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Metaphoreus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
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
Click to expand...

Aaron Strife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Maybe the Congress and the next President just get together and try to figure out a way to maintain an equally divided (as a matter of political party affiliation) and even-numbered Court.
Click to expand...

But I don't see any way to do that other than by codifying it.
 
Metaphoreus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Metaphoreus said:
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:



But I don't see any way to do that other than by codifying it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aaron Strife said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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:
Moreover, if uniformity is a compelling need in certain cases, and the Justices are divided four-to-four, it is likely that they will try hard to reach some kind of consensus or moderate agreement to resolve the dispute as is happening right now with the Obamacare contraception litigation. This is emphatically a good thing and must be balanced against the very few cases where uniformity is important and the Justices are deadlocked four-to-four with no way out.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pigeon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Metaphoreus said:
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!
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Metaphoreus said:
"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!
Click to expand...

Glad you see my point
 
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.
 
https://twitter.com/JordanChariton

(Several part tweet) NYPrimary election lawsuit: Judge orders hearing 4 later date, instructs plaintiffs to name every single NY county as..

Defendants and give each county notice that they have to appear in court to defend their voter registration process (over 60 counties)...

NY Board of Election said they have nothing to do with the problems, are "not responsible for the counties" #NYPrimary

Lawyers urge Dems who feel they have had registration changed wrongly should vote on provisional ballot since a new hearing has been granted
Click to expand...

Sad!
 
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.
 
That lawsuit hasn't panned out. From the TYT reporter on twitter who's covering it:

(Several part tweet) NYPrimary election lawsuit: Judge orders hearing 4 later date, instructs plaintiffs to name every single NY county as..
Click to expand...

Defendants and give each county notice that they have to appear in court to defend their voter registration process (over 60 counties)...
Click to expand...

NY Board of Election said they have nothing to do with the problems, are "not responsible for the counties" #NYPrimary
Click to expand...

EDIT: Beaten like justice :P
 
Metaphoreus said:
As Segall points out, that's already the case for the vast majority of issues.
Click to expand...

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?
 
How can a court of humans be non-biased?

Given the horrible horrible decisions the conservative majority court has made over the years, we have to get a liberal majority to overturn them.
 
Annoyed how Sanders supporters are going to turn this upcoming loss into some ridiculous conspiracy. I really wanted them to come face to face with reality and truly lose all hope this time.
 
Suikoguy said:
That's a pretty good summation, but since I hate twitter articles, I formatted it for everybody (you can thank Jquery):
Click to expand...

This is a fantastic piece, and really lays out why the whole anti-identity politics backlash is so misguided.


Y2Kev said:
Um I fuckin love hot sauce. I didn't realize this was a racial thing. Am I secretly black? do black people like hot sauce?
Click to expand...

It goes kind of hand in hand with the stereotype that white people only like bland unseasoned food, kind of like adam.


teiresias said:
This always annoys me, because that's clearly toast.
Click to expand...

Politics is the art of compromise, so hopefully this will help:

RMKDZRn.jpg



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.
 
Ironically, some people posting in r/s4p actually have committed voter fraud, because due to misinformation from the subreddit they signed the affidavit on the provisional ballot saying they had been registered as a Democrat when they never had been.
 
CCS said:
Ironically, some people posting in r/s4p actually have committed voter fraud, because due to misinformation from the subreddit they signed the affidavit on the provisional ballot saying they had been registered as a Democrat when they never had been.
Click to expand...

Its ok. its for the greater good.
 
Sea Manky said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Retromelon said:
ko2DHnC.jpg


this is what I think of your dumb ass primary rules ny
Click to expand...
Glorious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
Top Bottom