SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

[Handyman]

I agree, none of the plans are going to be implemented. Expansion of the Court likely won’t happen either. I agree with Hovey that the Democrats in charge will likely do nothing to the Court. They’ll pass liberal legislation, and bank on the fact most of it will survive court challenges, if it ever even sees the light of day in court. Of course, some stuff will get overturned. I’m not holding on for two GOP justices to do anything right, like you and unofan are on certain issues. I hope y’all are right about that. Me? I’m banking on the fact that Democrats are going to pass so much stuff, that IF some of it is even challenged, most of it will survive the 6-3 Court. That’s still progress. I’m thinking with changing demographics, etc., we’ll even manage to maintain power more often than not without having to stoop.
I don’t think the lottery system is a perfect setup. I agree it’d be hard to implement. I never said it would happen in a day. I said I think Democrats need to focus on other stuff- like legislating- before they ever even think about getting around to dealing with the Court. Saying that the lottery system wouldn’t work because the judges are still political appointees is silly and stupid though. Of course they’re political appointees- all of them are. No system we’re arguing is going to change that setup, especially the Court expansion you flip-flopped on supporting. The lottery system at least would make it 5-4, either Democrat or Republican, not 6-3 GOP. Certainly not ideal, but better than the obvious ***-for-tat continuous expansion, where the Court will be 144-141 by 2050, with probably even less progress made than with a 6-3 GOP Court.

For the most part I agree. I think if the Dems play this right there is no way the SC will be able to stop most of what they accomplish which is why adding justices is like 6th (at best) on my list of things I want to say happened in 4 years. I think Big Business will do well under this SC but I dont see them sticking their neck out on most social issues outside of possibly Roe.

I am also a White Male though...so most likely nothing they do will hurt me anyways. My gf thinks different, MT obviously does too...and their worries are not misguided.

The problem is, ACB (and McRapey) are so far out of their element on the SC that we have no real clue what their barriers are. We can for the most part guess the rest but those two are friggin dangerous. Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.

[Handyman]

Geezus, I didn’t even see that post of his before I posted mine. Handy, I swear you wrote something about “so be it” for adding more justices last week. I’m glad to see that’s not actually your viewpoint, and that expanding the court is a stupid idea.

The board is wonky right now. In the time I was gone 3 posts from BEFORE mine showed up out of nowhere.

[Handyman]

I wonder what changed his mind?

[French Rage]

Oh look Brett changed his mind from bush case to now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RonaldKla...08604938866690

The law didn't want to be construed that way and it kept objecting to him construing it that way, but he just went ahead and didn't listen to its cries. It's the laws fault for being written in that font.

[ScoobyDoo]

Oh look Brett changed his mind from bush case to now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RonaldKla...08604938866690

Of course he did. He's a Republican.

Roberts, Amy Pyscho, and McRapey all worked for the Republicans on the Bush V Gore case. They won then and they're winning now. Charlie Sheen would be proud.

[SJHovey]

Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.

I guess I'm kind of curious as to the basis for this opinion.

First, I think the ABA issued a "well qualified" opinion regarding her after she was nominated. That's not a be all, end all, as I posted a few days ago, but if people are going to argue that judges shouldn't be confirmed who receive a bad rating from the ABA then I don't think it's appropriate to ignore a well qualified rating for other judges.

Second, there was a letter to the editor in the StarTrib way back when she was first nominated. The letter was written by someone who had worked with her. This person was actually called by the Democrats to testify as to why Trump should be impeached in the hearings before Congress, so it's not like he was some sort of right wing guy. He wrote in the opinion column that ACB is extremely qualified and will make an excellent justice.

So, no disrespect intended, but I'm not certain you're almost as qualified as she is.

[MissThundercat]

For the most part I agree. I think if the Dems play this right there is no way the SC will be able to stop most of what they accomplish which is why adding justices is like 6th (at best) on my list of things I want to say happened in 4 years. I think Big Business will do well under this SC but I dont see them sticking their neck out on most social issues outside of possibly Roe.

I am also a White Male though...so most likely nothing they do will hurt me anyways. My gf thinks different, MT obviously does too...and their worries are not misguided.

The problem is, ACB (and McRapey) are so far out of their element on the SC that we have no real clue what their barriers are. We can for the most part guess the rest but those two are friggin dangerous. Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.

This is what I was driving at. Two justices have already hinted they want to overturn Obergefell. Several conservative pundits have said with ACB, LGBT rights will never see the light of day again. Every time those of us in the LGBT community hear something like this, we immediately go to worry. Last night, I was angry, sick, heartbroken, and terrified for what will happen next. I woke up this morning feeling the same way. And while this will be on the ballot for MI in 2022, I am hoping it will pass, and not only that, we get a liberal majority on our State Supreme Court so it won't be overturned. Remember, our current state SC thinks Whitmer's a poophead.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

At some point Democrats need to wake up and realize they're in a war.

Careful, I've been told only Republicans are allowed to use such violent rhetoric.

[Jimjamesak]

Careful, I've been told only Republicans are allowed to use such violent rhetoric.

Which is how it works for a lot of things...

When does the ACA decision come out? I’m willing to bet plenty of folks will change their minds on the court when pre-existing condition protections are eliminated.

[SJHovey]

Which is how it works for a lot of things...

When does the ACA decision come out? I’m willing to bet plenty of folks will change their minds on the court when pre-existing condition protections are eliminated.

The case won't even be argued until next month. I assume a decision will come in June.

I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of the ACA litigation, but iirc a lot of it is connected to the individual mandates question, and whether that is constitutional, and whether the law can stand if you remove the individual mandates requirement (which I think was effectively gutted anyway due to removing penalties).

If the ACA should fall due to defects in the individual mandates language, I don't know of any prohibition on Congress to pass legislation requiring insurers to offer coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions.

[unofan]

The case won't even be argued until next month. I assume a decision will come in June.

I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of the ACA litigation, but iirc a lot of it is connected to the individual mandates question, and whether that is constitutional, and whether the law can stand if you remove the individual mandates requirement (which I think was effectively gutted anyway due to removing penalties).

If the ACA should fall due to defects in the individual mandates language, I don't know of any prohibition on Congress to pass legislation requiring insurers to offer coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions.

The entire lawsuit is stupid, and the fact that it got this far is ridiculous. SCOTUS said the mandate was constitutional as a tax. Congress setting the tax at $0 changes nothing.

But the GOP has to derp, so here we are. And now they've stacked the Court to support their derp.

[Kepler]

I am pretty surprised that even after everything the GOP has done:

+ since 2016
+ since 2000
+ since 1994
+ since 1980

so many people here are still yellow. This is a fight to the death, folks. We are about to have a *tiny* window -- about 500 days -- to set right fascism that has set down roots in our government for 2 generations. And still we have Diane Feinsteins and Peggy Noonans among us clutching their pearls.

What part of Nazis don't you understand? My god, to think that people out there complain about "Beltway talk" -- the endless chewing over of too clever by half bromides about optics and norms and tactics. This is a f-cking nuclear war, you guys. Why the ever loving f-ck do liberals lose their memories the second they get power?

[Kepler]

The entire lawsuit is stupid, and the fact that it got this far is ridiculous. SCOTUS said the mandate was constitutional as a tax. Congress setting the tax at $0 changes nothing.

But the GOP has to derp, so here we are. And now they've stacked the Court to support their derp.

Would you please respond to my post and reassure me that I am being an alarmist idiot and I don't have to worry if the Dems do nothing because REASONS?!

He obviously knows far, far more about this than I do. My point is that all of that knowledge is based on a supposition: that the Court will operate as a traditional court, within the general bounds of stare decisis. That Nazi justices will be justices first and Nazis second.

My contention is this is not correct. They will be Nazis first. And given that then the Court gives them infinite power within the legal realm. If they say the moon is the sun then it is. And the Court's privileged position as arbitrar of the other branches, since Marbury, also gives them infinite veto power over the legislative and executive branch. They have no positive power: they cannot pass a law or appropriate funds. But they have limitless negative power: they can strike down any law, any executive action.

I am still not clear on why the Court cannot just prevent us from expanding it, but I am assured by every Constitutional scholar they literally can't it. So that is our only option, and we shouldn't waste time proving that it's our only option because that just runs clock. +6 on Day 1.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

At this point, if people lose their coverage, fine. Maybe an avalanche of medical bankruptcies in the sh*thole states will finally teach some of those rubes about voting for klepto corporatist cronies just because they thumped the Bible and said they would save the precious babeeeeeeez.

[Kepler]

At this point, if people lose their coverage, fine. Maybe an avalanche of medical bankruptcies in the sh*thole states will finally teach some of those rubes about voting for klepto corporatist cronies just because they thumped the Bible and said they would save the precious babeeeeeeez.

It would be fine if it only affected the cons, but many humans will be hurt too.