What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Maybe we should just go with weighted SC voting.

9 Justices; a possible 100 Senators put them there. That's 900 possible weighting.

Gorsuch was 54-45; Kagan was 63; Sotomayor was 68; Breyer 87; Alito 58; Thomas 52;
Ginsberg's confirmation was 96-3.
Roberts was 78-22.

So if RBG votes for something she's worth 96; if Roberts votes for something he's worth 78.

It takes 451 weighted score to pass the SC.

:D


Then again, by that method, when RBG and Breyer are gone, nothing will ever pass. :o
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Rover said:
This does give cover to Tester-Machin-Heitkamp-Donnelly-McCaskill to vote against Kavanaugh if they so desire.
Click to expand...

At this point they probably should. Being weak willed isnt going to guarantee them re-election anymore. They need to take a stand and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
Maybe we should just go with weighted SC voting.

9 Justices; a possible 100 Senators put them there. That's 900 possible weighting.

Gorsuch was 54-45; Kagan was 63; Sotomayor was 68; Breyer 87; Alito 58; Thomas 52;
Ginsberg's confirmation was 96-3.
Roberts was 78-22.

So if RBG votes for something she's worth 96; if Roberts votes for something he's worth 78.

It takes 451 weighted score to pass the SC.

:D


Then again, by that method, when RBG and Breyer are gone, nothing will ever pass. :o
Click to expand...

I like it. Let's go a step further and weight each Senator's vote by how many people they represent.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Most important Kavanaugh confirmation hearing moment so far ... <a href="https://t.co/KXeuhviIFi">https://t.co/KXeuhviIFi</a></p>— Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1037029776177987584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court is a LIFETIME appointment. I refuse to proceed as normal with the Kavanaugh hearings when we haven't even received the documents Chairman Grassley has asked for.<br><br> What is the rush? What are they hiding? <a href="https://t.co/HC8lbt22g9">pic.twitter.com/HC8lbt22g9</a></p>— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBooker) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenBooker/status/1036988252736155649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sen. Durbin: "We waited for more than a year with a vacancy on the Supreme Court under the direction of your leader in the U.S. Senate ... The fact that we cannot take a few days or weeks to have a complete review of Judge Kavanaugh's record is unfair to the American people." <a href="https://t.co/GodoA0Kfen">pic.twitter.com/GodoA0Kfen</a></p>— NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1036980327254831105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Handyman said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court is a LIFETIME appointment. I refuse to proceed as normal with the Kavanaugh hearings when we haven't even received the documents Chairman Grassley has asked for.<br><br> What is the rush? What are they hiding? <a href="https://t.co/HC8lbt22g9">pic.twitter.com/HC8lbt22g9</a></p>— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBooker) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenBooker/status/1036988252736155649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Didn't he already come out as a "No" a few months ago? Will any documents change his mind?

Political theater for the TV cameras.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I can see this both ways:

A 42k page record dump last night? Stinky.

But, this nomination has been known for a couple months. His ruling are judicial record. What have you been doing during those months if not looking at that record?
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
I can see this both ways:

A 42k page record dump last night? Stinky.

But, this nomination has been known for a couple months. His ruling are judicial record. What have you been doing during those months if not looking at that record?
Click to expand...

Do we know the general content of those 42K pages, is it all legal opinions given from the bench? They might be looking for some Anita Hill type stuff here.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

joecct said:
Didn't he already come out as a "No" a few months ago? Will any documents change his mind?

Political theater for the TV cameras.
Click to expand...

I agree, coming from Booker this is silly. He likely agrees with all of Kavanaugh's corporate positions anyway.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Because the records that were requested weren't even available yet. 42k is still well short of the 100k that is out there and would normally be used in this type of procedure.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

St. Clown said:
Do we know the general content of those 42K pages, is it all legal opinions given from the bench? They might be looking for some Anita Hill type stuff here.
Click to expand...

They (42k) could be stuff from his time as Bush's office secretary (or whatever that position is called), when he was literally an apparatchik cranking the handle that makes Government sausage.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
I can see this both ways:

A 42k page record dump last night? Stinky.

But, this nomination has been known for a couple months. His ruling are judicial record. What have you been doing during those months if not looking at that record?
Click to expand...

Uh huh...
You realize his record may extend beyond his rulings as a judge since he has had some other pretty high profile jobs? (I ask this in all seriousness, since your reply seems to ignore that fact)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top