SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Remember this when we add 4.

Why would I object to that? Let's do it tomorrow.

 

[rufus]

Hey, the appointment of judges is a political process. You don't want to roll around in the mud and get your knuckles bloody, don't complain to me.

But don't worry. I'm sure next time will finally be the time where people buy the story that the confirmation of judge "x" means the end of the world. I mean they have to buy the claim sooner or later, amiright?

Except when one side doesn't allow the process to happen. And when that happens, we don't hear chit from you. But now you're oh so concerned.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I read something online yesterday that said Ginsburg, Alito, and Roberts have opinions remaining. Ginsburg is usually ahead of schedule on writing her opinions. The fact that she’s so behind might mean she’s waiting for lengthy dissents. Which could mean she’s writing a census or gerrymandering opinion and Thomas or Alito are frothing at the mouth.

Even if Roberts does the right thing and abandons the orcs on voter suppression and gerrymandering, I can't imagine him giving the majority decision to Ginsburg. My impression is he'd want to write it himself to sufficiently guard against the type of genuine democratic reforms that would spell doom for the GOP-Plute junta. You can't give away the treasury to the rich unless you're in power, so Roberts has a vested interest in keeping the GOP at least competitive. Letting people vote fairly would destroy that.

Now, what if somebody else right had a brain aneurysm and actually began respecting the Constitution? What if Thomas woke up one morning and realized that gerrymandering is really just a way to keep them darkies out? What if Kavanaugh put down the red cup long enough to realize that a Baptist-minority majority Congress will be hanging Catholics once it finishes with the Jews? You never know, except, of course, with these shills you do know. It's Roberts covering his legas-sy or nobody. Earl Warren is not walking through that door.

 

[unofan]

I read something online yesterday that said Ginsburg, Alito, and Roberts have opinions remaining. Ginsburg is usually ahead of schedule on writing her opinions. The fact that she’s so behind might mean she’s waiting for lengthy dissents. Which could mean she’s writing a census or gerrymandering opinion and Thomas or Alito are frothing at the mouth.

Roberts will likely write 8 this session. He might also pick up whichever one Ginsburg isn’t writing if she got one of the two big ones. He has sometimes in the past stepped in and flipped sides to show the court isn’t completely partisan hackery.

I need to find the post. Had a lot of good points.

There are 8 cases left; if you assume the gerrymandering ones get decided together, that'd be 7 opinions. They try to spread them evenly by sitting, though majority opinions can be stolen as they work their way through the court of a concurrence or dissent picks off enough judges.

The remaining December case could be from anyone, since they've all issued one December opinion. Since it's a case involving Native American rights, good bet it'll be Gorsuch writing it.

The Tennessee wine case from January is almost assuredly Alito. He's the only one who doesn't have a January majority opinion and that didn't seem like a highly controversial one.

February gets interesting. 1 case left involving a criminal procedure issue, and Gorsuch, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Roberts all don't have a majority opinion from that sitting. I would guess that's Ginsburg, but who knows for sure.

3 left from March; 2 if you consolidate the partisan gerrymandering ones. Kagan, Gorsuch, and Roberts all without an opinion. Assume Roberts writes the gerrymandering opinion(s), leaving Gorsuch or Kagan to write the agency deference opinion. My guess is the latter is Gorsuch, 5-4 ideological line split killing agency deference.

April has census citizenship and a 4th amendment case left. Assume Roberts gets the citizenship one and Alito the 4th Amendment one. Though those could easily be flipped.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

SCOTUS got the Fuct trademark case 100% rifgt

From a review of it:

Alito added, "Our decision is not based on moral relativism but on the recognition that a law banning speech deemed by government officials to be 'immoral' or 'scandalous' can easily be exploited for illegitimate ends."

The Thumpers always have to go out of their way to assert their derp even when it's completely irrelevant. This is the Catholic equivalent of scrawling "PBUH" after every proper noun cuz their magic book has been having a bad time of it since the Age of Reason.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Except when one side doesn't allow the process to happen. And when that happens, we don't hear chit from you. But now you're oh so concerned.

What are you babbling about? What exactly is it that you think I'm "concerned" about?

 

[rufus]

What are you babbling about? What exactly is it that you think I'm "concerned" about?

You came here to post for a reason.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

You came here to post for a reason.

I came here to post because I think it's amusing that every single time there is a Supreme Court opening all I hear about is how the confirmation is literally life and death as we know it. Then, the appointment occurs, the judge is seated, and we see stuff like was posted in this thread this week. Things like, "huh, Gorsuch agreed with Kagan and Ginsburg on this case" or "that's weird, Kavanaugh and Breyer and Ginsburg and Thomas all were in the majority on that case."

And the world doesn't end. And we all go on with our lives, paying little attention on a day to day basis as to what the court is doing. Until the next opening.

tldr: I came here to say, "I told you so."

 

[LynahFan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Wrong. You won’t have the right to say I told you so until you start seeing posts like “Well, per usual, Gorsuch, Kavennaugh, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Thomas put out a completely sane majority opinion.”

Not holding my breath.

 

[unofan]

I came here to post because I think it's amusing that every single time there is a Supreme Court opening all I hear about is how the confirmation is literally life and death as we know it. Then, the appointment occurs, the judge is seated, and we see stuff like was posted in this thread this week. Things like, "huh, Gorsuch agreed with Kagan and Ginsburg on this case" or "that's weird, Kavanaugh and Breyer and Ginsburg and Thomas all were in the majority on that case."

And the world doesn't end. And we all go on with our lives, paying little attention on a day to day basis as to what the court is doing. Until the next opening.

tldr: I came here to say, "I told you so."

You get to say "I told you so" when the major cases don't break 5-4 along ideological lines, with Roberts counting as the swing justice now that Kennedy is gone. Having weird lineups for routine cases is normal.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The Supreme Court decisions have mostly benefited the right for the better part of 40 years and Hovey isn’t concerned. Ya don’t say!

 

[Slap Shot]

I came here to post because I think it's amusing that every single time there is a Supreme Court opening all I hear about is how the confirmation is literally life and death as we know it. Then, the appointment occurs, the judge is seated, and we see stuff like was posted in this thread this week. Things like, "huh, Gorsuch agreed with Kagan and Ginsburg on this case" or "that's weird, Kavanaugh and Breyer and Ginsburg and Thomas all were in the majority on that case."

And the world doesn't end. And we all go on with our lives, paying little attention on a day to day basis as to what the court is doing. Until the next opening.

tldr: I came here to say, "I told you so."

Dear Lord.

 

[SJHovey]

You get to say "I told you so" when the major cases don't break 5-4 along ideological lines, with Roberts counting as the swing justice now that Kennedy is gone. Having weird lineups for routine cases is normal.

That was exactly my prediction, which is Roberts would slide into the Kennedy role. Still waiting for the end of the world.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

That was exactly my prediction, which is Roberts would slide into the Kennedy role. Still waiting for the end of the world.

I think that was uno using “swing” sarcastically.

 

[SJHovey]

I think that was uno using “swing” sarcastically.

Well, if he was I think he’ll be proven wrong. I think Roberts will assume the Kennedy role.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Well, if he was I think he’ll be proven wrong. I think Roberts will assume the Kennedy role.

Roberts will inherently be Kennedy because he's now the de facto ideological center. That doesn't mean he moved left to the center, it means the center moved right to him.

The question for him is whether his desire to protect the court outweighs his natural ideological leanings. The Obamacare decisions show he's capable of the former, but his votes on gay marriage, abortion, and race-based cases tend towards the latter. But now that he is the swing vote rather than Kennedy, we'll see if being the tiebreaker weighs more heavily on him.

My favorite part about Roberts is that he constantly sided with police on traffic stop cases until he was pulled over for the first time in his life. All of a sudden he started siding with motorists.

 

[SJHovey]

Roberts will inherently be Kennedy because he's now the de facto ideological center. That doesn't mean he moved left to the center, it means the center moved right to him.

The question for him is whether his desire to protect the court outweighs his natural ideological leanings. The Obamacare decisions show he's capable of the former, but his votes on gay marriage, abortion, and race-based cases tend towards the latter. But now that he is the swing vote rather than Kennedy, we'll see if being the tiebreaker weighs more heavily on him.

My favorite part about Roberts is that he constantly sided with police on traffic stop cases until he was pulled over for the first time in his life. All of a sudden he started siding with motorists.

I tend to think that while he’ll retain conservative leanings, his position as chief and his desire to not preside over a kangaroo court will prevent him from moving too far left of Kennedy.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

.... What if Thomas woke up one morning and realized that gerrymandering is really just a way to keep them darkies out?

it's always rich vs. poor at the end. skin color is like a shirt.
thomas is rich.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

it's always rich vs. poor at the end. skin color is like a shirt.
thomas is rich.

Jesus. We agree on something. I feel funny.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

That was exactly my prediction, which is Roberts would slide into the Kennedy role. Still waiting for the end of the world.

But it hasn't happened yet so you don't get to say "I told you so" yet.

We'll know before the week is out. I hope to hell you do get to say it. uno is far more knowledgeable in this than I but everything I've seen from Roberts is he'll bend on the stuff the Plutes don't care about to save the appearance of the Court. Will they care about gerrymandering and voter suppression? I would think so -- it's how they get their servants elected as voters (not you yet, but I have faith in you) wise up to their scam.

We'll see. If Roberts actually pulls a switch and starts backing sane positions I owe you a beer and I will be HAPPY to pay up!