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

[Kepler]

Keep believing in those institutions. They're holding.

Ironically, in the case of the courts, the institutions are now on the side of the bad guys.

 

[LynahFan]

Finally, the public doesn't care about the Supreme Court. If you walked down your main street today at noon and asked 10 random people to tell you what Hobby Lobby or Janus or Obergefell or any of those other cases not named Roe were about, I'd be shocked if you had one person who got one case right. Chuck and Nancy and Joe know that, and they aren't going to screw up whatever power they have to silence the shrieking of a few.

You're wrong about this, and, I suspect, disingenuously wrong. People care, even if they are not scholars of the court. Ask those same people how they feel about corporations shoving their owners' religious views down employees throats, enabling unions to collect dues from all employees who benefit from the Union's activities, and the ability of county clerks to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and you will get very different, very passionate answers. Deriding or belittling their opinions just because they don't know the name of a Supreme Court case related to that opinion is crass and displays the standard Conservative lack of empathy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

It’s not my idea dude, calm down.

id say a lot of us already see the courts legitimacy as gone.

Yep. The toast has popped up in the toaster.

 

[Kepler]

You're wrong about this, and, I suspect, disingenuously wrong. People care, even if they are not scholars of the court. Ask those same people how they feel about corporations shoving their owners' religious views down employees throats, enabling unions to collect dues from all employees who benefit from the Union's activities, and the ability of county clerks to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and you will get very different, very passionate answers. Deriding or belittling their opinions just because they don't know the name of a Supreme Court case related to that opinion is crass and displays the standard Conservative lack of empathy.

They used every trick in the book to get the court. They now do not want us to use every trick in the book to take it back. It's that simple.

But, if Hovey is right and nobody cares about the Court then nobody will care when we unpack it.

+6. Ignore the concern trolls.

 

[SJHovey]

Government employees *do* get protection from defamation cases, because they, generally, are seen as working within the scope of their employment, for the US Government. Congress has defined what a government employee is.

The DOJ, Barr's led DOJ, decided to step in and act as counsel to get the case thrown out because Trump was "defamed" while "an employee of the government." Congress had previously defined who an employee was, and this federal judge has agreed and ruled that Trump is NOT an employee as defined by Congress.

Why would the DOJ walk away from this case if Trump loses? You really think Barr is going to turn on Trump?

I'm not certain that you are right about your conclusion that government employees get protection from defamation cases. If they want that protection, they had better make sure their defamatory statements were expressly or impliedly authorized by their employer, or making that statement was part of their job. If not, they're going down alone on it.

As for Barr, if Trump loses, I don't think Barr will be in a position to either turn on Trump or continue to defend Trump. I doubt he'll be AG under Biden.

 

[psych]

It’s not my idea dude, calm down.

id say a lot of us already see the courts legitimacy as gone.

Calm down? This is one of my favorite conversations on the board. Of course it’s not your idea. You support it though.
Maybe I’m not the type of voter/person y’all are trying to convince that this Democratic expansion of the Court is the best option, because from what I’ve seen on here, if these are the best arguments for expanding the Court, we’re struggling. If you can’t get Bernie Sanders on board, you’re struggling.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

More people have taken notice and are starting to care, but I'm not sure a majority do. Especially not a majority of white dudes, since our motto is, "Meh, I've got mine. Why should I care about you?"

 

[Handyman]

Because they won’t overturn everything? Bernie Sanders thinks your court expansion idea is awful. Said it’ll be the “death spiral” of the legitimacy of the Court. Probably realizes that it’ll be 12-9 GOP Court by 2024 or 2028, and everything the 9-6 Democratic Court “protected” will just be re-overturned again not even a decade from now. He might be too idealistic to think a lottery system wouldn’t inspire as much backlash (he’s pretty far left, after all, and a high information partisan who is hoping people think like he does) because it’s fairer, and it’s showing the general public that Democrats COULD have expanded the court with their newfound power, but chose not to.

Ok would you please stop bringing up the stupidity of the lottery system. It isnt happening. None of the half baked plans in that article you posted are. We cant even get term limits discussed beyond hypotheticals and you keep acting like tomorrow we could just flip a switch and we go to some other system. It isnt happening. And the lottery is dumb anyways because the judges being selected in the lottery are still political appointees...

Oh, and I say this as one of the first Bernie people around here, Bernie isnt always right and his opinions on things sometimes sucks. I dont think you repeating "Bernie doesnt like it!!1!" is going to have the impact you think it will.

There are things more important than adding justices in my book (COVID, add states, strong voters rights legislation, green new deal) but the SC is a road block to some of them. You are basically putting everything into having faith at least 2 justices will do the right thing...and that is a very risky proposition. The right challenge in court and any law is vulnerable. And there is no check or recourse for that.

 

[unofan]

You’re currently disagreeing with Kepler that even with the confirmation of ACB, LGBTQIA rights are under attack. And, if they are, you’re telling the person to “move”, like that’s so easy for some people. I’ve seen another poster, Handy maybe?, arguing against certain voting rights being overturned, even with the current Court makeup. IF what y’all say is true, why the rush to make the court blatantly more partisan? Why further protect what is, in your own argument, already protected?

I never said they weren't under attack, or the decision last term would've been 9-0. I'm saying the decision to uphold them federally was 6-3, and at worst is now 5-4, and SCOTUS doesn't have the power to overturn state laws. If the derps want to attack those, they'll have to go state by state, and good luck getting California and New England to switch their votes.

I never said moving was easy. But for a country of immigrants who came here from across a freaking ocean prior to the invention of motorized transport in search of a better life, it's amazing how many people never leave a 100-mile bubble around their hometown because it's "too hard."

As far as "why the rush to make the court blatantly more partisan" - that horse left the barn 4 years ago when McConnell stonewalled Garland. The court is already blatantly partisan, the GOP did it.

 

[SJHovey]

You're wrong about this, and, I suspect, disingenuously wrong. People care, even if they are not scholars of the court. Ask those same people how they feel about corporations shoving their owners' religious views down employees throats, enabling unions to collect dues from all employees who benefit from the Union's activities, and the ability of county clerks to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and you will get very different, very passionate answers. Deriding or belittling their opinions just because they don't know the name of a Supreme Court case related to that opinion is crass and displays the standard Conservative lack of empathy.

Sure, if you go out on the street and ask someone "should an employer be permitted to shove the owner's religious views down the throat of his employees," pretty much everyone will say "no." But ask them the follow up question: Has that ever happened to you?

The reason people don't care about the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby is that owners aren't shoving their religious views down the throats of their employees. 99.9% of the people go to work each day and their employer doesn't force their religious beliefs on the employee, the public unions didn't fold up because of Janus, etc... They never feel the impact.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Calm down? This is one of my favorite conversations on the board. Of course it’s not your idea. You support it though.
Maybe I’m not the type of voter/person y’all are trying to convince that this Democratic expansion of the Court is the best option, because from what I’ve seen on here, if these are the best arguments for expanding the Court, we’re struggling. If you can’t get Bernie Sanders on board, you’re struggling.

I’ve already said today, on here, that adding states is my priority. I don’t think what’s happened can be left to stand, and I think there are different ways to address it.

ive never been bernies number one fan, so I don’t really give a shit what he says

 

[unofan]

How won't they?

One of their groups will create a test case. One of their lower courts will use it to wipe out all state anti-discrimination laws for their jurisdiction. Their SCOTUS will grant cert and then rescope that ruling to the whole country.

I do not know why you object to this thesis. My assumption is that law is what the Court says it is, period. That means all the stuff we learned in school about law: that you need a reason, that you need jurisdiction, that you should follow precedent, are all norms which assume the good faith of the actors. But once you control the final court of appeal then you control meaning itself. The Nazis now control the Constitution: it is what they say it is.

I'm honestly confused that you are giving me a hard time about this. It seems obvious to me that at the bottom of all of our institutions is a fist, and in the case of law the fist is SCOTUS. They are all-powerful. We can ignore them, sure, but then we are the ones who are violating the Constitution.

Of course, +6 and it reverses overnight.

Because 1) the Federal Constitution is the floor., and 2) State law is separate from Federal law. States cannot provide fewer rights than what the US Constitution requires. But they are always free to provide more. States are still sovereigns, with all privileges and immunities that go along with it. You could have 9 Clarence Thomas clones on the bench, and they won't do shiat to state anti-discrimination laws.

There was a run of three cases where Iowa Supreme Court rulings got overturned 27-0 at SCOTUS back in the 90s/early 2000s. So on remand the Iowa court said fine, the US Constitution says X, but the Iowa Constitution says Y. So we're still right under Iowa law.

 

[Handyman]

How won't they?

One of their groups will create a test case. One of their lower courts will use it to wipe out all state anti-discrimination laws for their jurisdiction. Their SCOTUS will grant cert and then rescope that ruling to the whole country.

I do not know why you object to this thesis. My assumption is that law is what the Court says it is, period. That means all the stuff we learned in school about law: that you need a reason, that you need jurisdiction, that you should follow precedent, are all norms which assume the good faith of the actors. But once you control the final court of appeal then you control meaning itself. The Nazis now control the Constitution: it is what they say it is.

I'm honestly confused that you are giving me a hard time about this. It seems obvious to me that at the bottom of all of our institutions is a fist, and in the case of law the fist is SCOTUS. They are all-powerful. We can ignore them, sure, but then we are the ones who are violating the Constitution.

Of course, +6 and it reverses overnight.

Probably because he knows more about the subject than you do. I dont mean that to sound snarky and mean but in this fight I am siding with him (and what basic knowledge I have gained over the years that Rover likes to mock me for ;-) ) until proven otherwise.

You ever see the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield? There is a scene where the Professor is talking about what it takes to start a business. (start up costs, infrastructure, setting up an executives...etc.) Rodney owns his own business, a self made rich man. He keeps interrupting to tell the Prof everything he is forgetting and why he is wrong. That is, right now, what this little spat seems like.

As for the adding justices...I dunno man it seems like they are baiting us into this move. In fact they arent even really hiding that this our only recourse to fix what they broke. I think they know this is their best shot at getting back into power quickly. If the Dems fix the problems and if the SC is seen as a problem later the people might change their tune on this anyways but I am starting to think this is the one issue that could derail Biden and a Dem Congress. I dont want "Adding Judges" to be Biden's ObamaCare. There are dozens of things that need fixing and they need all our attention. (and dont give me the "walk and chew gum" BS these are hardcore problems) We cant have the Senate worried about adding judges when there is still a stimulus needed amongst other massive First Hundred Days problems. There are still going to be plenty of "lower" justices that need approval as well...work on that before wasting all your political collateral on something that wont last past the next GOP President and Senate which will happen sooner or later.

The SC cant stand in the way of everything. This needs to be the start of a new version of the Democratic Party...not the same stupid one that can't see the forest from the trees. This isnt just about this election...we need to act in ways that will help on the state level as well in future elections. We do that by giving the people what they want. They want sanity, they want health care, they want infrastructure, they want stimulus and they want to feel safe. Work on that first, and we strengthen our position in the midterms.

Put it this way, adding justices to me seems more a second term thing not first term. The people need to see the SC act ridiculously bad not just some hypothetical.

 

[Slap Shot]

Probably because he knows more about the subject than you do. I dont mean that to sound snarky and mean but in this fight I am siding with him (and what basic knowledge I have gained over the years that Rover likes to mock me for ;-) ) until proven otherwise.

You ever see the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield? There is a scene where the Professor is talking about what it takes to start a business. (start up costs, infrastructure, setting up an executives...etc.) Rodney owns his own business, a self made rich man. He keeps interrupting to tell the Prof everything he is forgetting and why he is wrong. That is, right now, what this little spat seems like.

As for the adding justices...I dunno man it seems like they are baiting us into this move. In fact they arent even really hiding that this our only recourse to fix what they broke. I think they know this is their best shot at getting back into power quickly. If the Dems fix the problems and if the SC is seen as a problem later the people might change their tune on this anyways but I am starting to think this is the one issue that could derail Biden and a Dem Congress. I dont want "Adding Judges" to be Biden's ObamaCare. There are dozens of things that need fixing and they need all our attention. (and dont give me the "walk and chew gum" BS these are hardcore problems) We cant have the Senate worried about adding judges when there is still a stimulus needed amongst other massive First Hundred Days problems. There are still going to be plenty of "lower" justices that need approval as well...work on that before wasting all your political collateral on something that wont last past the next GOP President and Senate which will happen sooner or later.

The SC cant stand in the way of everything. This needs to be the start of a new version of the Democratic Party...not the same stupid one that can't see the forest from the trees. This isnt just about this election...we need to act in ways that will help on the state level as well in future elections. We do that by giving the people what they want. They want sanity, they want health care, they want infrastructure, they want stimulus and they want to feel safe. Work on that first, and we strengthen our position in the midterms.

Put it this way, adding justices to me seems more a second term thing not first term. The people need to see the SC act ridiculously bad not just some hypothetical.

Huh.

 

[psych]

Ok would you please stop bringing up the stupidity of the lottery system. It isnt happening. None of the half baked plans in that article you posted are. We cant even get term limits discussed beyond hypotheticals and you keep acting like tomorrow we could just flip a switch and we go to some other system. It isnt happening. And the lottery is dumb anyways because the judges being selected in the lottery are still political appointees...

Oh, and I say this as one of the first Bernie people around here, Bernie isnt always right and his opinions on things sometimes sucks. I dont think you repeating "Bernie doesnt like it!!1!" is going to have the impact you think it will.

There are things more important than adding justices in my book (COVID, add states, strong voters rights legislation, green new deal) but the SC is a road block to some of them. You are basically putting everything into having faith at least 2 justices will do the right thing...and that is a very risky proposition. The right challenge in court and any law is vulnerable. And there is no check or recourse for that.

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 tit-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.

 

[psych]

I’ve already said today, on here, that adding states is my priority. I don’t think what’s happened can be left to stand, and I think there are different ways to address it.

ive never been bernies number one fan, so I don’t really give a **** what he says

Alright, I’ll take your word for it. I’ve seen you post that the only option is expanding the Court. I guess I misunderstood that that actually meant you were open to other options.

 

[Kepler]

It’s not my idea dude, calm down.

id say a lot of us already see the courts legitimacy as gone.

Has been since Bush v Gore. It's just another political organ. The Right destroyed the Court. That ship has sailed.

 

[psych]

Huh.

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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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.

Exactly. Republicans are the only ones who can change norms. Democrats can't.

 

[Kepler]

Because 1) the Federal Constitution is the floor., and 2) State law is separate from Federal law.

14A called. The Nazis can use federal law to say that state laws that extend civil rights protections violate the federal guarantee of equal protection, just like a sane court would use 14A to strike down a racist state law. They can reverse the intent. Because they choose how to use the Constitution.

There's a reason the liberal Court used the Commerce Clause to bludgeon the states into submission. Because they could. There are no merits above SCOTUS -- SCOTUS defines the merits.

PETRUCHIO

Come on, i' God's name; once more toward our father's.
Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!​

KATHARINA

The moon! the sun: it is not moonlight now.​

PETRUCHIO

I say it is the moon that shines so bright.​

KATHARINA

I know it is the sun that shines so bright.​

PETRUCHIO

Now, by my mother's son, and that's myself,
It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,
Or ere I journey to your father's house.
Go on, and fetch our horses back again.
Evermore cross'd and cross'd; nothing but cross'd!​

HORTENSIO

Say as he says, or we shall never go.​

KATHARINA

Forward, I pray, since we have come so far,
And be it moon, or sun, or what you please:
An if you please to call it a rush-candle,
Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me.​

PETRUCHIO

I say it is the moon.​

KATHARINA

I know it is the moon.​

PETRUCHIO

Nay, then you lie: it is the blessed sun.​

KATHARINA

Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun:
But sun it is not, when you say it is not;
And the moon changes even as your mind.
What you will have it named, even that it is;
And so it shall be so for Katharina.​