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

[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.

 

[unofan]

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?!

The difference is state vs. federal. Federalist judges have no problem striking down anything congress does because that's their whole reason for being. Federal government = bad.

But they aren't going to tell California it can't protect black people because 1) the federalist core is states rights and 2)that can easily be turned into Texas can't protect gun owners.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

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.

Children getting gunned down and a pandemic killing hundreds of thousands won’t do it- why would a bankruptcy?

 

[Handyman]

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.

Well I am obviously being hyperbolic...but if you want to know why I think she isnt qualified it is because she doesnt have the experience to handle the job. She spent all of 3 years in private practice (after a year clerking for Scalia) back at the turn of the friggin century and has only been on the bench for 3 years. In the interim she spent her time as an academic.

Now I have no issue with academics (after all I kind of am one) but I have a problem with a primarily academic person being put on the highest court. There is more to the study of the law than just knowing the law. (and sorry but she didnt exactly light the world on fire with even that stuff in her hearing) She doesnt have the practical experience to really know that. It isnt her fault, it is the fault of Trump for putting her up for a Federal Judgeship and 3 years later putting her up for the SC. She hasnt had the time to be up to the riggers of the job. Maybe if she had been on the federal bench for a decade or had years and years of courtroom or litigation experience I would doubt her less but nothing in her resume screams "This person deserves a lifetime appointment". I guarantee there are thousands of lawyers and judges who are better qualified than her.

And while it is great that rando guy in the Strib thinks she will be great I dont really care what he thinks.

Put it this way...as a joke the Liberals like to float the idea of Obama on the Court. His resume runs circles around hers when it comes to being a lawyer (again imho your mileage may vary) and I would not be happy if he was seriously put up for the job. Only the best of the best should even be considered. People whose resumes and work history put them above reproach. People who, if politics didnt play in, would be lauded as obvious choices to be considered. (especially amongst legal scholars and experts on the court) If her personal politics didnt play in she would be nowhere near the top of anyone's list at this point. Again that isnt a knock on her, 99% of the country shouldnt be considered for the job. She should run a law school or be a pundit or spend another decade on the Federal Bench. She spent almost as much time in Law School as she did arguing cases or making judgements...that doesnt scream SC Justice to me.

As always though, it isnt my decision to make and it is just my opinion.

 

[Handyman]

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?

You can pound your chest all you want to but you are making the same ****ed mistake Trixie and his crew always make...and the sad thing is I think you know that and just dont care. There is always a push back, the pendulum always swings the other way. You talk like there wont be consequences if you get your way...like all of a sudden the sun will shine brighter, the pollution will dissipate, extinct animals will return and flourish and everyone will hold hands and sing friggin kumbya like we are smoking weed together in Seattle. The racists will go into hiding, the Reganites will be ignored and Fredumbers will fade away into nothing. What do you think is going to happen after your "500 days"? If Trump is the answer to what happens when we elect Obama what the hell do you think is the reaction when we add six justices and set fire to everything conservative and then **** on the ashes? The next fascist wont be as dumb as Trump and his cronies and they will play for blood.

You and I wont have to deal with the fall out...but those that do are going to be in for a world of hurt. Then you can stand up, shake your fist at the clouds and tell them to suck it up and fight and not getting why they arent listening to you.

 

[Handyman]

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.

If that happens...that will be step 1-15 of getting the people on your side to fix the Supreme Court.

 

[SJHovey]

Well I am obviously being hyperbolic...but if you want to know why I think she isnt qualified it is because she doesnt have the experience to handle the job. She spent all of 3 years in private practice (after a year clerking for Scalia) back at the turn of the friggin century and has only been on the bench for 3 years. In the interim she spent her time as an academic.

Now I have no issue with academics (after all I kind of am one) but I have a problem with a primarily academic person being put on the highest court. There is more to the study of the law than just knowing the law. (and sorry but she didnt exactly light the world on fire with even that stuff in her hearing) She doesnt have the practical experience to really know that. It isnt her fault, it is the fault of Trump for putting her up for a Federal Judgeship and 3 years later putting her up for the SC. She hasnt had the time to be up to the riggers of the job. Maybe if she had been on the federal bench for a decade or had years and years of courtroom or litigation experience I would doubt her less but nothing in her resume screams "This person deserves a lifetime appointment". I guarantee there are thousands of lawyers and judges who are better qualified than her.

And while it is great that rando guy in the Strib thinks she will be great I dont really care what he thinks.

Put it this way...as a joke the Liberals like to float the idea of Obama on the Court. His resume runs circles around hers when it comes to being a lawyer (again imho your mileage may vary) and I would not be happy if he was seriously put up for the job. Only the best of the best should even be considered. People whose resumes and work history put them above reproach. People who, if politics didnt play in, would be lauded as obvious choices to be considered. (especially amongst legal scholars and experts on the court) If her personal politics didnt play in she would be nowhere near the top of anyone's list at this point. Again that isnt a knock on her, 99% of the country shouldnt be considered for the job. She should run a law school or be a pundit or spend another decade on the Federal Bench. She spent almost as much time in Law School as she did arguing cases or making judgements...that doesnt scream SC Justice to me.

As always though, it isnt my decision to make and it is just my opinion.

She has as much experience as Kagan, maybe even more if you consider she has actually worked as an appellate court judge.

 

[aparch]

...
If Trump is the answer to what happens when we elect Obama what the hell do you think is the reaction when we add six justices and set fire to everything conservative and then **** on the ashes?

I don't know enough of all this other than to occasionally wade in, lob some water ballons while you guys throw grenades, then walk out. But... I'm interested in what Kep, you, and others think the endgame IS for the Dems?

Every time the Republicans pull the pendulum toward their side, when they do let it swing the Dems way, the Dems are told they need to stand there, let it hit them, and let the Republicans pull it back to their side. Why ISN'T scorched earth policy on the table if that's *all* the GOP has ruled with? I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Fishman'81]

I don't know enough of all this other than to occasionally wade in, lob some water ballons while you guys throw grenades, then walk out. But... I'm interested in what Kep, you, and others think the endgame IS for the Dems?

Every time the Republicans pull the pendulum toward their side, when they do let it swing the Dems way, the Dems are told they need to stand there, let it hit them, and let the Republicans pull it back to their side. Why ISN'T scorched earth policy on the table if that's *all* the GOP has ruled with? I'll hang up and listen.

It's dirty for dirty right now, thanks largely to Moscow Mitch. I say stack the court, and shove it up the cheating minority's framma-zamma. That's all they understand.

 

[Handyman]

Well the endgame should be to do what they can to keep the majority for as long as possible. Fix Voters Rights, Stimulus, beefing up Obamacare, new states, getting good judges on lower benches,, LGBTQ+ rights, tax reform, and the Green New Deal. Push through progressive reforms to the point that there is no way they lose in 2022 or 2024 and build up their advantages and pack legislatures.

This can be the start of a Progressive Revolution if the Dems don't screw it up by adding judges right away.

 

[Kepler]

I don't know enough of all this other than to occasionally wade in, lob some water ballons while you guys throw grenades, then walk out. But... I'm interested in what Kep, you, and others think the endgame IS for the Dems?

Every time the Republicans pull the pendulum toward their side, when they do let it swing the Dems way, the Dems are told they need to stand there, let it hit them, and let the Republicans pull it back to their side. Why ISN'T scorched earth policy on the table if that's *all* the GOP has ruled with? I'll hang up and listen.

I hope to hell we expand the Court. I fear we either won't at all or we'll do some bullsh-t like only adding 3 to "equalize" Dump, but it doesn't equalize him at all. The election was stolen and those 3 justices are ours. Therefore, +6.

Not to mention that the Nazis will scream like we're burning their babeez in hot oil even if we add 1 so we might as well add 6. Or 16. Or 60. F-ck it -- the Nazis have shown us what they do. If we fight back against machine guns with harsh language we deserve what happens to this country.

And here's the thing about the pendulum. Our voters WANT us to twist the knife because we just had it twisted in our guts. What our voters hate the most is when we **** out like milquetoast academics. That's when they lose heart and turn off. So if you want the pendulum to swing back then by all means don't expand the Court. Just give the Nazis the whole country.

My bet: we do nothing for a year, then we add 2. We thus get the very worst of both situations and the GOP rallies in the midterms while our forces are in despair at the Dems' utter incompetence.

My hope: every American over 57 has a fatal heart attack the day after Inauguration Day. Miss me? Anyway, Harris and her even more radical Veep then add 10 justices and lead the energetic and courageous new Dem party to a complete reversal of all GOP policies since 1980 -- in the first year. Another blue wave in the midterms sets up radical legislation that puts America where it would have been without the Plute pestilence of the last half century.

And then, as all you Kiddies lay about the pool enjoying your Fully Automated Gay Space Communism, at least give me a statue, huh? "He Gave His Life For A Lower Gini Coefficient."

 

[dxmnkd316]

Because they won’t overturn everything? Bernie Sanders thinks your court expansion idea is awful.

Great. Next time he can run on that in the primaries.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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.

Exactly. California+New York=25% of the country by GDP. Half the financial crimes prosecution comes through NYC, and California’s economy alone changes consumer protections.

Half the Fortune 500 companies are in NY, CA, IL, MN, VA, and MA. Good luck turning that clock back when they’re all pushing for some baseline in equality.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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.

This is a good post worth rereading. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

This is a good post worth rereading. Especially the last paragraph.

Except the part where Obama did that exact thing and the country rejected it flat out. Republicans waved into office under Obama all over the country remember. Maybe since it's a white guy now it will work but I doubt it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Except the part where Obama did that exact thing and the country rejected it flat out. Republicans waved into office under Obama all over the country remember. Maybe since it's a white guy now it will work but I doubt it.

I think you'll find I'm a lot like Handy on this. Ask me tomorrow and you'll probably find my answer has changed. It's not an easy "Yep, just do it. Don't need to think about it."