Oops, sorry guys, my bad!
October 29, 2020 1:47 PM Subscribe
Kavanaugh corrects a concurring opinion after Vermont secretary of state Condos issued a strong condemnation.
From 2014: Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing
Time pressure will only make things worse.....
posted by lalochezia at 1:54 PM on October 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Maybe next he can correct his opinion that election results could be "overturned" by ballots counted after election night, since there isn't an election result until that count has been done.
posted by Beardman at 1:58 PM on October 29, 2020 [41 favorites]
posted by Beardman at 1:58 PM on October 29, 2020 [41 favorites]
Maybe next he can correct his opinion that election results could be "overturned" by ballots counted after election night, since there isn't an election result until that count has been done.
As noted, Kagan made this point forcefully.
posted by jaduncan at 2:02 PM on October 29, 2020 [34 favorites]
As noted, Kagan made this point forcefully.
posted by jaduncan at 2:02 PM on October 29, 2020 [34 favorites]
Professor Lazarus? Sounds like a comic book villain
posted by SansPoint at 2:02 PM on October 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by SansPoint at 2:02 PM on October 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Professor Lazarus? Sounds like a comic book villain
The thread for complaining about the screenwriters is a few down
posted by nubs at 2:08 PM on October 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
The thread for complaining about the screenwriters is a few down
posted by nubs at 2:08 PM on October 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
I read some speculation along the lines of, Roberts has told the conservative justices to keep their shit in line specifically re: the election, because if they don't, court-packing will go from a lefty dream to a serious possibility, and he doesn't want that.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
Can we start calling it “expanding the court” rather than “court-packing,” which sounds so nefarious?
posted by Bella Donna at 2:23 PM on October 29, 2020 [94 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 2:23 PM on October 29, 2020 [94 favorites]
Can we start calling it “expanding the court” rather than “court-packing,” which sounds so nefarious?
Likewise, "ballot harvesting" which means "delivering ballots that were filled out by other people to drop off locations".
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 2:31 PM on October 29, 2020 [31 favorites]
Likewise, "ballot harvesting" which means "delivering ballots that were filled out by other people to drop off locations".
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 2:31 PM on October 29, 2020 [31 favorites]
I think we should leverage the disparate modalities of corporate speak and refer to the upcoming new paradigm of the quantitative increase of the court as rightsizing the court.
posted by Tabitha Someday at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2020 [115 favorites]
posted by Tabitha Someday at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2020 [115 favorites]
"New and improved: Now 44% more Supreme!"
posted by Western Infidels at 2:36 PM on October 29, 2020 [73 favorites]
posted by Western Infidels at 2:36 PM on October 29, 2020 [73 favorites]
The naked partisanship of the Supreme Court feels like the final nail in coffin of the American era. It feels like it will all be downhill from here, but then again, 2020 has done a real number on my ability to think positively about the future...
posted by pleem at 2:39 PM on October 29, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by pleem at 2:39 PM on October 29, 2020 [24 favorites]
When your side does it, it's "expanding"; when their side does it it's "packing"...
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:39 PM on October 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:39 PM on October 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
I don't think adding more judges is court packing, you must be thinking of the thing where the opposing party refuses to even hold hearings on the confirmation on nominees when they don't control the presidency and then immediately slams in as many of their people as they can into the still-open vacancies when they do get the presidency.
posted by ckape at 2:44 PM on October 29, 2020 [86 favorites]
posted by ckape at 2:44 PM on October 29, 2020 [86 favorites]
> I read some speculation along the lines of, Roberts has told the conservative justices to keep their shit in line specifically re: the election, because if they don't, court-packing will go from a lefty dream to a serious possibility, and he doesn't want that.
They should do it anyway.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:44 PM on October 29, 2020 [26 favorites]
They should do it anyway.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:44 PM on October 29, 2020 [26 favorites]
Courtney Milan (noted romance author, law professor and former Supreme Court clerk) had a great thread on this yesterday. I recommend the whole thread, but some highlights:
"For the record, there’s literally no way that Kavanaugh doesn’t know.
Clerks (and some judges/justices) read responses to their opinions the way some authors read reviews.
If a clerk fucks up even minorly, it’s their job to bring it to their Justice....
Finally, one last thing to consider: these clerks are brand new. They all probably started in July/August, and they haven’t had many sittings yet.
This was probably someone’s first or second opinion at the Court.
This is why the weight falls *heavily* on Kavanaugh’s shoulders. It is his job especially with the first opinions to make sure that his clerks are upholding standards."
posted by rednikki at 2:48 PM on October 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
"For the record, there’s literally no way that Kavanaugh doesn’t know.
Clerks (and some judges/justices) read responses to their opinions the way some authors read reviews.
If a clerk fucks up even minorly, it’s their job to bring it to their Justice....
Finally, one last thing to consider: these clerks are brand new. They all probably started in July/August, and they haven’t had many sittings yet.
This was probably someone’s first or second opinion at the Court.
This is why the weight falls *heavily* on Kavanaugh’s shoulders. It is his job especially with the first opinions to make sure that his clerks are upholding standards."
posted by rednikki at 2:48 PM on October 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
What would it look like if people started doing the right thing, rather than the politicized thing? Asking for a friend.
posted by valkane at 2:49 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by valkane at 2:49 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
An extremist court is trying to set up a paper trail to justify deciding our next president; this is no error. Kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:51 PM on October 29, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:51 PM on October 29, 2020 [13 favorites]
I read some speculation along the lines of, Roberts has told the conservative justices to keep their shit in line specifically re: the election, because if they don't, court-packing will go from a lefty dream to a serious possibility, and he doesn't want that.
It may be too late now, the whole Garland-to-Barrett process has pretty much gotten most of all of the Democratic Senators on board for something to change. Since moderate changes (like term limits, requires super majorities, etc) would require a constitutional amendment, radical changes might be all that's left.
The only one to come out against it was Feinstein, and she was rebuked pretty harshly by everyone up and down the Democratic collation and as such no one else has even indicated that they're against it, including conservative Democrats like Manchin.
posted by jmauro at 2:52 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
It may be too late now, the whole Garland-to-Barrett process has pretty much gotten most of all of the Democratic Senators on board for something to change. Since moderate changes (like term limits, requires super majorities, etc) would require a constitutional amendment, radical changes might be all that's left.
The only one to come out against it was Feinstein, and she was rebuked pretty harshly by everyone up and down the Democratic collation and as such no one else has even indicated that they're against it, including conservative Democrats like Manchin.
posted by jmauro at 2:52 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
Well, Biden has traditionally been an institutionalist by almost every measure, and he hasn't been in favor of expanding the court. I'm 50/50 on whether his talk of a commission is just a way to make it go away, or if it's his way to excuse changing his mind.
But seriously, they need to add more circuit courts and not just expand the Supreme Court. It's been overdue for a couple decades at least.
posted by fedward at 3:09 PM on October 29, 2020 [22 favorites]
But seriously, they need to add more circuit courts and not just expand the Supreme Court. It's been overdue for a couple decades at least.
posted by fedward at 3:09 PM on October 29, 2020 [22 favorites]
Biden has traditionally been an institutionalist by almost every measure, and he hasn't been in favor of expanding the court.
Some of his messaging around this seemed to be that he didn't want to voice an opinion on it one way or the other (this was mostly pre-debate). Which only makes sense to say either (1) to dangle the possibility of being for expansion while actually being against it (i.e., keep progressives in his camp) or (2) to not want to give Trump a reason to bash him as a "court packer" while actually being for it. I suspect that if a bill were passed through congress he'd sign it either way.
posted by axiom at 3:17 PM on October 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
Some of his messaging around this seemed to be that he didn't want to voice an opinion on it one way or the other (this was mostly pre-debate). Which only makes sense to say either (1) to dangle the possibility of being for expansion while actually being against it (i.e., keep progressives in his camp) or (2) to not want to give Trump a reason to bash him as a "court packer" while actually being for it. I suspect that if a bill were passed through congress he'd sign it either way.
posted by axiom at 3:17 PM on October 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
Cashier: Here is your Supreme Court. Would you like to super size that?
Me: Hell yes!
posted by Splunge at 3:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [14 favorites]
Me: Hell yes!
posted by Splunge at 3:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [14 favorites]
Some of his messaging around this
Some? Try all. Unless I missed something (possible), he avoided the question until his solo town hall on ABC, when Stephanopoulos pressed him specifically on how he kept ducking the question. He defended himself by saying explicitly he wanted the story to be about what was going on in the Senate, and not what he might do about it. He said the same thing to 60 Minutes.
I suspect that if a bill were passed through congress he'd sign it either way.
Well, yeah. He is an institutionalist, after all.
posted by fedward at 3:25 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Some? Try all. Unless I missed something (possible), he avoided the question until his solo town hall on ABC, when Stephanopoulos pressed him specifically on how he kept ducking the question. He defended himself by saying explicitly he wanted the story to be about what was going on in the Senate, and not what he might do about it. He said the same thing to 60 Minutes.
I suspect that if a bill were passed through congress he'd sign it either way.
Well, yeah. He is an institutionalist, after all.
posted by fedward at 3:25 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm sure Biden doesn't want to expand the Supreme Court and that it would take a lot for him to think it the right course of action. I think he would, as a minimum, rather they demonstrate they are acting in bad faith before taking any action than pre-empt their poor decisions. There's also no benefit to him (in terms of getting elected) to come out in favour of expanding the court. If the ACA case goes badly, I think maybe he will make FDR's threat and hope that it works.
posted by plonkee at 3:27 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by plonkee at 3:27 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
If Biden had announced he was going to respond to ACB's appointment to the court by adding more justices, what would prevent the Republicans from adding, say, seven more super-ultra-conservative 30-year-olds during the lame duck period? And if you're about to say "precedent" or "norms", well let me stop you right there...
posted by The Tensor at 3:35 PM on October 29, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by The Tensor at 3:35 PM on October 29, 2020 [20 favorites]
> "... what would prevent the Republicans from adding, say, seven more super-ultra-conservative 30-year-olds during the lame duck period?"
The House of Representatives?
posted by kyrademon at 3:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [16 favorites]
The House of Representatives?
posted by kyrademon at 3:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [16 favorites]
They'd have to pass a law to expand the size of the court. That requires the approval of the House, Senate, and President. (Appointing a new member to a vacant seat requires only the President and Senate.) Since the Democrats control the House, no new law expanding the court is getting passed as long as a Republican is president.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 3:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by CrunchyFrog at 3:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
The House would stop that, since court expansion would just be a regular bill that has to go through Congress.
posted by bassooner at 3:44 PM on October 29, 2020
posted by bassooner at 3:44 PM on October 29, 2020
I think maybe he will make FDR's threat and hope that it works
Unfortunately this is a different age and the judges who make up the court's new politically conservative majority all understand exactly what they were appointed to do by a minority government under the auspices of judicial conservatism. Somebody who wasn't willing to play ball in those circumstances wouldn't have accepted the nomination. The FDR threat won't work. It might sort of work on Roberts, who has his eye on the legacy of his court, but that's just about it. Nothing works on Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito at least has a philosophy (as out of touch as it might be), Brett Kavanaugh gives exactly zero fucks, and Amy Coney Barrett took a promotion way out of her league. Neil Gorsuch is the only wild card here, so I guess the legacy of the Roberts court depends on how much Gorsuch cares about it (or how much Roberts can get Gorsuch to care about it).
posted by fedward at 3:54 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
Unfortunately this is a different age and the judges who make up the court's new politically conservative majority all understand exactly what they were appointed to do by a minority government under the auspices of judicial conservatism. Somebody who wasn't willing to play ball in those circumstances wouldn't have accepted the nomination. The FDR threat won't work. It might sort of work on Roberts, who has his eye on the legacy of his court, but that's just about it. Nothing works on Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito at least has a philosophy (as out of touch as it might be), Brett Kavanaugh gives exactly zero fucks, and Amy Coney Barrett took a promotion way out of her league. Neil Gorsuch is the only wild card here, so I guess the legacy of the Roberts court depends on how much Gorsuch cares about it (or how much Roberts can get Gorsuch to care about it).
posted by fedward at 3:54 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
Tired: expand the bench of justices [pack the Court]
Wired: in the future, everyone gets to be a justice, but only for 15 minutes [Warhol the Court]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:56 PM on October 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
Wired: in the future, everyone gets to be a justice, but only for 15 minutes [Warhol the Court]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:56 PM on October 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
They'd have to pass a law to expand the size of the court.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Or else what? Here, follow along with me:
posted by The Tensor at 3:59 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Or else what? Here, follow along with me:
- The Senate appoints seven ideologues
- The House and the nation cry out in protest
- John Roberts announces he's seating the new justices anyway
- Everybody tries to sue because that's illegal
- The Supreme Court rules that, no, it's what the Founding Fathers intended all along
- They start hearing and deciding Democracy-shattering cases
posted by The Tensor at 3:59 PM on October 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
I'm sure Biden doesn't want to expand the Supreme Court and that it would take a lot for him to think it the right course of action. I think he would, as a minimum, rather they demonstrate they are acting in bad faith
Don't worry. They will do it for him. Probably before he takes his oath.
posted by Splunge at 4:01 PM on October 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Don't worry. They will do it for him. Probably before he takes his oath.
posted by Splunge at 4:01 PM on October 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Tired, Wired --> Conspired; one of the Deutsche Bank investigations uncovers a paper trail proving Justice Kennedy was forced to step down. (One version of that idea. If only the Supreme Court had to follow some sort of code of conduct; there's the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to sop up McConnell's lower-level flooding.)
Brett Kavanaugh Lays Out a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election; A Bush v. Gore 2.0 crisis just became much more likely. (Mother Jones, Oct. 27, 2020) Minutes before the US Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday evening, the court issued a 5-3 decision to throw out mail ballots in Wisconsin that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. The ruling by the court’s conservative majority is a sharp reversal from April, when the Supreme Court allowed 80,000 late-arriving votes to be counted in Wisconsin’s primary.
Wisconsin voters can request a mail ballot until October 29, but it takes an average of 10 days to deliver a letter in Wisconsin because of Postal Service delays. The ruling could put tens of thousands of ballots at risk of being thrown out, given that 700,000 requested mail ballots have yet to returned. Trump won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes in 2016.
Here's what Brett Kavanaugh* said on CNN about Bush v. Gore in 2000 (Oct. 27, 2020) Speaking to Blitzer outside the Supreme Court in 2000, Kavanaugh dismissed a question about political differences, saying, "I think you're focusing on the wrong issue there. The real issue is what does Article II of the Constitution mean in the first instance. And it delegates authority directly to the state legislatures. And the textualists on the court, led by Justice (Antonin) Scalia, are paying close attention to that language."
"And I think what we're seeing is more of a divide over how to interpret the Constitution than really political differences. I don't think the justices care that it's Bush v. Gore or if it were Gore v. Bush," he said in the interview, which came after the justices had heard oral arguments but before they ruled. "What they care about is how to interpret the Constitution -- what are the enduring values that are going to stand a generation from now?"
How Long Is a Generation? Today and In History [15 to 30 years, depending]/ How long is a generation? Science provides an answer [closer to 30 years]
*Kavanaugh was on Bush’s legal team, which was trying to stop the ballot recount in Florida.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:21 PM on October 29, 2020 [11 favorites]
Brett Kavanaugh Lays Out a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election; A Bush v. Gore 2.0 crisis just became much more likely. (Mother Jones, Oct. 27, 2020) Minutes before the US Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday evening, the court issued a 5-3 decision to throw out mail ballots in Wisconsin that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. The ruling by the court’s conservative majority is a sharp reversal from April, when the Supreme Court allowed 80,000 late-arriving votes to be counted in Wisconsin’s primary.
Wisconsin voters can request a mail ballot until October 29, but it takes an average of 10 days to deliver a letter in Wisconsin because of Postal Service delays. The ruling could put tens of thousands of ballots at risk of being thrown out, given that 700,000 requested mail ballots have yet to returned. Trump won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes in 2016.
Here's what Brett Kavanaugh* said on CNN about Bush v. Gore in 2000 (Oct. 27, 2020) Speaking to Blitzer outside the Supreme Court in 2000, Kavanaugh dismissed a question about political differences, saying, "I think you're focusing on the wrong issue there. The real issue is what does Article II of the Constitution mean in the first instance. And it delegates authority directly to the state legislatures. And the textualists on the court, led by Justice (Antonin) Scalia, are paying close attention to that language."
"And I think what we're seeing is more of a divide over how to interpret the Constitution than really political differences. I don't think the justices care that it's Bush v. Gore or if it were Gore v. Bush," he said in the interview, which came after the justices had heard oral arguments but before they ruled. "What they care about is how to interpret the Constitution -- what are the enduring values that are going to stand a generation from now?"
How Long Is a Generation? Today and In History [15 to 30 years, depending]/ How long is a generation? Science provides an answer [closer to 30 years]
*Kavanaugh was on Bush’s legal team, which was trying to stop the ballot recount in Florida.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:21 PM on October 29, 2020 [11 favorites]
At this point I can only hope that turnout is large enough and the spread between Biden and Trump is wide enough that the GOP can't plausibly tamper enough with the election to throw it to Trump, or if they try there'll be enough backlash to prevent it. It still boggles me that there's sufficient support for Trump that he's polling in double digits. What a mess this country is in.
I took Monday and Tuesday off next week to do last-minute text banking and social media monitoring, partly because I hope it'll make a tiny bit of difference and partly because I know there's zero chance I'll get any work done anyway. (I've done some the past few weeks as well, I hope at least a few folks have voted for Biden that wouldn't have bothered to vote otherwise.)
posted by jzb at 4:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
I took Monday and Tuesday off next week to do last-minute text banking and social media monitoring, partly because I hope it'll make a tiny bit of difference and partly because I know there's zero chance I'll get any work done anyway. (I've done some the past few weeks as well, I hope at least a few folks have voted for Biden that wouldn't have bothered to vote otherwise.)
posted by jzb at 4:43 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
I want them to rightsize the court so I can watch 38 years of Federalist Society blood, sweat, and dreams fall like sand through their greedy fucking fingers.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:06 PM on October 29, 2020 [25 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 5:06 PM on October 29, 2020 [25 favorites]
What's your next move?
Open my chain of Pitchforks 'n' Torches Я Us stores.
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:25 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
Open my chain of Pitchforks 'n' Torches Я Us stores.
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:25 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
So my idea is two fold.
1. There were originally six justices. Surely originalists believe we should return to that.
2. We should respect the Republicans "run Government like a business" credo and exercise the "last hired, first fired" policy.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:32 PM on October 29, 2020 [30 favorites]
1. There were originally six justices. Surely originalists believe we should return to that.
2. We should respect the Republicans "run Government like a business" credo and exercise the "last hired, first fired" policy.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:32 PM on October 29, 2020 [30 favorites]
At this point I can only hope that turnout is large enough and the spread between Biden and Trump is wide enough that the GOP can't plausibly tamper enough with the election to throw it to Trump, or if they try there'll be enough backlash to prevent it. It still boggles me that there's sufficient support for Trump that he's polling in double digits. What a mess this country is in.
I took Monday and Tuesday off next week to do last-minute text banking and social media monitoring, partly because I hope it'll make a tiny bit of difference and partly because I know there's zero chance I'll get any work done anyway. (I've done some the past few weeks as well, I hope at least a few folks have voted for Biden that wouldn't have bothered to vote otherwise.)
The issue is even if the margin is big enough to not to try to steal the presidency, there are a lot of down ballot races where chicanery can swing the election to the GOP. Loss here or there can swing a State Legislature and change redistricting.
posted by jmauro at 5:33 PM on October 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
I took Monday and Tuesday off next week to do last-minute text banking and social media monitoring, partly because I hope it'll make a tiny bit of difference and partly because I know there's zero chance I'll get any work done anyway. (I've done some the past few weeks as well, I hope at least a few folks have voted for Biden that wouldn't have bothered to vote otherwise.)
The issue is even if the margin is big enough to not to try to steal the presidency, there are a lot of down ballot races where chicanery can swing the election to the GOP. Loss here or there can swing a State Legislature and change redistricting.
posted by jmauro at 5:33 PM on October 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
“I liked beer. I still like beer“
posted by neuron at 7:00 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by neuron at 7:00 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Older conservatives will be happy to see the SC lose power and legitimacy regardless of how this ends. The accumulated power of the courts is all that allowed Roe, Brown, Miranda, etc. The early US didn't envision courts resolving all the issues that they've inherited due to the dysfunction of the legislature. Now it's just an exceptionally weird and imbalanced partisan institution; when they push, nobody is going to accept a dictatorship of 6 lifetime appointments made based on luck.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:10 PM on October 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:10 PM on October 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
1. There were originally six justices. Surely originalists believe we should return to that.
2. We should respect the Republicans "run Government like a business" credo and exercise the "last hired, first fired" policy.
You forgot the next step:
3. Oops, we now realize six justices isn't actually enough for the workload! We'd better expand the court again. What? No, of course we don't need to consider reappointing the three we just got rid of, their lifetime terms ended when their seats did, and these are new seats, for which the current president must choose appointments.
Sheer fantasy, of course, but has about the same legitimacy as what McConnell actually pulled to steal two extra seats for Trump to appoint.
posted by biogeo at 7:49 PM on October 29, 2020 [21 favorites]
2. We should respect the Republicans "run Government like a business" credo and exercise the "last hired, first fired" policy.
You forgot the next step:
3. Oops, we now realize six justices isn't actually enough for the workload! We'd better expand the court again. What? No, of course we don't need to consider reappointing the three we just got rid of, their lifetime terms ended when their seats did, and these are new seats, for which the current president must choose appointments.
Sheer fantasy, of course, but has about the same legitimacy as what McConnell actually pulled to steal two extra seats for Trump to appoint.
posted by biogeo at 7:49 PM on October 29, 2020 [21 favorites]
I think older conservatives would be happy to see that the same way they'd be happy to see lower deficits, which is to say not at all happy as long as they could have benefited.
The accumulated power of the courts is all that allowed Roe, Brown, Miranda, etc.
This was absolutely cemented into conventional wisdom in the '70s and '80s but it is not holding up well and IMHO needs to be treated with skepticism. Progressives need the government to do stuff, conservatives can benefit just by having it throw a monkey wrench into the gears. Shelby can gut voting rights, but how much does Miranda help when you underfund the courts and have long, pre-trial incarceration periods? (Well, it helps some, but you get the point.)
posted by mark k at 8:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
The accumulated power of the courts is all that allowed Roe, Brown, Miranda, etc.
This was absolutely cemented into conventional wisdom in the '70s and '80s but it is not holding up well and IMHO needs to be treated with skepticism. Progressives need the government to do stuff, conservatives can benefit just by having it throw a monkey wrench into the gears. Shelby can gut voting rights, but how much does Miranda help when you underfund the courts and have long, pre-trial incarceration periods? (Well, it helps some, but you get the point.)
posted by mark k at 8:18 PM on October 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
If Biden had announced he was going to respond to ACB's appointment to the court by adding more justices
Request to stop using intials to refer to Coney Barrett, please.
posted by jokeefe at 9:05 PM on October 29, 2020 [34 favorites]
Request to stop using intials to refer to Coney Barrett, please.
posted by jokeefe at 9:05 PM on October 29, 2020 [34 favorites]
Granted, as soon as everyone - especially and specifically including the media - stops using "GOP" to refer to the Republican party.
IOW good luck with that
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:57 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
IOW good luck with that
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:57 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think the point is that using her initials only happens because that's how people sometimes referred to Ginsburg. We don't have to participate in that bit of theatre. It's not a general stance against initialisms.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:24 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:24 PM on October 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
The popular/ shorthand use of Barrett's initials is concerning.
As a non-american, the use of "ACB" is obviously been given juice by political operatives - domestic and foreign.
It's dividing and numerous posts in this thread alone have already explained why using ACB to name her is complete shit.
We call the drunken sot Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh. Not Boof. Gorsuch is... pulling a Mike Pence and being bland but putting his thumb where his handlers want him to and when. But it's still Gorsuch, not N.G. (En Gee! In da Supreme Court!).
Why not call Amy Coney Barret, well, Barret? It's a lifetime appointment, Barret is going to be a name for the next however so long.
posted by porpoise at 10:24 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
As a non-american, the use of "ACB" is obviously been given juice by political operatives - domestic and foreign.
It's dividing and numerous posts in this thread alone have already explained why using ACB to name her is complete shit.
We call the drunken sot Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh. Not Boof. Gorsuch is... pulling a Mike Pence and being bland but putting his thumb where his handlers want him to and when. But it's still Gorsuch, not N.G. (En Gee! In da Supreme Court!).
Why not call Amy Coney Barret, well, Barret? It's a lifetime appointment, Barret is going to be a name for the next however so long.
posted by porpoise at 10:24 PM on October 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
Is it really so hard to find dirt on Thomas and Alito and expose them for doing something so bad that that they retire? That's a different kind of illogical wishful thinking that I'm engaged in.
posted by lab.beetle at 10:31 PM on October 29, 2020
posted by lab.beetle at 10:31 PM on October 29, 2020
I mean, not like Barret is a hard name to remember or say or type or whatever.
It's just that it's her husband's.
posted by porpoise at 10:33 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's just that it's her husband's.
posted by porpoise at 10:33 PM on October 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
what's depressing is the obsequious groveling of the american bar at the feet of this most political and hackish of courts. the average state appellate court justice is smarter and sharper than a goon like kavanaugh or thomas or barrett. but we all have to pretend they are the epitome of legal righteousness, the high priests of american civics, even as republicans stock the next generation of appointees with federal district court judges who are ex-ghost hunters and rightwing militia bloggers. what a farce.
posted by wibari at 10:57 PM on October 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by wibari at 10:57 PM on October 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
They should do it anyway.
Yep. They absolutely should, because even though it's probably a bad idea for everyone in general, the current Republican logic is that it is entirely fair for them to do it first chance they get as a defensive measure against what they would have done if it were them, and the fact that the Democrats didn't would merely be a sign of weakness as far as they're concerned. So if it is going to happen, it might as well be on the Democratic watch where they can control how it happens.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:50 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yep. They absolutely should, because even though it's probably a bad idea for everyone in general, the current Republican logic is that it is entirely fair for them to do it first chance they get as a defensive measure against what they would have done if it were them, and the fact that the Democrats didn't would merely be a sign of weakness as far as they're concerned. So if it is going to happen, it might as well be on the Democratic watch where they can control how it happens.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:50 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sheer fantasy, of course, but has about the same legitimacy as what McConnell actually pulled to steal two extra seats for Trump to appoint.
Yes, it's been "Air Bud" rules for a while now. Time for the DNC to get onboard.
posted by mikelieman at 3:33 AM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, it's been "Air Bud" rules for a while now. Time for the DNC to get onboard.
posted by mikelieman at 3:33 AM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Is it really so hard to find dirt on Thomas and Alito and expose them for doing something so bad that that they retire? That's a different kind of illogical wishful thinking that I'm engaged in.
Problem is, my friends and I were speculating the other day that Thomas might retire before January 1st. Then we get ANOTHER young ultraconservative rammed through.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:20 AM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
Problem is, my friends and I were speculating the other day that Thomas might retire before January 1st. Then we get ANOTHER young ultraconservative rammed through.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:20 AM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
New Congress starts January 3, so he’d have to hurry. Also, the Arizona seat because it’s a special election maybe changes over even before that.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:23 AM on October 30, 2020
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:23 AM on October 30, 2020
Fwiw, "Barrett" appears to have been her preferred name in the 7th Circuit (example). So absent some indication to the contrary, it seems it isn't just her husband's name, it's hers.
Also it goes nicely with "barratry."
posted by Not A Thing at 7:42 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
Also it goes nicely with "barratry."
posted by Not A Thing at 7:42 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
Use Barrett please. Like you use everyone else's last name. Easy.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:09 AM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:09 AM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
All jurists who are attacking our democracy need to be impeached and removed from office.
Up to and including Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and this clown.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 1:52 PM on October 29 [37 favorites +] [!]
Has Gorsuch actually done any such thing? I've read several of his decisions and actually thought he was very good. Are you just saying that because Trump put him in or is there something I'm not aware of?
posted by Barry David at 8:59 AM on October 30, 2020
I absolutely believe that we should expand the Court. Not just because of the treatment of Garland as opposed to Barrett, but because the Court was expanded in the 1860s to account for the (then) 9 federal circuits, and there are now 13 federal circuits. Perfectly reasonable and advisable thing to do.
Here's the problem. Assuming a blue wave that elects Biden and gives Democrats the Senate. If history is an indicator, Democrats will hold the White House and both houses of Congress for two years - midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power (see 2010 and 2018). Also, if history is an indicator, the Democrats will have enough political capital for one major legislative accomplishment during that two-year period (see ACA or Trump's corporate tax cuts).
So what should it be? Expanding the court? Overhauling health care? Climate change? Immigration reform? It's pretty unlikely that we'll get them all, or even more than one. Even if we eliminate the filibuster, the Dem majority will be very slim, and holding onto it will require the support of moderate Dem senators in red or purple states.
Anyway, I think we need to temper our expectations of what Biden and a Democratic Congress will be able to accomplish, even with the best of intentions.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 9:43 AM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
Here's the problem. Assuming a blue wave that elects Biden and gives Democrats the Senate. If history is an indicator, Democrats will hold the White House and both houses of Congress for two years - midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power (see 2010 and 2018). Also, if history is an indicator, the Democrats will have enough political capital for one major legislative accomplishment during that two-year period (see ACA or Trump's corporate tax cuts).
So what should it be? Expanding the court? Overhauling health care? Climate change? Immigration reform? It's pretty unlikely that we'll get them all, or even more than one. Even if we eliminate the filibuster, the Dem majority will be very slim, and holding onto it will require the support of moderate Dem senators in red or purple states.
Anyway, I think we need to temper our expectations of what Biden and a Democratic Congress will be able to accomplish, even with the best of intentions.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 9:43 AM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
Can we please not go on a derail about whether a woman's last name is "hers" or "her father's" or "her husband's"? Her name is Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is her name.
posted by Lexica at 9:51 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Lexica at 9:51 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
Can we please not go on a derail about whether a woman's last name is "hers" or "her father's" or "her husband's"? Her name is Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is her name.
Like anyone, she ought to be be supported in choosing her own preferred name. I'm unclear, however, there's ever been a clear indication from her whether she considers her last name to be "Barrett" or "Coney Barrett". I'll admit, early on I was using her initials because of that confusion.
Names are complicated and the very idea that everyone has a "first name" and a "last name" with some optional "middle names" is a bit of cultural imperialism to start with.
posted by bcd at 10:20 AM on October 30, 2020
Like anyone, she ought to be be supported in choosing her own preferred name. I'm unclear, however, there's ever been a clear indication from her whether she considers her last name to be "Barrett" or "Coney Barrett". I'll admit, early on I was using her initials because of that confusion.
Names are complicated and the very idea that everyone has a "first name" and a "last name" with some optional "middle names" is a bit of cultural imperialism to start with.
posted by bcd at 10:20 AM on October 30, 2020
Coney Barrett or Barrett would be fine. ACB is not. Thanks!
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think we're talking past each other here. I believe we all agree that ACB is not appropriate. The open question I was asking about is which of Coney Barrett or Barrett is correct. In my experience, few people are actually completely ambivalent about which is 'right' and we should aspire to use the 'right' one, even if the person in question is a horrible and illegitimate addition to the court.
posted by bcd at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by bcd at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Using her initials because you're not sure of her personal preference is still wrong. And not done for men nearly as often as women.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:53 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:53 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sorry, not going to engage in the fight you are trying to pick there.
posted by bcd at 12:59 PM on October 30, 2020
posted by bcd at 12:59 PM on October 30, 2020
Mod note: Please let the initials thing drop in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:02 PM on October 30, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:02 PM on October 30, 2020 [12 favorites]
Actually, why don't we start calling Kavanaugh Boof? Even if we do go with "Barrett".
posted by Reverend John at 4:50 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 4:50 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Part of what will clinch the argument for enlarging the court is several decisions wrecking Roe, the ACA, etc. against the overwhelming wishes and interests of Americans, crafted with tortured originalist nonsense.
posted by lathrop at 10:07 AM on October 31, 2020
posted by lathrop at 10:07 AM on October 31, 2020
Part of what will clinch the argument for enlarging the court is several decisions wrecking Roe, the ACA, etc. against the overwhelming wishes and interests of Americans, crafted with tortured originalist nonsense.
I think the biggest problem we're facing right now is that most people don't KNOW that most Americans support Roe and the ACA etc, even people who support those things. So Republicans can argue "well we represent will of the people" and the typical response from Democratic politicians is "but our policies are better" rather than "that's just not true."
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:34 AM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think the biggest problem we're facing right now is that most people don't KNOW that most Americans support Roe and the ACA etc, even people who support those things. So Republicans can argue "well we represent will of the people" and the typical response from Democratic politicians is "but our policies are better" rather than "that's just not true."
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:34 AM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
find dirt on Thomas
"dirt" worse than sexual harassment mind you
posted by away for regrooving at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
"dirt" worse than sexual harassment mind you
posted by away for regrooving at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
And perjury about that sexual harassment
posted by hydropsyche at 4:56 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:56 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept | "I wanted to introduce the real Chinese food to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Up to and including Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and this clown.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 1:52 PM on October 29, 2020 [44 favorites]