Random Politics

[Steve of phpBB]

Dems should just fire those judges and appoint new ones. Seriously are they even trying?

Damn Hillary for appointing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett anyway. I guess she really was a corporate shill.

[mister d]

Yeah, even beyond expansion, there's zero to legitimately investigate as far as Kavanaugh goes. I think we just have to chalk this up to a lost 30 years and try again later.

[A_B]

Dems should just fire those judges and appoint new ones. Seriously are they even trying?

Aren't they on lifetime appointments? THis was one of McConnell's huge pushes while Trump was in, to appoint as many judges as possible.

[The Sybian]

Dems should just fire those judges and appoint new ones. Seriously are they even trying?

Aren't they on lifetime appointments? THis was one of McConnell's huge pushes while Trump was in, to appoint as many judges as possible.

To Mr. D's point about Kavanaugh, they can be impeached. Just ask Justice Samuel Chase, who was impeached in 1805. Only time it's ever happened, and it'd take an enormous scandal for anyone to attempt to impeach a Justice.

[P.D.X.]

Yeah, even beyond expansion, there's zero to legitimately investigate as far as Kavanaugh goes.

Court expansion and investigations are hardly fit the "immediate" action that your tweeter is imploring the dems to take. I'm legitimately curious what powers he thinks the Dems have here. And if they did have those powers, surely the former ruling party would've used the same to overturn court rulings that they did no like, no?

[Giff]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

[Steve of phpBB]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.

I'd love to see an investigation of Kavanaugh. But that wouldn't do anything either, since you need 67 votes in the Senate to remove him.

[brian]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.

I'd love to see an investigation of Kavanaugh. But that wouldn't do anything either, since you need 67 votes in the Senate to remove him.

They could have video of Kavanaugh doing lines of blow off a stripper's ass while counting money and saying into the mic "This was $500,000 given to me by Citibank as a payoff after getting nominated to the court and it was all facilitated through Donald J. Trump" and not a single Republican in the Senate (except maybe Romney!) would vote to impeach him.

Investigate him, sure -- but it doesn't fucking matter.

[L-Jam3]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

This ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.

[Steve of phpBB]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

This ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.

If the Dems take PA and WI but lose one of the GA seats, and nothing else changes, doesn't that make it 51-49?

[Giff]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.

We've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.

[mister d]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

[Giff]

That's exactly the right point, D. It's infuriating.

[degenerasian]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

This ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.

Until California flips ;)

It's really time to expand the SCOTUS to 11.

[Steve of phpBB]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

It's a hard analogy to make, because if there were sexual assault issues and other red flags, the Dems would have insisted on the withdrawal of the nomination, and they would have put someone else in his place.

Your hypothetical also assumes "full power" for the Republicans, as opposed to what the Dems have today: a slim margin in the House that relies on a number of so-called moderates, and a razor-thin margin in the Senate that depends on both a conservative from West Virginia and a former Green Party nutjob from Arizona.

But yeah, if Ilhan Omar were appointed to the Supreme Court, the Republicans would find an excuse to impeach her.

And doing that would accomplish just as much as the Dems not impeaching Kavanaugh, since there still wouldn't be 67 votes to remove.

[The Sybian]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.

We've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.

It might seem pedantic, but it's not overturned by a state law. The Supreme Court could have acted on an emergency basis to put a stay on the law, but that's very rare. A state can pass an Unconstitutional law, and it will stand until it's challenged in court. It's scary to have to trust the current shitbags in the Court, but refusing to act on the emergency basis doesn't signal what they will do when a case comes before them. What really scares me about the current Court, is their willingness to completely ignore past decisions and change the law without even making a logical interpretation based on precedence.

[Steve of phpBB]

They could abolish the filibuster and pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose (as well as voting rights, etc.).

One of those justices could also go ahead and retire now too.

Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.

We've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.

It might seem pedantic, but it's not overturned by a state law. The Supreme Court could have acted on an emergency basis to put a stay on the law, but that's very rare. A state can pass an Unconstitutional law, and it will stand until it's challenged in court. It's scary to have to trust the current shitbags in the Court, but refusing to act on the emergency basis doesn't signal what they will do when a case comes before them. What really scares me about the current Court, is their willingness to completely ignore past decisions and change the law without even making a logical interpretation based on precedence.

And even worse, there's no one for NARAL or the ACLU to sue to stop enforcement of the law. A normal abortion restriction law would either declare certain abortions to be crimes or declare them to be improper medical procedures, and the pro-choice groups could sue state officials to enjoin enforcement. In that case, federal courts always grant stays until the issue is resolved.

Here, the problem is that the Texas law allows for private enforcement in Texas state courts. So because there is no particular person charged with enforcing the law, there is no one that NARAL can really sue. I think they have tried to sue the Texas state court administration, seeking an order stopping the state courts from even entertaining lawsuits under the new Texas law, but it isn't clear how a federal court would process a lawsuit like that.

Once someone sues under the new Texas law, the defendant can argue that the statute is unconstitutional. But there is no process that would stop other people from suing under the same law.

[brian]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

So the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?

I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.

[EnochRoot]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

So the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?

I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.

I think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.

[brian]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

So the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?

I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.

I think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.

It's a pretty fucking dumb one though because:

1) No one (I know or even anyone I've seen in Congress) is suggesting that Kavanaugh is somehow above the law or shouldn't be looked into on some level.
2) Even if there's more than just weirdness, but an actual crime undercovered, the Republicans will never vote to remove him and if they somehow did it would only been if there was a Republican president who could appoint a new Republican justice.
3) In my example, I'm not sure enough Democratic senators would vote to convict under a Republican president, but my (easy to have since I'm not a Senator) opinion is that I wouldn't want to be cynical enough to leave a sexual predator on the bench under any circumstance.

[mister d]

I mean ... 1+3 is the entire fucking problem, right?

[EnochRoot]

Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?

So the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?

I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.

I think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.

It's a pretty fucking dumb one though because:

1) No one (I know or even anyone I've seen in Congress) is suggesting that Kavanaugh is somehow above the law or shouldn't be looked into on some level.
2) Even if there's more than just weirdness, but an actual crime undercovered, the Republicans will never vote to remove him and if they somehow did it would only been if there was a Republican president who could appoint a new Republican justice.
3) In my example, I'm not sure enough Democratic senators would vote to convict under a Republican president, but my (easy to have since I'm not a Senator) opinion is that I wouldn't want to be cynical enough to leave a sexual predator on the bench under any circumstance.

I mean, we have a political party engaging the dimwitted among us to seek alternative medicines rather than getting vaccinations, and you have a fully compliant, right-wing media conglomeration that's in on the gaslighting. The other day when Ted Cruz posted (incorrectly) that the former Bucs owner took out a full page ad in the WSJ? That wasn't a mistake. It's part of the gaslighting. So it doesn't fucking matter, because the GOP doesn't give a fuck about you or me, and the Democrats are more concerned with their hair shirts and running guys like Al Franken the fuck off the political map.

Frankly, you had the right idea when you left the fucking country, dude.

[brian]

Yeah, the US is fucked.

[EnochRoot]

Yeah, the US is fucked.

I don't hold out much hope. We have friends that own a couple restaurants out on Mallorca (Spain's Balearic Islands)...And we've got an open invitation to come out to help out.

I mean, I'm freakin 50. Too old to be a busboy, but I'd love a third act pouring scotch for European vacationers.

[The Sybian]

Yeah, the US is fucked.

I don't hold out much hope. We have friends that own a couple restaurants out on Mallorca (Spain's Balearic Islands)...And we've got an open invitation to come out to help out.

I mean, I'm freakin 50. Too old to be a busboy, but I'd love a third act pouring scotch for European vacationers.

Mallorca is awesome, go for it.

[sancarlos]

I have dual Canadian citizenship, and I’m finally just now filing the papers to get a certificate of citizenship, so I can then get a Canadian passport. If the bad guy (or one of his minions) wins in 2024, we might consider a move.

[Pruitt]

I have dual Canadian citizenship, and I’m finally just now filing the papers to get a certificate of citizenship, so I can then get a Canadian passport. If the bad guy (or one of his minions) wins in 2024, we might consider a move.

That's fine, but don't come up here planning to pop out a bunch of anchor babies.

[mister d]

Maybe the next wave of “Dems need to act” versus “stop saying Dems need to act there’s nothing they can even try to do” should take a 24 hour pause before the defense phase? Good to see this is on the radar.

[The Sybian]

Maybe the next wave of “Dems need to act” versus “stop saying Dems need to act there’s nothing they can even try to do” should take a 24 hour pause before the defense phase? Good to see this is on the radar.

We can airlift them out of Texas on army helicopters.

[sancarlos]

I have dual Canadian citizenship, and I’m finally just now filing the papers to get a certificate of citizenship, so I can then get a Canadian passport. If the bad guy (or one of his minions) wins in 2024, we might consider a move.

That's fine, but don't come up here planning to pop out a bunch of anchor babies.

Ha ha. I'll make sure my 62 year-old wife is on birth control.

[sancarlos]

I mean, I'm freakin 50. Too old to be a busboy, but I'd love a third act pouring scotch for European vacationers.

Man, you have posted about listening to Can and Uriah Heep. How can you be that young?

[Steve of phpBB]

Great stuff from Josh Marshall.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/scotus-delenda-est

About halfway through, he trains his sights on the legal profession. And nails it completely.

As civilians we don’t presume to judge the personal beliefs or research ambitions of physicists who do advanced research at universities or build our nuclear weapons. We defer to all sorts of specialized domains of knowledge. With all due and real respect to various friends and peers who do important work in the field of law, lawyering is not such a field of knowledge. The suggestion that it is is part and parcel of the same general institutional arrogance of the elite academic legal profession that leads countless law professors to head out on disciplinary safaris into economics, history, psychology and virtually every other domain of knowledge. They actually imagine, risibly, that a JD – a limited and largely technical credential – enables one to launch off on this sort of intellectual tourism as easily as a member of the New York bar might get waived in to try a case in California as a matter of professional courtesy. Both claims are products of the same professional arrogance. And in the case of deference to Court appointees it is an arrogance that menaces democratic and civic life itself.

[Pruitt]

I have dual Canadian citizenship, and I’m finally just now filing the papers to get a certificate of citizenship, so I can then get a Canadian passport. If the bad guy (or one of his minions) wins in 2024, we might consider a move.

That's fine, but don't come up here planning to pop out a bunch of anchor babies.

Ha ha. I'll make sure my 62 year-old wife is on birth control.

In that case...

You can collect Social Security while living up here. My mother-in-law does.

[EnochRoot]

I mean, I'm freakin 50. Too old to be a busboy, but I'd love a third act pouring scotch for European vacationers.

Man, you have posted about listening to Can and Uriah Heep. How can you be that young?

Ha! Actually, I just turned 51 this past August 1st. I guess I just haven't gotten around to changing my internal clock to acknowledge that yet.

And thank you for the kind words. Good music transcends timestamps.

[DaveInSeattle]

Brilliant...

My GF (who does ultrasounds at a high-risk obstetric clinic) and I talked about this law last night. It is a flat out mess, even beyond the 'citizens making reports' aspect. Some examples:

• Most women don't even have an idea they are pregnant at 6 weeks

• A lot of fetal heartbeats aren't detectible, even after 6 weeks, unless doing a vaginal ultrasound

• Most of the severe defects don't show up in a fetus until well after weeks

• IVF treatments will generally implant multiple eggs (up to 5 or 6) in the hope that one will 'take'. This law would require an IVF patient to carry all of those fetuses to term.

• The whole 'no exception for rape/incest' thing.

[EdRomero]

Brilliant...

My GF (who does ultrasounds at a high-risk obstetric clinic) and I talked about this law last night. It is a flat out mess, even beyond the 'citizens making reports' aspect. Some examples:

• Most women don't even have an idea they are pregnant at 6 weeks

• A lot of fetal heartbeats aren't detectible, even after 6 weeks, unless doing a vaginal ultrasound

• Most of the severe defects don't show up in a fetus until well after weeks

• IVF treatments will generally implant multiple eggs (up to 5 or 6) in the hope that one will 'take'. This law would require an IVF patient to carry all of those fetuses to term.

• The whole 'no exception for rape/incest' thing.

It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.

I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?

[DaveInSeattle]

It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.

I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?

We also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.

[Steve of phpBB]

It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.

I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?

We also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.

This.

Seriously, though, has anyone seen whether there is a consequence for filing baseless lawsuits under this law? (Or a waiver of the filing fee?) Because I'd love to see 1000 lawsuits filed against every member of the Texas legislature that voted for this, accusing each one of having or performing abortions - or both, what the hell.

[The Sybian]

It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.

I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?

We also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.

This.

Seriously, though, has anyone seen whether there is a consequence for filing baseless lawsuits under this law? (Or a waiver of the filing fee?) Because I'd love to see 1000 lawsuits filed against every member of the Texas legislature that voted for this, accusing each one of having or performing abortions - or both, what the hell.

Without actually reading the law, I'm guessing there is no consequence to baseless claims because they don't want a chilling affect on people bringing claims. Once people start making baseless claims against the sponsors of the Bill, there will be an amendment.

[Steve of phpBB]

I think maybe this is the key:

(i) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or
any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004,
Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this
section.

So I think any one of us could sue anyone in Texas for violating the abortion law, and not be subject to attorney fees. I suppose lawyers who file such lawsuits might be subject to bar discipline for bringing baseless claims. But any non-lawyers should be fine.