Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Part of the reason it has been benign is there is a right-leaning majority.  A left-leaning court would have been more active.  They could have  taken some global warming case and determine it is our right to have clean air and imposed strict rules on energy producers.  Lots of people may cheer that kind of activism, but that is not how our system of government is supposed to work. 

So you’re upset about something that isn’t actually happening?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

So you’re upset about something that isn’t actually happening?

Why not, I'm upset about a lot of stuff that isn't happening, perhaps even more so than by what is happening.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

My crystal ball isn’t as good as yours regarding what might have happened under a hypothetical left-leaning court. But I think my question still stands. You’ve said the court is more powerful than elected representatives and the system is broken, and I’m just asking for a specific example illustrating that point.  I don’t think I agree with that statement. 

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

:goodposting:  Was the first thing that came to my mind when I read Cletius' question.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

I think there's a huge amount of hype around Citizens United and the campaign finance laws.  For me, this issue is the left's Roe v Wade.  Its used to generate hype and support, but I've yet to really understand what difference it all makes.  I don't think any of this has changed our lives in any meaningful way.  Money has massive influence in politics, leadership, legislation, and justice.  That's been true as far as I know in every society under every political system since the beginning of time.  Court decisions lead to new laws, new loopholes are found, new lawsuits are filed and new laws are introduced.  The one enduring truth is that money will always find a way.

I don't personally believe that corporate entities should have the same first amendment rights as natural persons, nor do I think political contributions by legal entities = speech, but I don't think it matters much either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I think there's a huge amount of hype around Citizens United and the campaign finance laws.  For me, this issue is the left's Roe v Wade.  Its used to generate hype and support, but I've yet to really understand what difference it all makes.  I don't think any of this has changed our lives in any meaningful way.  Money has massive influence in politics, leadership, legislation, and justice.  That's been true as far as I know in every society under every political system since the beginning of time.  Court decisions lead to new laws, new loopholes are found, new lawsuits are filed and new laws are introduced.  The one enduring truth is that money will always find a way.

I don't personally believe that corporate entities should have the same first amendment rights as natural persons, nor do I think political contributions by legal entities = speech, but I don't think it matters much either.

 

Well, you might have idiosyncratic views on this.  But LOTS of other folks thinks it makes a huge difference.  And the two big attempts by Congress to change things have both been whittled away by Supreme Court decisions.  That was the point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Well, you might have idiosyncratic views on this.  But LOTS of other folks thinks it makes a huge difference.  And the two big attempts by Congress to change things have both been whittled away by Supreme Court decisions.  That was the point.  

I'm the first to admit I enjoy being a contrarian on this issue, and perhaps it affects my views somewhat.  People are freaking out about Kavanaugh; depressed, ranting and raging, and it makes me sad to see that. Let's remember that GOP presidents appointed 8 justices after Roe (not including Trump's 2 appointments) and that decision has stood for 42 years. Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were all GOP appointments - all of them ended up being moderate. Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the ACA.  There is so much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over these appointments, but I think the real effect is massively overrated.  I think its a beast created largely by the media and campaign marketing folks. 90% of what the Court does is boring - important to some to be sure - but mostly boring, non-political stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm the first to admit I enjoy being a contrarian on this issue, and perhaps it affects my views somewhat.  People are freaking out about Kavanaugh; depressed, ranting and raging, and it makes me sad to see that. Let's remember that GOP presidents appointed 8 justices after Roe (not including Trump's 2 appointments) and that decision has stood for 42 years. Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were all GOP appointments - all of them ended up being moderate. Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the ACA.  There is so much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over these appointments, but I think the real effect is massively overrated.  I think its a beast created largely by the media and campaign marketing folks. 90% of what the Court does is boring - important to some to be sure - but mostly boring, non-political stuff.

 

It's that other 10% that I worry about.  People like Kavanaugh and I think Gorsuch too will "interpret" laws to favor the right.  Kavanaugh especially, since he showed the whole country in his stupid angry right wing voice what hes all about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm the first to admit I enjoy being a contrarian on this issue, and perhaps it affects my views somewhat.  People are freaking out about Kavanaugh; depressed, ranting and raging, and it makes me sad to see that. Let's remember that GOP presidents appointed 8 justices after Roe (not including Trump's 2 appointments) and that decision has stood for 42 years. Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were all GOP appointments - all of them ended up being moderate. Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the ACA.  There is so much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over these appointments, but I think the real effect is massively overrated.  I think its a beast created largely by the media and campaign marketing folks. 90% of what the Court does is boring - important to some to be sure - but mostly boring, non-political stuff.

 

A noteworthy sidebar, in recent history GOP presidents have appointed two very liberal justices and two moderate swing justices.  I can't think of the last time a Democrat president has not selected a SC Justice not firmly in the liberal camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

A noteworthy sidebar, in recent history GOP presidents have appointed two very liberal justices and two moderate swing justices.  I can't think of the last time a Democrat president has not selected a SC Justice not firmly in the liberal camp. 

You mean besides Garland?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

A noteworthy sidebar, in recent history GOP presidents have appointed two very liberal justices and two moderate swing justices.  I can't think of the last time a Democrat president has not selected a SC Justice not firmly in the liberal camp. 

How many S.Ct. opinions do you read each term, roughly?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

How many S.Ct. opinions do you read each term, roughly?

 

I will look through the controversial ones.   Which is not that often. But I don't read too many laws either, but I can still judge politicians and vote. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a high-level overview, there were 72 "merits" cases decided last term, which ended in late June. Nineteen of those, or about a quarter of all merits cases decided, were 5-4. Almost 40% were unanimous and over 60% were 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0.  Just looking at the 19 5-4 cases, there is of course a strong liberal/conservative pattern. In those cases, Kennedy agreed with Thomas and Alito 95% of the time. He agreed with Kagan in none of the 5-4 cases, with Breyer and Sotomayor in just one case each.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SB_agreement-highlows_20180629.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Just for a high-level overview, there were 72 "merits" cases decided last term, which ended in late June. Nineteen of those, or about a quarter of all merits cases decided, were 5-4. Almost 40% were unanimous and over 60% were 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0.  Just looking at the 19 5-4 cases, there is of course a strong liberal/conservative pattern. In those cases, Kennedy agreed with Thomas and Alito 95% of the time. He agreed with Kagan in none of the 5-4 cases, with Breyer and Sotomayor in just one case each.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SB_agreement-highlows_20180629.pdf

So BK shifts the court to the right about 1/72 times, or ~1.5%.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

So BK shifts the court to the right about 1/72 times, or ~1.5%.

 

 

No, the composition of the Court determines what cases are brought by litigants in the first place and what cases are granted cert by the Justices.  Just looking at cases decided doesn’t capture the full shift.  Also, Kennedy was like 30 years older than Kavanaugh.  That sorta matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 4:57 AM, Henry Ford said:

The FBI was not permitted to interview her or the alleged perpetrator.  If you think that’s a legitimate investigation, you’re a crazy person. 

okay I'll go there.  They interview her:

what do they ask?

Where, when, who, how did you get there, how did you get home?  Oh yey, what year was it?  So 4 people there, why can't they remember anything about anything or anybody you claim was there Dr. Ford?  What did I miss that they should have asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, irishidiot said:

okay I'll go there.  They interview her:

what do they ask?

Where, when, who, how did you get there, how did you get home?  Oh yey, what year was it?  So 4 people there, why can't they remember anything about anything or anybody you claim was there Dr. Ford?  What did I miss that they should have asked?

You would make for a terrible investigator

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the moops said:

You would make for a terrible investigator

yea, I'm sure you would be stellar.  So what would you have asked Dr. Ford if you are the FBI guy assigned to do the interview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

okay I'll go there.  They interview her:

what do they ask?

Where, when, who, how did you get there, how did you get home?  Oh yey, what year was it?  So 4 people there, why can't they remember anything about anything or anybody you claim was there Dr. Ford?  What did I miss that they should have asked?

A deposition I run would probably take about 3 hours.  And I’m not as good at this as the FBI. So, lots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

A deposition I run would probably take about 3 hours.  And I’m not as good at this as the FBI. So, lots.  

Just asking what question you would ask?  or questions?  I mean there is a lot there, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 8:44 PM, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Why not, I'm upset about a lot of stuff that isn't happening, perhaps even more so than by what is happening.

It's nice most of the time to lay back from the fray & observe.

kudos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

Just asking what question you would ask?  or questions?  I mean there is a lot there, right?

And I’m telling you I’d ask questions for three hours, and I don’t really feel like drafting a three hour deposition script, but I’d start with:

Do you remember what color bathing suit you were wearing? What clothes you were wearing over the suit? Can you remember what they were wearing? When you closed the bathroom door after you ran into the bathroom, what did the door look like? Do you remember how you locked it? Was it a latch? A lock on the knob? What was in the bathroom?

When you saw Judge at the grocery store - tell me about that. How did you know it was him? How did you know the two of them? How have you kept up with Kavanaugh’s life? Did you follow his family on social media? If I check your search history, when did that start?  Have you ever accused anyone else of sexually assaulting you? 

A lot of a deposition or an investigation is listening to answers, watching the person answering, and following up to prod memories or test them.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, the moops said:

You would make for a terrible investigator

But he'd be great on my juries :excited: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

And I’m telling you I’d ask questions for three hours, and I don’t really feel like drafting a three hour deposition script, but I’d start with:

Do you remember what color bathing suit you were wearing? What clothes you were wearing over the suit? Can you remember what they were wearing? When you closed the bathroom door after you ran into the bathroom, what did the door look like? Do you remember how you locked it? Was it a latch? A lock on the knob? What was in the bathroom?

When you saw Judge at the grocery store - tell me about that. How did you know it was him? How did you know the two of them? How have you kept up with Kavanaugh’s life? Did you follow his family on social media? If I check your search history, when did that start?  Have you ever accused anyone else of sexually assaulting you? 

A lot of a deposition or an investigation is listening to answers, watching the person answering, and following up to prod memories or test them.  

that's all cool but it's highly slanted towards her which anyone would expect.  Can you even imagine what a good attorney could do to her on cross?   It would be a blood bath & you know it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

And I’m telling you I’d ask questions for three hours, and I don’t really feel like drafting a three hour deposition script, but I’d start with:

Do you remember what color bathing suit you were wearing? What clothes you were wearing over the suit? Can you remember what they were wearing? When you closed the bathroom door after you ran into the bathroom, what did the door look like? Do you remember how you locked it? Was it a latch? A lock on the knob? What was in the bathroom?

When you saw Judge at the grocery store - tell me about that. How did you know it was him? How did you know the two of them? How have you kept up with Kavanaugh’s life? Did you follow his family on social media? If I check your search history, when did that start?  Have you ever accused anyone else of sexually assaulting you? 

A lot of a deposition or an investigation is listening to answers, watching the person answering, and following up to prod memories or test them.  

very thoughtful response.  appreciate it.  have to go-too many beers after watching a great Monday night football game.

good luck in everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

that's all cool but it's highly slanted towards her which anyone would expect.  Can you even imagine what a good attorney could do to her on cross?   It would be a blood bath & you know it.  

I know you think that’s slanted toward her, but it isn’t. Like, really, really isn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, irishidiot said:

very thoughtful response.  appreciate it.  have to go-too many beers after watching a great Monday night football game.

good luck in everything.

You like beer. You’ve always liked beer. Sometimes you have too many beers. You like beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

You like beer. You’ve always liked beer. Sometimes you have too many beers. You like beer.

Eggscellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 9:55 PM, Dedfin said:

My prediction os as more stories get released, R politicians, pundits, and voters become hardened in their support for OKavanaugh due to their lack of self awareness and inability to approach any issue in good faith.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.