Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

******Official SCOTUS Thread******

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

I would be extremely confident that Biden's nominee would be approved by a Republican Senate.  

EDIT: I feel more confident that a Republican Senate would confirm a Biden nominee than I would a Democratic Senate confirming Trumps.

Oh, there is no way a Democratic Senate would confirm another Trump nominee.  No doubt about that.

I don't think the Democrats have any reason to trust the Republicans in the future after what is happening now.

 

Share this post


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

So you're fairly certain that If Garland's nomination was in December (3 months earlier) and outside of the election year, then McConnell would have approved?

That wasn't the question.  The question was do I think Biden's nomination would be approved.  I do.

To your question, I believe as long as the nomination occurred prior to the start of the Presidential primaries, Garland would have had hearings.  Though I don't feel as strongly about his confirmation because the 2014 mid-term elections flipped control of the process to the Republicans which was a clear indication that the American people wanted Obama checked.  You see McConnell's statement was a two prong test.  Lame-duck President AND opposing party in the Senate. 

Share this post


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

Even by this standard the argument fails.  The latest election was a rejection of priorities and policies as evidence in the flipping of the House.  I'm assuming his evidence of "rejected priorities and policies" was the flipping of the Senate.  There's really no way to spin out of the hypocrisy on this ESPECIALLY when McConnell comes out of the gate at the very beginning telling the world he has no interest in working with Obama.  So it goes back to either being full of it then or full of it now.

ETA:  And none of this addresses the fact that a myriad of GOP senators had to have also "mis-understood" him.

The House is irrelevant.  The House votes are too locale specific.  The Senate votes are statewide.  Also, since the Senate controls the confirmation process, when it comes to this topic is the election that is relevant.  

Also, which GOP Senators misunderstood?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

My guess is that if the democrats were to put forward any kind of legislation to expand the court it would along the lines of what @Sinn Feinhas been promoting except it would do something like add a tenth justice in 2025 and an eleventh in 2029 and twelfth in 2033 and thirteenth in 2037 and split a circuit for a fourteenth in 2041 and get back to odd numbers splitting another in 2045.  They would then beg for bipartisan support and add a bunch of very GOP friendly provisions elsewhere and then when it came up for a vote their would be no such GOP support.  (Even though this entire idea means there is Supreme Court justice on the line for next 6 elections which I think benefits the GOP more than democrats - at least in the beginning.)

But I would need big odds to even contemplate such a watered down version.  Maybe this time is different and the recent Trump and GOP activities were the last straw, but democrats just don't fall in line like republicans to pull something like this off and thus their leadership doesn't try.  If they did Trump would have been impeached at least two additional times by now.   (When the Mueller report came out and practically begged for the House to continue and for emoluments.)    

I generally agree with this.  The Dems are not as cut-throat as the Republicans.  But if the Dems know that things like Obama Care are in jeopardy, or even abortion, I believe they would increase it.  And I think they would add 2 justices immediately.

I believe the last 4 years, coupled with them feeling cheated out of Obama's nominee will motivate them to get down in the dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

The House is irrelevant.  The House votes are too locale specific.  The Senate votes are statewide.  Also, since the Senate controls the confirmation process, when it comes to this topic is the election that is relevant.  

Also, which GOP Senators misunderstood?  

Hard for me to keep track of all the rules, so I think what I am hearing is that "evidence" of "rejection of priorities and policies" are only found in the voting results of the Senate?  Seems like a weird place to draw the line, but ok.  The quotes from the senators including Graham and Cruz are in this very forum for your perusal among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I generally agree with this.  The Dems are not as cut-throat as the Republicans.  But if the Dems know that things like Obama Care are in jeopardy, or even abortion, I believe they would increase it.  And I think they would add 2 justices immediately.

I believe the last 4 years, coupled with them feeling cheated out of Obama's nominee will motivate them to get down in the dirt.

Oh, Dems are just as dirty and cut-throat.  Just not in the same ways.  And that hurts them in pushing stuff through.   Think the ACA and the AHCA.  The ACA was discussed almost to death over about 15 months and then was in doubt through every step of the process.   The AHCA was thrown together and voted on and nearly became law in about 15 days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marsha Blackburn @VoteMarsha

In Chuck Schumer’s America — only atheists can be Supreme Court Justices.

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

I do find Senator Blackburn's views newsworthy and relevant given the controversy about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. Most of my reposting of tweets are actual news items and things that I could rephrase differently and say that I saw it on CNN, ABC, NBC or (like Tim) things I just heard on the radio. For instance:

Quote

On MSNBC just now, Marsha Blackburn says: "In Chuck Schumer’s America — only atheists can be Supreme Court Justices."

or 

"It has been reported that Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy did not attend the Capitol ceremony to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

If you wish, in the future, instead of posting newsworthy Tweets (like Faust in Shark Pool does) I will just take these news items I am posting with links and pass it off as something that I just heard somewhere without any attribution.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i posted what I really thought about Senator Blackburn, Id get permabanned.  She is an opportunist and nothing more.  She has no business being in congress.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, squistion said:

I do find Senator Blackburn's views newsworthy and relevant given the controversy about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. Most of my reposting of tweets are actual news items and things that I could rephrase differently and say that I saw it on CNN, ABC, NBC or (like Tim) things I just heard on the radio. For instance:

If you wish, in the future, instead of posting newsworthy Tweets (like Faust in Shark Pool does) I will just take these news items I am posting with links and pass it off as something that I just heard somewhere without any attribution.

I think you missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 5:56 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

The thing I love most about this post from Ivan is the implication that Senator Blackburn is a random Twitter jackass who trolls people instead of posting intelligent, thoughtful material. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

The thing I love most about this post from Ivan is the implication that Senator Blackburn is a random Twitter jackass who trolls people instead of posting intelligent, thoughtful material. 

Unfortunately, that's our modern GOP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a really silly system, imo, that a justice can serve decades non-stop. With the latest nomination, 30 or even 40 years isn't out of the realm.

Really makes no sense to me.

Why not give them something like 10 year terms?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new term got underway this week, once again with lawyers and judges all participating via telephone.  The telephone arguments are available for the public to listen in live.  It makes the oral-argument tea-leaf reader reports much less interesting, as they can't report on the justices demeanor and the like, or tell us which luminaries or celebrities are in attendance at the arguments.  I find it a bit odd they're not doing this via video stream, but I'm sure there is a reason for it.  In Wisconsin, our Supreme Court is conducting oral arguments via video stream, with the judges typically using a court-room themed background and the lawyers usually in their offices.  It struck me as somewhat funny to see long time SCOTUS illustrator Art Lien put out this image of lawyer Ramzi Kassem arguing for the respondents in the religious freedom case (Tanzin v. Tanvir) argued on Tuesday.  I guess Kassem invited Lien into his office for the argument?

It is a bit awkward to have only 8 justices.  Its not necessarily an argument to fill the empty chair sooner rather than later, but it does perhaps give a slight advantage to the respondents in these cases because a 4-4 will result in the underlying decision standing.

 

Share this post


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

but it does perhaps give a slight advantage to the respondents in these cases because a 4-4 will result in the underlying decision standing.

I'm not asking for you or anyone else to research this question, or for you or anyone else to actually know, but just asking "out loud" -  would that be normal?   

Just triggered a thought exercise as to whether or not the Supreme Court taking on a case means it is generally likely to reverse all or some part of a lower courts decision, or if while there was enough of a controversy to give it look more often than not the lower courts had it right?  What makes the question interesting is since I don't really know statistically I think I could be fooled into believing whichever is the wrong answer.

Share this post


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

I'm not asking for you or anyone else to research this question, or for you or anyone else to actually know, but just asking "out loud" -  would that be normal?   

Just triggered a thought exercise as to whether or not the Supreme Court taking on a case means it is generally likely to reverse all or some part of a lower courts decision, or if while there was enough of a controversy to give it look more often than not the lower courts had it right?  What makes the question interesting is since I don't really know statistically I think I could be fooled into believing whichever is the wrong answer.

There's always a ton of speculation as to why the court accepts some cases and declines to hear others.  I'm not sure too much can be read into it.  I don't think you can take any broad conclusions from a decision to accept a case or not.  For example, Justice Breyer rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans in Maine yesterday regarding their ranked voting system.  The GOP in Maine wanted to scrap that system for the upcoming election.  The emergency appeal went to Breyer because that's the geographic region assigned to him.  The applicants wrote a 31 page brief in support of their emergency request. Breyer rejected it with no comment whatsoever.  The applicants can still go through the normal appeal process, but that will obviously take them beyond the election next month.  The only thing we have is an entry in the court's docket "Application (20A57) denied by Justice Breyer."  Many observers would say he determined this case does not present even a close call as to the likely outcome, but there's really no saying why he did it this way.

 

 

Share this post


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

There's always a ton of speculation as to why the court accepts some cases and declines to hear others.  I'm not sure too much can be read into it.  I don't think you can take any broad conclusions from a decision to accept a case or not.  For example, Justice Breyer rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans in Maine yesterday regarding their ranked voting system.  The GOP in Maine wanted to scrap that system for the upcoming election.  The emergency appeal went to Breyer because that's the geographic region assigned to him.  The applicants wrote a 31 page brief in support of their emergency request. Breyer rejected it with no comment whatsoever.  The applicants can still go through the normal appeal process, but that will obviously take them beyond the election next month.  The only thing we have is an entry in the court's docket "Application (20A57) denied by Justice Breyer."  Many observers would say he determined this case does not present even a close call as to the likely outcome, but there's really no saying why he did it this way.

 

 

For what it is worth I googled and found this (as of 2019 - I think)...

The Supreme Court hears and reaches decisions in 70 to 90 cases each year. Since 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling in 70.1 percent of the cases it has heard (a total of 596 of 850 cases)

It also appears that 2016 had more reversals 78% and 2017 was right at the average.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

For what it is worth I googled and found this (as of 2019 - I think)...

The Supreme Court hears and reaches decisions in 70 to 90 cases each year. Since 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling in 70.1 percent of the cases it has heard (a total of 596 of 850 cases)

It also appears that 2016 had more reversals 78% and 2017 was right at the average.

I posted the "stat pack" from the last term in this thread back in July. There were an unusually small number of cases decided last term - 50 something.  I think the reversal rate was again about 70%, but that gets complicated sometimes when cases are partially reversed, partially affirmed, remanded, dismissed on a standing issue, etc.

 

Share this post


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

I posted the "stat pack" from the last term in this thread back in July. There were an unusually small number of cases decided last term - 50 something.  I think the reversal rate was again about 70%, but that gets complicated sometimes when cases are partially reversed, partially affirmed, remanded, dismissed on a standing issue, etc.

Yep, I know that  70% is not a black and white value but a particular dividing point drawn in the gray areas.  But in the context of 4-4 keeping the lower courts' rulings in place I found it interesting.  

In the context of 4-4 does that make Roberts now pretty much part of the "liberal wing"  (wonder how he'd feel about that?) even if "liberal" means something new now.  I also wonder how Roberts is going to act to protect "his court"'s legacy, his legacy?   Or does he just see the writing on the wall and go with it?

And I know that you will likely remind me that most cases weren't 5-4 down partisan lines to begin with so some of this is just stuff that outsiders look at while normally the court functions without much of this.  But I'm not a lawyer so its the exceptions that get brought to my attention.  And Roberts, at least the mythology around him being super sensitive to his legacy (based on reality or not) is interesting to watch.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I could very well be overlooking something that is not being written about in the media, absent that it is important that the Administration and Trump buddies Oracle lose their rent seeking case against Google that was heard yesterday.   Scary to think that this one might stand (at least in how the media presents it).    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 4-4 votes today, the SCOTUS declined to hear two requests from the GOP in Pennsylvania to review state court rulings that allow counting of absentee ballots arriving shortly after Election Day with no (or illegible) postmark. Alito referred the cases to the full court for review. Roberts joined the liberal wing in the decisions. We only know this because the dissenters chose to make their votes public. One example of a 4-4 tie being a “win” for the respondent pending Barrett joining the bench. 

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1318328591848034304/photo/1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.