Supreme Court

[Doomtints]

 

Setting aside the question of efficacy, an ad in which seniors are caricatured as a bunch of selfish prats is at the very least in much better taste than Jimmy Kimmel calling for the dis"member"ment of Kavanaugh and an audience cheering in approval.

 

I saw a tweet once where someone said their grandmother had asked them about Instagram and how to get on it.

 

The tweet said something like, "Nah, your generation was on Facebook for a blink of an eye and we ended up with Trump."

I don't think it's that simple, but this is a factor. In the last couple of months before the 2016 election, it was clear to me that the propaganda on FB was foreign-born. I have always been focused on politics but I never saw narratives like this before, almost always in poorly-written English and it very strangely mimicked what the earlier Brexit propaganda looked like.

It's amazing the older generation fell for this so much, but then again they're probably sitting at home watching FOX all day.

[Craig Arko]

I saw a tweet once where someone said their grandmother had asked them about Instagram and how to get on it.

 

The tweet said something like, "Nah, your generation was on Facebook for a blink of an eye and we ended up with Trump."

I don't think it's that simple, but this is a factor. In the last couple of months before the 2016 election, it was clear to me that the propaganda on FB was foreign-born. I have always been focused on politics but I never saw narratives like this before, almost always in poorly-written English and it very strangely mimicked what the earlier Brexit propaganda looked like.

It's amazing the older generation fell for this so much, but then again they're probably sitting at home watching FOX all day.

Not all of us, kid. Not all of us.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's fair.....but it isn't fair to say that limiting voting rights is ideology, imo.....either we are free to vote, or we don't have a constitution that means anything. But maybe that is ideology, and not one of our actual principles.

Superficially, I agree... but the court has centuries of precedence to look at when deciding to rule on a gerrymandering case. Outside of a few specific instances (race being the biggest that I know of), the court has generally stayed out of gerrymandering issues. Because of that precedence, some justices feel the court has no right to intervene unless very specific bullet points are met (again, race is a big one). The reason they feel they have the right to intervene re: race is because there are laws on the books specifically targeting that issue (yay, laws make the Supreme Court's job much easier!).

 

Gerrymandering has always happened in this country. The difference is now we're really good at it thanks to computers.

 

And if a situation changes due to technology or an improved knowledge of how to game the system, that doesn't really change the legality of the situation or the court's right/ability to intervene... once again, that's why laws exist and yet another shining example of how our legislators continue to fail us at every turn.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Superficially, I agree... but the court has centuries of precedence to look at when deciding to rule on a gerrymandering case. Outside of a few specific instances (race being the biggest that I know of), the court has generally stayed out of gerrymandering issues. Because of that precedence, some justices feel the court has no right to intervene unless very specific bullet points are met (again, race is a big one). The reason they feel they have the right to intervene re: race is because there are laws on the books specifically targeting that issue (again, laws are good!).

 

Gerrymandering has always happened in this country. The difference is now we're really good at it thanks to computers.

 

And if a situation changes due to technology or an improved knowledge of how to game the system, that doesn't really change the legality of the situation or the court's right/ability to intervene... once again, that's why laws exist and yet another shining example of how our legislators continue to fail us at every turn.

 

I'm not only talking gerrymandering....but all aspects of trying to deny the vote. Sorry if that wasn't clear....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not only talking gerrymandering....but all aspects of trying to deny the vote. Sorry if that wasn't clear....

I absolutely agree that we should have a boatload more laws protecting peoples' rights to vote.

 

Hell, I don't even really blame federal Congress, much less the Supreme Court, for a lot of what is happening.

 

This country is a republic and most of that damage is being done by local legislatures, which (rather unfortunately) is their right because of the screwy way our elections are held and coordinated.

 

And we really need to stop electing such ****ty local legislatures. It's embarrassing, yet the worst offenders wear their malice like badges of pride.

[gunnarthor]

 

On a larger point, I've really started to dislike some of the left's arguments that every time the court disagrees with their political view that there's a nefarious plot behind it.

 

Many conservative decisions are made simply to limit the court's powers, which is a good thing when viewed through that lens. That doesn't mean I don't get irritated when they make a decision like Citizen's United but I understand why they do it.

 

In short, let's stop blaming the courts so often for voluntarily limiting the scope of their own power and start placing more blame on those dip****s in Washington who refuse to pass laws to make the country a better place.

Actually, most of the Court's decisions are limiting the power of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, OR limiting the protections of the Constitution. That's a pretty big difference. (Roberts court decisions have gutted the voting rights act, environmental laws as well as limiting the protections of the 4th and 14th amendments, for instance).

 

Occasionally, when it suits their need, they claim that the decision is not one the Supreme Court should hear but usually they are quite willing to limit the people's will as expressed through Congress. I don't think people realize how conservative this court is because Kennedy was considered a "moderate" despite being an absolute conservative himself. The Court if much farther to the right than the American people and very close to the conservative nature of the Lochner era court. We'll see if they get there but I wouldn't bet against it.

[gunnarthor]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmation-temperament-yale-dean-221086

[Mike Sixel]

I have no illusions that this court will empower companies and prejudice and loss of freedom. None. I expect it to be much worse than any of you. Just as I expected this administration to be much worse than any of you (and it is somehow even worse than I feared).

 

This nation is filled with angry, hateful, prejudiced people, and SCOTUS now reflects that, just as the other two branches do.

[gunnarthor]

 

I have no illusions that this court will empower companies and prejudice and loss of freedom. None. I expect it to be much worse than any of you. Just as I expected this administration to be much worse than any of you (and it is somehow even worse than I feared).

 

This nation is filled with angry, hateful, prejudiced people, and SCOTUS now reflects that, just as the other two branches do.

Yep. I thought things would be bad but you were right. They are so much worse than I thought they'd be.

[LaBombo]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmation-temperament-yale-dean-221086

 

Partisan ex-Berkeley prof hates Kavanaugh. A lot. Film at 11.

 

Like Hirono, who admitted she felt Kavanaugh was guilty of rape because he's a conservative, at least he's honest.

 

Despite being extraordinarily qualified to deliberate Kavanaugh's future opinions based on their merits or lack thereof, Post informs us that he's made up his mind about Kavanaugh's entire Supreme Court career because "male entitlement".

[ashbury]

Rabidly partisan ex-Berkeley prof hates Kavanaugh. A lot. Film at 11.

 

Like Hirono, who admitted she felt Kavanaugh was guilty of rape because he's a conservative, at least he's honest.

 

Despite being extraordinarily qualified to deliberate Kavanaugh's future opinions, Post informs us that he's made up his mind about Kavanaugh's entire Supreme Court career because "male entitlement".

In all fairness, Post is a male, so he's entitled to do that.

[LaBombo]

 

In all fairness, Post is a male, so he's entitled to do that.

 

As a moderate, I'd prefer to see male entitlement shifted over to a gender-neutral voucher system.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Partisan ex-Berkeley prof hates Kavanaugh. A lot. Film at 11.

 

Like Hirono, who admitted she felt Kavanaugh was guilty of rape because he's a conservative, at least he's honest.

 

Despite being extraordinarily qualified to deliberate Kavanaugh's future opinions based on their merits or lack thereof, Post informs us that he's made up his mind about Kavanaugh's entire Supreme Court career because "male entitlement".

Although, Post used the phrase "male entitlement" as part of his critique of Kavanaugh, that is hardly the essence of Post's critique.  Rather Post takes issue with Kavanaugh's partisan conspiracy theory rage as it casts a shadow on his future impartiality.  Which is totally a fair criticism, one that any fair person should worry about with equal force.

 

Kavanaugh's male sense of entitlement also totally sucks, and should be disqualifying as well, but that's not what this article/critique was about.

[LaBombo]

 

Although, Post used the phrase "male entitlement" as part of his critique of Kavanaugh, that is hardly the essence of Post's critique.  Rather Post takes issue with Kavanaugh's partisan conspiracy theory rage as it casts a shadow on his future impartiality.  Which is totally a fair criticism, one that any fair person should worry about with equal force.

 

Kavanaugh's male sense of entitlement also totally sucks, and should be disqualifying as well, but that's not what this article/critique was about.

 

I completely agree with you that male entitlement was not the essence of Post's indictment of Kavanaugh's qualification to sit on the SC, in almost exactly the same way that Kavanaugh's response to the allegations were not the essence of his judicial career... and therefore not the essence of his qualification to sit on the SC.

 

And that's coming from someone who at one point in the process favored seeing Kavanaugh being replaced with Barrett, if for no other reason than the inevitable, epic rematch of her appellate confirmation cage fight with Feinstein.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Although, Post used the phrase "male entitlement" as part of his critique of Kavanaugh, that is hardly the essence of Post's critique.  Rather Post takes issue with Kavanaugh's partisan conspiracy theory rage as it casts a shadow on his future impartiality.  Which is totally a fair criticism, one that any fair person should worry about with equal force.

Honestly, more than anything else, that was what turned me off Kavanaugh. And it happened in real time. As I listened to his testimony (I listened to almost all of that day's proceedings), I was just shaking my head as he spent nearly ten minutes becoming increasingly hostile to the point where he blamed the Clintons. Seriously. The ****ing Clintons. Can we just get past that **** already? His testimony felt like it was written by Breitbart and I don't want Breitbart within 1000 miles of the court system.

 

That's not how high level justices behave. Not at all.

 

I can't prove or disprove Ford's testimony, though I'm inclined to believe her, as it felt entirely genuine and honest. Absent real proof, I can't protest too much about the proceedings going forward, though the half-assed investigation was yet another insult added to the turd sandwich that was this entire process.

 

But I saw how Kavanaugh reacted and that was enough to convince me he doesn't belong on the court.

 

It's a pretty low bar to set, really. Impartiality and decency are what we should want out of all our justices, left or right. I didn't have a problem with Gorsuch, even though I disagree with his political views (though I had huge problems with how he got there and the political thievery that went along with it).

 

I'm not against conservative justices. I'm against Brett Kavanaugh.

[D. Hocking]

Nice that the SCT was further politicized by Trump having a ceremonial swearing in at the White House that he treated as a partisan victory lap which most likely is going to be a blue print for what he will be spouting off at his MAGA rallies that he has almost every night the next week (except last night will seem in good taste from how he will probably be at the rallies).  

 

I wonder what Ford thinks every time he comments about how Kavanaugh has suffered when she does not even feel it is safe to return to her home and has seen the President of the United States basically call her a liar and mock on national TV.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

His testimony felt like it was written by Breitbart 

Sure did, but Susan Collins's confirmation speech was probably written by Kavanaugh himself, so it all evens out. Or comes full circle, or goes around comes around. Or something. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I completely agree with you that male entitlement was not the essence of Post's indictment of Kavanaugh's qualification to sit on the SC, in almost exactly the same way that Kavanaugh's response to the allegations were not the essence of his judicial career... and therefore not the essence of his qualification to sit on the SC.

 

And that's coming from someone who at one point in the process favored seeing Kavanaugh being replaced with Barrett, if for no other reason than the inevitable, epic rematch of her appellate confirmation cage fight with Feinstein.

While his lack of impartiality at the hearing is not the essence of his qualifications to sit on SCOTUS; it's disqualifying nonetheless.  Again, the standard for judicial ethics is the appearance of impropriety not impropriety itself.  It was Kavanaugh's own testimony and demeanor that caused the ABA to weigh in and Republican-appointed, Retired Justice Stevens to withdraw his support.   It's simply not a blip that can be swept under the but-his-whole-career rug.

 

I imagine that Kavanaugh will pick a token case with which to align with the liberal wing of SCOTUS to shrug off these attacks; but any litigant that has any ties to Democrats/Clintons etc. will be asking Kavanaugh to recuse, and be left wondering whether they will get a fair shake if he does not recuse, which does effect our (albeit fictional) belief that SCOTUS is a non-political branch of government.  

 

If nothing else, Kavanaugh's politicking probably opens the door for a Democrat to somewhat viably run on packing SCOTUS, where previously such a move would have been laughed off the stage.   

[stringer bell]

Regarding the conservativeness of the court, Kennedy was a conservative, but deviated from the Republican line on abortion (partly) and same-sex marriage. The court is now 5-4 conservative, but it was before. I predict a lot more horrible 5-4 decisions, but that most likely would have happened with Kennedy on the bench anyway. We will see if there is really respect for precedent. This will IMHO tell the tale of whether these judges are arbiters or whether they are black-robed partisans. Hard to imagine that Kavanuagh is anything but a partisan given his long service to Republicans and work to bring down Bill Clinton and his statement to the Judiciary Committee.

[howeda7]

 

I saw a tweet once where someone said their grandmother had asked them about Instagram and how to get on it.

 

The tweet said something like, "Nah, your generation was on Facebook for a blink of an eye and we ended up with Trump."

I don't think it's that simple, but this is a factor. In the last couple of months before the 2016 election, it was clear to me that the propaganda on FB was foreign-born. I have always been focused on politics but I never saw narratives like this before, almost always in poorly-written English and it very strangely mimicked what the earlier Brexit propaganda looked like.

It's amazing the older generation fell for this so much, but then again they're probably sitting at home watching FOX all day.

It was on Twitter too, but I don't think anyone realized the sure magnitude of it until it was long over.

[howeda7]

 

The right's base is always galvanized.  I don't think Kavanaugh motivated anyone who wasn't already motivated on the right.  I do think it galvanized lots of women, in the middle and on the left though.

I've seen a lot of tweets/articles from alleged "never-Trump" R's who claim they weren't sure if they were going to vote they are so apathetic about him. But now they are SO MAD about what the evil left did to Kavanaugh that they will crawl through broken glass to vote R.

 

I don't buy it. Almost all of them were always going to vote R. They will just feel extra righteously indignant about it now.

[Doomtints]

 

It was on Twitter too, but I don't think anyone realized the sure magnitude of it until it was long over.

 

I could see it and I was screaming it from the rooftops. All for naught. It was quite annoying for it to dawn on people later on.

[Badsmerf]

RBG fractured 3 ribs today.... If Trump is allowed to appoint 3 justices to our court.... The thought just makes my stomach turn.

[PseudoSABR]

 

RBG fractured 3 ribs today.... If Trump is allowed to appoint 3 justices to our court.... The thought just makes my stomach turn.

Wrap that woman in bubble wrap!

[Mike Sixel]

Maybe our current chief justice will move further left....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Maybe our current chief justice will move further left....

 

He's always struck me as what I imagine a good judge is - someone who uses their best judgment given the case as presented to them.  

 

He's had flaws, but I'd rather have 9 Judge Roberts than 9 liberals or 9 conservatives.  At least that's been my perception of him.

[gunnarthor]

 

He's always struck me as what I imagine a good judge is - someone who uses their best judgment given the case as presented to them.  

 

He's had flaws, but I'd rather have 9 Judge Roberts than 9 liberals or 9 conservatives.  At least that's been my perception of him.

Depends on the issue. Bluntly, Roberts has been the worst thing for minority voting rights in this country since the Jim Crow south. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Depends on the issue. Bluntly, Roberts has been the worst thing for minority voting rights in this country since the Jim Crow south. 

 

True, that decision certainly hurt a lot.  Though, personally, I'd prefer that sort of thing be handled by updated legislation rather than putting it in the hands of the Court.

 

Idealist, I know, but that's how it should work.

[Badsmerf]

Big decisions today.

 

The court ruled gerrymandering is not within the rule of the court. Gutless decision by conservative justices.

 

Citizenship case is being sent back to the courts.... where 3 judges have ruled against it, and new information was uncovered that clearly shows the solicitor general flat out lied to everyone. Looks like it will be rejected. The dissent from Thomas is a window into his extreme views.

[Mike Sixel]

Good thing these guys weren't around in Brown vs Board of Education, and other cases. Gerrymandering is 100% about reducing voting rights. Which I guess this court has been working on for some time....