Red Mosquito

So, a hypothetical; on the day after Biden (or whichever Democrat's) inauguration, a Supreme Court justice dies, and the Republican Senate pulls another Garland and basically says they won't hold a hearing for anyone; what will Dems do in response? I'm sure there have been many people thinking of workarounds for this possibility (especially considering it's much more likely Dems take the White House than the Senate).

digster wrote:So, a hypothetical; on the day after Biden (or whichever Democrat's) nomination, a Supreme Court justice dies, and the Republican Senate pulls another Garland and basically says they won't hold a hearing for anyone; what will Dems do in response? I'm sure there have been many people thinking of workarounds for this possibility (especially considering it's much more likely Dems take the White House than the Senate).

Do you mean the day after the inauguration?

Simple Torture wrote:

digster wrote:So, a hypothetical; on the day after Biden (or whichever Democrat's) nomination, a Supreme Court justice dies, and the Republican Senate pulls another Garland and basically says they won't hold a hearing for anyone; what will Dems do in response? I'm sure there have been many people thinking of workarounds for this possibility (especially considering it's much more likely Dems take the White House than the Senate).

Do you mean the day after the inauguration?

Oops. Yeah, I don't think anyone's nominating Biden for the Supreme Court anytime soon.

digster wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

digster wrote:So, a hypothetical; on the day after Biden (or whichever Democrat's) nomination, a Supreme Court justice dies, and the Republican Senate pulls another Garland and basically says they won't hold a hearing for anyone; what will Dems do in response? I'm sure there have been many people thinking of workarounds for this possibility (especially considering it's much more likely Dems take the White House than the Senate).

Do you mean the day after the inauguration?

Oops. Yeah, I don't think anyone's nominating Biden for the Supreme Court anytime soon.

You never know.

I don't know exactly whom the defendant would be (maybe McConnell?), but I imagine the administration would sue and try to at least force the senate to hold hearings. Don't know anything about precedent in that situation.

digster wrote:So, a hypothetical; on the day after Biden (or whichever Democrat's) inauguration, a Supreme Court justice dies, and the Republican Senate pulls another Garland and basically says they won't hold a hearing for anyone; what will Dems do in response? I'm sure there have been many people thinking of workarounds for this possibility (especially considering it's much more likely Dems take the White House than the Senate).

Nothing they could do. Eight SCOTUS justices for two years, especially if the justice that died was Republican appointed.

Simple Torture wrote:You never know.

I don't know exactly whom the defendant would be (maybe McConnell?), but I imagine the administration would sue and try to at least force the senate to hold hearings. Don't know anything about precedent in that situation.

I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Bi_3 wrote:Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Bi_3 wrote:Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Green Habit wrote:I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Green Habit wrote:I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

DONT CRUSH MY DREAMS YOU MONSTER

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Green Habit wrote:I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

DONT CRUSH MY DREAMS YOU MONSTER

Hey, I'm right there with you.

Yikes, this opinion won't get much attention today but it's a real bad one: warrantless unconscious blood draws for BAC tests are allowable under the Fourth Amendment under the exigent circumstances doctrine.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_2co3.pdf

Green Habit wrote:Yikes, this opinion won't get much attention today but it's a real bad one: warrantless unconscious blood draws for BAC tests are allowable under the Fourth Amendment under the exigent circumstances doctrine.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_2co3.pdf

Yeah, not a fan of that one at all.

The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule "almost always permits a blood test without a warrant."

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Green Habit wrote:I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

DONT CRUSH MY DREAMS YOU MONSTER

And there it is.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maryland gerrymandering today! Hope they put a clear end to this bullshit:

Green Habit wrote:I think the courts would declare "non-justiciable political question" as loud as they could.

And there we go.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_9ol1.pdf

Mark me down for a(n unfortunately) correct prediction. This is something right wing jurists have craved for years, and they finally got it. Partisan gerrymandering is going to a reality for a very long time.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Yikes, this opinion won't get much attention today but it's a real bad one: warrantless unconscious blood draws for BAC tests are allowable under the Fourth Amendment under the exigent circumstances doctrine.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_2co3.pdf

Yeah, not a fan of that one at all.

The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule "almost always permits a blood test without a warrant."

I had to shoot the brown man your honor, he was **spins wheel** refusing a warrantless blood test.

Kagan is reading from her dissent. Good. This could go down as one of the worst Supreme Court opinions in a generation.

Green Habit wrote:Kagan is reading from her dissent. Good. This could go down as one of the worst Supreme Court opinions in a generation.

Democrats should be pushing to get initiatives on the 2020 ballot restricting gerrymandering in every state that they can. If this is only a political issue then it needs to become a more prominent political issue.

LOL. Roberts, today:



Roberts, 2015:



This is such a disingenuous two-step. Just wait until they overrule this young precedent soon down the road now.

Here's the census opinion, but I'm going to have to leave soon, so I'll let others dissect it for now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_bq7c.pdf