Red Mosquito

Co-sign this tweet. They need to find some politically appealing way to explain it like this: "We don't want to pack the Court, but if the Court consistently thwarts our legislation passed by the will of democracy, they are going to give us no other choice."

That's easy. They'll just call it racist, justifying whatever they want to do.

4/5 wrote: As always in this thread, if Nick posts something different probably listen to him lol.

It's good to be listened to! But your opinion is very much equal to mine, and it shouldn't always come into deference to mine.

With that in place, my take is that everyone is a judicial activist for constitutional restrictions they like, and simultaneously judicial restrainers for the ones they don't like. I don't think that's materially changed over the past 150 years or so. A good example would be the famous Footnote 4 of Carolene Products, where Harlan Stone opined on different levels of scrutiny for the 14th Amendment. Others of opposing ideology may think that's wrong, but ultimately that's the opinion that a justice must reach.

The other factor justices have to take into account is whether there will be popular backlash against any of their rulings via the other two branches. With regard to Roberts, I think that this is the better way to describe him, instead of as a justice practicing judicial restraint, which he clearly hasn't practiced. Instead, Roberts pulls back when he can clearly see that the Court is going to get in popular trouble if it goes over the cliff (like in NFIB v. Sebelius, or the recent abortion case where he illogically voted to uphold a precedent he directly dissented from just a few years ago), while at the same time pushes forward on cases where their position is either popular enough, or (more often) there wasn't yet enough popular backlash existing (think cases like Janus or Shelby County). Roberts is likely aware that if the Court goes too far and if ideological enemies control the other two branches, their delicate hold of power could get overridden instantly.

So that's why I think that if Dems win the trifecta, the right wing of SCOTUS would be wise to hold fire on the full force of their ideology until the GOP can grab a branch or a chamber. However, with Roberts likely to no longer be the median justice, we shall see if the rest of that wing is willing and able to hold fire.

Green Habit wrote:Co-sign this tweet. They need to find some politically appealing way to explain it like this: "We don't want to pack the Court, but if the Court consistently thwarts our legislation passed by the will of democracy, they are going to give us no other choice."

But also, dodging that question isn't going to lose them very many votes between now and November 3rd.

There are no voters who are thinking, "I would vote for Biden, but if he's going to put two new Justices on the Supreme Court, I'm voting Trump."

BurtReynolds wrote:That's easy. They'll just call it racist, justifying whatever they want to do.

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Co-sign this tweet. They need to find some politically appealing way to explain it like this: "We don't want to pack the Court, but if the Court consistently thwarts our legislation passed by the will of democracy, they are going to give us no other choice."

But also, dodging that question isn't going to lose them very many votes between now and November 3rd.

There are no voters who are thinking, "I would vote for Biden, but if he's going to put two new Justices on the Supreme Court, I'm voting Trump."

Biden 2020: “Republicans have been trying to court pack our state supreme courts for years, but yeah norm breaking etc”

i hope they don't pack the court.

if there is a Dem Pres, senate, and house - they should still be able to get a lot done

they dont need to go nuclear authoritarian

Gorsuch and Roberts are respectable intellectuals. they can keep Barrett's husband's instructions in check

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote: As always in this thread, if Nick posts something different probably listen to him lol.

It's good to be listened to! But your opinion is very much equal to mine, and it shouldn't always come into deference to mine.

With that in place, my take is that everyone is a judicial activist for constitutional restrictions they like, and simultaneously judicial restrainers for the ones they don't like. I don't think that's materially changed over the past 150 years or so.

I don't disagree with this. When I teach this concept I pull up quotes about "judicial activism" and what you pretty much always find is that it's really just a term used to describe a ruling a person disagrees with regardless of political ideology. The language of judicial restraint is often invoked to argue why the Court should not be taking an action that person happens to disagree with, and there are enough quotes from Justices alternating between their advocacy of restraint and their practice of activism that I think what you said is true.

I also think that Roberts' primary concern is the perceived legitimacy of the Court and what the history books will say about him and that he often uses judicial restraint as cover for this, but there's a material difference in how people like Roberts and Thomas view the role of the Court in making/establishing/changing policy. It might simply be explained by my previous statement, in which case it isn't actually a philosophical difference, but perhaps just a pragmatic or circumstantial difference between the two. I imagine that some of it simply has to do with the growing conservative hold on the Court and Thomas is likely just using opinions like the one I quoted earlier to urge his conservatives to be bolder while Roberts uses the restraint language to defend himself when he's being less bold on those high profile issues that are likely to spark turmoil around the Court.

I do think there's been a shift in the typical conservative attitude toward the role of the Court, though. In past decades "activism" was often used to mean liberal and that clearly isn't the case anymore. Again, this is probably a result of which side of the Court has the power to actually enact their "activist" opinions at a given time. (Prospective Justices often invoke restraint in their confirmation hearings--there's still an expectation that Justices will pay lip service to showing respect/deference for the other branches/past Court rulings.) But as the balance of power has shifted on the Court we're seeing the shift from 1960s liberal activism to an era of conservative activism and as a result the typical conservative deference to the elected branches is being replaced by a view that the Court is a position of power to block all manner of liberal overreach like in the 1930s.

fuck this bitch

“We were Catholic, but the Catholicism was on the side. Our life, all of our friends, all of the randoms who were living in our household, were the [People of Praise] community. It was God,” she said. “The brainwashing and the groupthink, the female subjugation of being there to serve and listen to your spiritual head. It was so devaluing. To me, it instilled such problems.”

Powers’ experiences are in line with a handbook called The Spirit and Purpose of the People of Praise, which was obtained by the Guardian and confirms that people who seek to be members of the group are prayed with for the release of “charismatic gifts” – specifically, speaking in tongues and the gift of “prophecy”. It also states: “Obedience to authority and submission to headship are active responses to the gifts of God.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... aith-group

literally, evil

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote: As always in this thread, if Nick posts something different probably listen to him lol.

It's good to be listened to! But your opinion is very much equal to mine, and it shouldn't always come into deference to mine.

With that in place, my take is that everyone is a judicial activist for constitutional restrictions they like, and simultaneously judicial restrainers for the ones they don't like. I don't think that's materially changed over the past 150 years or so. A good example would be the famous Footnote 4 of Carolene Products, where Harlan Stone opined on different levels of scrutiny for the 14th Amendment. Others of opposing ideology may think that's wrong, but ultimately that's the opinion that a justice must reach.

The other factor justices have to take into account is whether there will be popular backlash against any of their rulings via the other two branches. With regard to Roberts, I think that this is the better way to describe him, instead of as a justice practicing judicial restraint, which he clearly hasn't practiced. Instead, Roberts pulls back when he can clearly see that the Court is going to get in popular trouble if it goes over the cliff (like in NFIB v. Sebelius, or the recent abortion case where he illogically voted to uphold a precedent he directly dissented from just a few years ago), while at the same time pushes forward on cases where their position is either popular enough, or (more often) there wasn't yet enough popular backlash existing (think cases like Janus or Shelby County). Roberts is likely aware that if the Court goes too far and if ideological enemies control the other two branches, their delicate hold of power could get overridden instantly.

So that's why I think that if Dems win the trifecta, the right wing of SCOTUS would be wise to hold fire on the full force of their ideology until the GOP can grab a branch or a chamber. However, with Roberts likely to no longer be the median justice, we shall see if the rest of that wing is willing and able to hold fire.

The right's definition of judicial activism: creating new rights out of 'emanations and penumbras'. If you want a more recent example, using a tortured definition of 'sex' to extend some (title VII?) rights to trans folks. Thats not to say that they shouldn't apply, but that congress needs to make that explicit.

The left's definition of judicial activism: overruling laws that we passed by a majority and liked. I'm sure someone else can do a better steel man of this.

Robert's conception leans far more to the case of number 2, but more specifically in that the legislature can carve out specific areas that are not reviewable. Whats the limiting principle there? Why not extend it so far as to reverse Marbury vs Madison?

nothing unusual going on here

it is customary to bring 7 children in a pandemic to every government event

Isn't it though?

BurtReynolds wrote:Isn't it though?

Typically you want to leave 2 or 3 of 'em at home as punishment.

BurtReynolds wrote:Isn't it though?

Only in Georgia, and it's illegal to make them wear masks.

Agree or disagree?

Green Habit wrote:Agree or disagree?

I just want uniform adherence to the rules. If the standing President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans fucked America in 2016. If the incoming President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans are fucking American in 2020.

Actually, I'd be satisfied with the Senators admitting that they don't give 2 shits about the electorate, as long as they keep getting money and favors from the rich.

B wrote:I just want uniform adherence to the rules. If the standing President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans fucked America in 2016. If the incoming President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans are fucking American in 2020.

Well, the "rules" state that the President gets to nominate and that the Senate gets to consent to the nomination. Without both of those things, there can't be a new justice. Whether it's a good thing for the Court's ideology, or whether it's a politically wise tactic, are very good questions that should draw skepticism, but in both cases the GOP followed the rules of the Constitution. And the Democrats would follow the rules too if they respond by packing the court.

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:I just want uniform adherence to the rules. If the standing President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans fucked America in 2016. If the incoming President gets to put a justice on the Court, than the Republicans are fucking American in 2020.

Well, the "rules" state that the President gets to nominate and that the Senate gets to consent to the nomination. Without both of those things, there can't be a new justice. Whether it's a good thing for the Court's ideology, or whether it's a politically wise tactic, are very good questions that should draw skepticism, but in both cases the GOP followed the rules of the Constitution. And the Democrats would follow the rules too if they respond by packing the court.

OK, so now I'm infuriated by Senators acting like Biden would destroy American if he put 2 new Justices on the Court.

I get much more infuriated by the horseshit that comes out McConnell and Graham's mouths than I am by what they've actually done.