Page 19 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 4:31 pm
by Simple Torture
Green Habit wrote:Simple Torture wrote:I do sort of feel bad for Garland, because I really don't see him ever rising to the court. Part of me hopes this is a long con and that if Clinton wins and the Republicans lose control of the Senate, Clinton nominates Obama (not that I want him to be a justice, but just to see the reaction).
The reaction I want to see is Obama nominating himself to the Court.
Doesn't the new Congress get seated before inauguration day? There'd be a 2-week window where he could resign, Biden would become president (which he could then put on his resume, or tell chicks at bars about), and then he could nominate Obama. But that'd be way too easy to filibuster.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 4:36 pm
by Green Habit
Green Habit wrote:OK, a little more SCOTUS game theory here. Let's say the GOP does nothing with Garland, as they've been threatening to do mere minutes after Scalia died. Let's also say they get wiped out in November and lose the White House and the Senate. If you're the Senate Republicans, do you try to fast track Garland's nomination before January out of fear that Clinton will appoint someone worse? And if you're Obama, do you suddenly withdraw Garland's nomination before the GOP can act, saying in more polite words that "you wanted the next President to fill this seat, now your wish is coming true"? That would be incredibly unfair to Garland, but politics certainly isn't fair.
Looks like they were already thinking about this:
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 4:53 pm
by Norah
Green Habit wrote:Green Habit wrote:OK, a little more SCOTUS game theory here. Let's say the GOP does nothing with Garland, as they've been threatening to do mere minutes after Scalia died. Let's also say they get wiped out in November and lose the White House and the Senate. If you're the Senate Republicans, do you try to fast track Garland's nomination before January out of fear that Clinton will appoint someone worse? And if you're Obama, do you suddenly withdraw Garland's nomination before the GOP can act, saying in more polite words that "you wanted the next President to fill this seat, now your wish is coming true"? That would be incredibly unfair to Garland, but politics certainly isn't fair.
Looks like they were already thinking about this:
If the Dems win in November can Obama withdraw Garland from nomination?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 5:09 pm
by Kaius
Is a President becoming a SC justice without precedent? Obama being on the bench would be pretty incredible.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 5:10 pm
by 4/5
Yes to Chud.
No to Kaius. Taft was president and then Chief Justice shortly after.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 5:20 pm
by Simple Torture
Taft, you old dog!
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 5:22 pm
by B
Green Habit wrote:OK, a little more SCOTUS game theory here. Let's say the GOP does nothing with Garland, as they've been threatening to do mere minutes after Scalia died. Let's also say they get wiped out in November and lose the White House and the Senate. If you're the Senate Republicans, do you try to fast track Garland's nomination before January out of fear that Clinton will appoint someone worse? And if you're Obama, do you suddenly withdraw Garland's nomination before the GOP can act, saying in more polite words that "you wanted the next President to fill this seat, now your wish is coming true"? That would be incredibly unfair to Garland, but politics certainly isn't fair.
I think I heard a clip of Garland speaking where his voice was obviously cracking as he spoke about how honored he was. It sucks for him that he's being pulled into this mess, but he must know that there is a possibility he could never be confirmed or that he could be withdrawn and someone else being nominated. I can't believe that wasn't part of the conversation with Obama.
That doesn't make any of the players less of an asshole, but at least the man won't be blindsided.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu March 17, 2016 5:54 pm
by The Argonaut
Simple Torture wrote:Biden would become president (which he could then put on his resume, or tell chicks at bars about)
ST is the master at slipping good jokes into the middle of what are otherwise serious and insightful N&D posts.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri March 18, 2016 1:43 am
by Chris_H_2
Green Habit wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:Green Habit wrote:The other potential problem for Republican senators caving on Garland is that some of them could face a primary challenge if they allow him to be confirmed. I can already see the attack ad: "Sen. [insert name] voted for the left-wing Merrick Garland, who is poised to take away your Second Amendment rights and make abortion legal in all circumstances!"
remember those opposite chicken-little arguments against Roberts and Alito?
Actually, I don't. I probably need to reread the discussion you and punkdavid had back when they were nominated back on the old board.
buckle up
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue March 22, 2016 11:55 am
by Biff Pocoroba
The SC refused to hear a case of Nebraska & Oklahoma challenging Colorado's marijuana laws.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue March 22, 2016 1:29 pm
by Green Habit
Biff Pocoroba wrote:The SC refused to hear a case of Nebraska & Oklahoma challenging Colorado's marijuana laws.
Good.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon March 28, 2016 10:42 pm
by 4/5
SCOTUS heard a case called Betterman v. Montana today.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon March 28, 2016 10:46 pm
by Green Habit
4/5 wrote:SCOTUS heard a case called Betterman v. Montana today.
I thought of making some snarky mention along the lines that Jeff Ament must somehow be involved in that case. But in looking as to what the subject matter is (Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment), that may be the rare case in which the criminal defendant was depending on Scalia for a 5th vote that he may not get.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue March 29, 2016 2:05 pm
by Green Habit
The public sector union case just got affirmed on a 4-4 tie. So a win for them, for now at least, but they likely would have lost if Scalia was still alive.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 5_1bn2.pdf
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue March 29, 2016 4:04 pm
by Electromatic
Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue March 29, 2016 7:17 pm
by Green Habit
Electromatic wrote:Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
I'm pretty pro-union, so I'm quite happy with this. But I can think of at least a couple of RMers who may not be.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed March 30, 2016 5:27 pm
by Electromatic
Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
I'm pretty pro-union, so I'm quite happy with this. But I can think of at least a couple of RMers who may not be.
As I read the ruling, they won the right to force people to pay dues. Is that correct?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed March 30, 2016 5:29 pm
by Green Habit
Electromatic wrote:Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
I'm pretty pro-union, so I'm quite happy with this. But I can think of at least a couple of RMers who may not be.
As I read the ruling, they won the right to force people to pay dues. Is that correct?
Right, if the union collectively bargained on their behalf, as is generally common.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed March 30, 2016 5:31 pm
by Electromatic
Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
I'm pretty pro-union, so I'm quite happy with this. But I can think of at least a couple of RMers who may not be.
As I read the ruling, they won the right to force people to pay dues. Is that correct?
Right, if the union collectively bargained on their behalf, as is generally common.
Ah, ok, so If I'm a teacher for instance in a state/township with collective bargaining I am compelled to pay dues.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon April 04, 2016 6:41 pm
by Chris_H_2
Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Green Habit wrote:Electromatic wrote:Not sure how to feel about this ruling.
I'm pretty pro-union, so I'm quite happy with this. But I can think of at least a couple of RMers who may not be.
As I read the ruling, they won the right to force people to pay dues. Is that correct?
Right, if the union collectively bargained on their behalf, as is generally common.
how do you feel about right to work, nick?