Page 22 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 25, 2016 5:35 am
by Jorge
Anybody here listening to the Radiolab spinoff podcast about the Supreme Court, More Perfect? Really interesting stuff. I'm learning a lot.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 25, 2016 10:52 am
by Simple Torture
theplatypus wrote:Anybody here listening to the Radiolab spinoff podcast about the Supreme Court, More Perfect? Really interesting stuff. I'm learning a lot.
Yes, it's been great.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 25, 2016 12:46 pm
by Green Habit
Unfortunately, I don't learn well by listening, and NPR-style audio is especially difficult for me. But I should probably give an episode a whirl on your recommendations.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 25, 2016 3:09 pm
by Jorge
Green Habit wrote:Unfortunately, I don't learn well by listening, and NPR-style audio is especially difficult for me. But I should probably give an episode a whirl on your recommendations.
Well, you'll likely get a whole lot less out of it than I did, because I only had a vague idea of what the Supreme Court even was before I started listening.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon August 22, 2016 1:20 pm
by Green Habit
I'm not a fan of everything Dylan Matthews writes, but this is an excellent long breakdown of everything that could change if Clinton gets to replace Scalia.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12484000/s ... al-clinton
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue August 30, 2016 4:39 pm
by Simple Torture
And so it begins:
At the Rotary meeting at the Convention Center, Grassley fielded 10 questions, including two on the presidential race and two on the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that began in February when Justice Antonin Scalia died. Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Commitee chairman, has continued refusals to hold hearings to fill the vacancy until after a new president is inaugurated in January. Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick Garland for the open spot on the nine-member Supreme Court.
Grassley said there has been a well-accepted "understanding" in Senate since 1987 that no Supreme Court vacancies should be filled in the final year of a presidential term.
"It had nothing to do with Garland (personally)," Grassley said.
Grassley said the only way his stance could change is if a large number of senators strongly urged him to consider the nomination during a so-called "lame-duck session," of Congress, during the time after the Nov. 8 election and before the new Congress takes office in January.
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/ ... 381c1.html
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue August 30, 2016 5:02 pm
by McParadigm
Sioux City: your home for Supreme Court updates and the most insanely awful cowshit river smell known to man.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu September 29, 2016 7:50 pm
by Green Habit
SCOTUS is going to hear the "disparaging" trademarks case that could implicate the Washington Redskins:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lee-v-tam/
They also granted cert on a case titled "Lewis v. Clarke"...and it has to do with Indian law.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun October 02, 2016 6:36 pm
by 4/5
Green Habit wrote:SCOTUS is going to hear the "disparaging" trademarks case that could implicate the Washington Redskins:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lee-v-tam/
They also granted cert on a case titled "Lewis v. Clarke"...and it has to do with Indian law.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu November 03, 2016 2:38 pm
by Green Habit
Perhaps no one earned last night's victory more than him.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sat November 05, 2016 8:49 pm
by Biff Pocoroba
The fact that three sitting GOP US Senators (McCain-AZ, Cruz-TX, Burr-NC) say that they are willing to let any Clinton SCOTUS nominee hang the in same purgatory as they have with Garland is nuts. If that is not a prime example of what gridlock has become in Washington and why the electorate is so pissed about it I don't know what is.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun November 06, 2016 12:02 am
by Green Habit
Biff Pocoroba wrote:The fact that three sitting GOP US Senators (McCain-AZ, Cruz-TX, Burr-NC) say that they are willing to let any Clinton SCOTUS nominee hang the in same purgatory as they have with Garland is nuts. If that is not a prime example of what gridlock has become in Washington and why the electorate is so pissed about it I don't know what is.
Stonewalling Garland before the election was defensible. Continuing to stonewall after the election isn't.
However, I don't think they can stonewall forever, and here's why: all but the 5th through 8th Circuits (making up of states mostly on or near the Mississippi River) have a majority of Democratic appointees, and if SCOTUS splits 4-4 on a case, the circuit ruling stands, but is only good law in that circuit. So, let's take McCain for example: if the 9th Circuit (of which Arizona is in) throws out a bunch of left leaning rulings that SCOTUS affirms by an equally divided court, he might be pressured to try to bargain for a moderate appointee that would turn back some of those rulings.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun November 06, 2016 12:18 am
by Strat
Biff Pocoroba wrote:The fact that three sitting GOP US Senators (McCain-AZ, Cruz-TX, Burr-NC) say that they are willing to let any Clinton SCOTUS nominee hang the in same purgatory as they have with Garland is nuts. If that is not a prime example of what gridlock has become in Washington and why the electorate is so pissed about it I don't know what is.
This ineffective gov't that these people (trump supporters) are railing against, is a direct result of the republican held government.
Its just mind blowing.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri December 09, 2016 1:43 am
by Green Habit
I realize that SCOTUS is following their normal rules by affirming the judgment by an equally divided court, but executions are a case where should be a big fucking exception to that rule.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri December 09, 2016 5:38 pm
by B
Pfft! Guy is a criminal. How's it Clearance Thomas' fault if he gets executed?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed January 25, 2017 3:02 pm
by Green Habit
Brace yourselves.
The rumor mill seems to indicate that Neil Gorsuch is the front runner.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/poten ... l-gorsuch/
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue January 31, 2017 6:29 pm
by B
That's a lot of reading, Nick. Am I supposed to hate this guy or not? Can I start making my protest signs?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue January 31, 2017 10:48 pm
by Green Habit
B wrote:That's a lot of reading, Nick. Am I supposed to hate this guy or not? Can I start making my protest signs?
"Yes" and "Yes" are probably the safest answers for you.
Anyhoo:
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue January 31, 2017 11:12 pm
by Chris_H_2
Well, the guy is eminently qualified, there's no doubt about that. So I guess we'll be hearing a lot about how he shouldn't be appointed because he's "out of touch" with the majority of Americans, which drives me crazy because that should never be a litmus test.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue January 31, 2017 11:20 pm
by Green Habit
Uh...