There's no bringing it up again if its decided this week. Its a decided matter.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
There's no bringing it up again if its decided this week. Its a decided matter.
Not if it's 4-4 it doesn't. The lower court ruling would hold for the moment, until and unless the SC decides to hear the case again.
Would it definitely be 4-4? Is there no chance one of the current conservative judges goes against the administration?
That's what the lower court ruling holding means. Its settled law at that point. Trump would be better off amending the language of the EO so that it conforms to what has been struck down. Gorsuch may not be on the bench for month at which point this will have been decided and closed.
The Supreme Court aren't even obliged to accept the case. They could punt and allow the lower court ruling to hold.
How do they pick what to take on?
It all depends on how much political capital they are willing to spend on it. As long as the SC is still willing to hear it then it's not dead.
What about the Filibuster? isn't there a chance he doesn't get on at all?
Its at their discretion. They can take or reject as they please.
Also worth pointing out, the WA judge in question (James Robart) was a GWB appointee.
Im hoping he doesnt see this term out
No, because the GOP will change the rules to simple majority if the Dems attempt to stall with the Filibuster. Beyond that, the Dems will want to preserve the filibuster for when an actual liberal justice like Ginsburg or Breyer step down or die. If the Dems expend the Filibuster now, they won't have it for use later.
Kennedy would be the most likely to buck party line if it happens. However, on executive power he usually sides with the GOP side.
But who? Do the 9 (8)vote to decide?
Nope because he pissed off the CIA
Yeah, that's what I thought as well, but I read an article earlier saying they were going to use it now. Can't seem to find it now though, but it wasn't from a dodgy source, it was a credible outlet.
They need at least 4 to want to hear a case.
Using it now is the logical option. The GOP has proved that they are willing to burn the house down with the unprecedented obstruction to Garland's nomination. What's to guarantee they won't nuked the filibuster when a liberal justice died when that would ensure their majority for decades to come?
Never got an answer from you as to why the GOP would be willing to nuke the filibuster now but not when they could switch a liberal icon like RBG's later on.
That would be completely pointless and counterintuitive as they will lose the filibuster. They can't stop Gorsuch from becoming a justice.
And they can't stop the GOP from doing the same when Breyer or RBG dies or steps down. Doing it now when the fervour of the base is hot put the ball in the GOP's court. Let them be the cnut.
The next SCOTUS appointment when a liberal leaves the court will be a much bigger deal and they (the Dems) would have a lot more public support for going nuclear in attempting to coerce Trump into a more moderate pick. Losing the filibuster now would obviously undercut their leverage later.
Gorusch isn't changing the court from what it already was when Scalia was there. The next one will however do just that, which is why it will be the most epic confirmation battle in modern times (or at least since Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork).
Its a different situation as there will be much more public support behind the Dems for the next pick. No rational strategist would support them blowing the filibuster now.
Seriously, if the last year has told us anything it's that being historic dicks about the Supreme Court carries little to no electoral pain whatsoever. In fact, it gets the conservative base out.
Hmmmm, that's a very valid point. I hadn't looked at it that way. Saving it could render it useless which would be pointless. I don't envy the Dems position here, they really are up against it each way they turn. It just goes to show how massively important the elections are in 18 months time. Just seen @Raoul's reply, and without quoting it, he makes a valid point there too, and it just reiterates my point about the Dems being caught between a rock and a hard place. Feck it, there just doesn't seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel at all. They just can't seem to catch a break.
Surely all these laws/rules that are being changed, or planned to be changed, won't they just be overturned the next time the Dems get back in power?
And they are doing it anyway, so obviously there are 'rational strategists' supporting that decision.
You've got to fight fire with fire. As much as stopping Gorsuch is a futile endeavour, the leadership must demonstrate that they stand with the base.
Exactly. 6-3 court balance could mean Roe v Wade thrown out. Imagine evangelicals lining up at the ballot box.
There's no rational strategy behind using it now for the simple reason that Gorusch isn't changing the pre-Scalia makeup of the court. You have to play the long game and bank on Trump's popularity eroding over time and him having far less leverage to nominate another conservative without considerable blowback. This is the prevailing view of most political pundits and legal strategists. Losing the filibuster right now would completely undercut that.
The rational strategy is pretty simple. Mitch McConnell refused point blank to let Garland has a hearing, so Republicans can't cry wolf without showing them up as the hypocritical dicks they are. The only option left would be nuking the filibuster, which can quickly turn public sentiment against their office holders and feck them big time in the future if Dems manage to turn it around. If they lie down and let Gorsuch in without a fight then the base will abandon them in droves, because they would then have proven to be spineless.
This would be the 'toys out the pram' strategy. All this would do is poison the well and make the Dems seem completely obstructionist and probably play into Trump's hands.
'Toys out of the pram' gave Republicans the House, the Senate and the Presidency, against a fairly popular president. Seems good to me.
There's no mythical centre when people yearn for a rational, civilised two parties. Each side wants to obliterate the other and it's about time Dems wise up to that fact.
It wouldn't accomplish anything other than make the Dems look petty and portray Trump as a victim of obstructionism. Great strategy that.
Yes, like how it made Republicans look petty and Obama a victim of obstructionism?
When they go low, we go high!
Yes, like how it made Republicans look petty and Obama a victim of obstructionism?
Get a grip. We're talking about a SCOTUS pick not the entire agenda. The Dems can't block it and you're basically advancing a laughable argument that they humiliate themselves for no gain whatsoever against an inevitability that Gorsuch gets confirmed and the Dems lose the filibuster. Only a GOP plant would advocate the Dems do this.
I get that Conservatives will always be around in some form but I'm really hoping that the more extreme Republican BS and less extreme nationalism of UKIP/FNP fades away.
I clicked on that link because I wasn't sure if it was actually him.
When they go low, we shoot ourselves in the foot if our friend has his way.
Okay, so the scenario is that we're three years into Trump's presidency and it's going badly. Public opinion is against him, it looks like they'll lose both houses and the Presidency at the next election. Breyer dies. The Dems filibuster the nominee.
In what twilight, heroin addled world are the GOP gonna say "you know what, we had a good run, we look certain to lose next year and the public really won't like us forcing a change in ideology on the Supreme Court, let's try and appoint a moderate the Dems agree with and if that fails, well shucks I guess they'll have the pick"?!
In what twilight, heroin addled world are the GOP gonna say "you know what, we had a good run, we look certain to lose next year and the public really won't like us forcing a change in ideology on the Supreme Court, let's try and appoint a moderate the Dems agree with and if that fails, well shucks I guess they'll have the pick"?!
- Status