Ruth Ginsburg dies

[bilateralrope]

I looked through the Supreme Court schedule and I think these are the cases Trump wants his nominee to rule on:
- Nov 10: 19-840 ) CALIFORNIA V. TEXAS and 19-1019) TEXAS V. CALIFORNIA. . Two cases about the ACA
- Dec 2: 19-1328 DEPT. OF JUSTICE V. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.

From memory, that last case involves Congress issuing a subpoena for grand jury information from the Mueller Investigation. Things Mueller couldn't release publicly because of grand jury secrecy rules.

So I think that's the timeframe Trump is working under. He wants his nominee in place by Dec 2 to stop the house committee getting the grand jury material and making referrals to various state prosecutors.

[bilateralrope]

That would be true if we lived in a sane world, but the past few years haven't given me much reason to expect things like that to be enforced.

I don't see it being enforced if Trump is still president. Removing one justice will just let him take his time to pick a replacement.

If Biden wins, that's a different matter. I'm hoping there is the appetite to make it clear to Republicans that they are not above the law.

[Broomstick]

They can possibly impeach a justice but that depends on who they chose. I wouldn't mind if they impeached Kavanaugh given that he certainly lied in his hearings and is probably a rapist

Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached in the US, Samuel Chase in 1805. He was acquitted of all counts by the Senate and continued to serve on the Court until his death. Meaning a Justice is less likely to be impeached than a President.

Nope, not likely we're going to get rid of any of the nine folks in black robes that way.

Would anything stop Trump from using the lame duck session to nominate himself ?

In theory... no. Although at this point it looks like they're going for the religious nutball woman.

A few years ago I saw an opinion piece by someone who thought that overturning Roe v. Wade would be bad for the Republicans. Basically, the writer was saying that there are a decent chunk of voters who are pro abortion, but still vote Republican because they think that Roe v. Wade means abortions can't be touched and are they ignore the issue. But if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, suddenly abortion becomes an issue in those voters minds.

No, I think that's backward - the oligarchs in the Republican Party have no incentive to actually do anything in regards to abortion because if they DID outlaw it they'd need a new issue to keep the one-issue religious types in the party. Given the slow pace of what change has occurred in the decades since Roe v. Wade I think there is some basis for that.

Things may have changed/be changing recently, though.

[bilateralrope]

In theory... no. Although at this point it looks like they're going for the religious nutball woman.

How much of a nutball ?

[Broomstick]

She belongs to the religious sub-group of Catholicism ("People of Praise") that inspired Margaret Atwood to write The Handmaid's Tale.

[Zaune]

No, I think that's backward - the oligarchs in the Republican Party have no incentive to actually do anything in regards to abortion because if they DID outlaw it they'd need a new issue to keep the one-issue religious types in the party. Given the slow pace of what change has occurred in the decades since Roe v. Wade I think there is some basis for that.

Things may have changed/be changing recently, though.

I suspect that the reason for that change is that everyone smart enough to think past the next election year is getting squeezed out by those single-issue types, in a loose alliance of convenience with the teabaggers, white supremacists and other fanatics who don't care about the damage they do to the party's reputation because they're more than happy to straight-up rig the election to get their way.

[Rogue 9]

In theory... no. Although at this point it looks like they're going for the religious nutball woman.

How much of a nutball ?

Enough of one that in the 2006 commencement address at Notre Dame's law school she exhorted the graduates to, "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God."

[bilateralrope]

In theory... no. Although at this point it looks like they're going for the religious nutball woman.

How much of a nutball ?

Enough of one that in the 2006 commencement address at Notre Dame's law school she exhorted the graduates to, "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God."

That's both really worrying and the kind of thing that's likely to go well for her nomination if the Democrats bring it up. Fuck.

[Patroklos]

She belongs to the religious sub-group of Catholicism ("People of Praise") that inspired Margaret Atwood to write The Handmaid's Tale.

Nope.

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/am ... reme-court

[Agent Fisher]

How much of a nutball ?

Enough of one that in the 2006 commencement address at Notre Dame's law school she exhorted the graduates to, "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God."

That's both really worrying and the kind of thing that's likely to go well for her nomination if the Democrats bring it up. Fuck.

It was also said at Notre Dame, a Catholic college. Why wouldn't she, at a catholic founded, and private college, not make a reference to the Catholic faith? If she had said this at some other law school that wasn't catholic funded/run, then yeah, that's a sign.

[bilateralrope]

That's less worrying.

But it also means that I know nothing about why Broomstick called her a nutjob. Even if The Handmaid's Tale was inspired by the sub-group she belongs to, that doesn't tell me anything useful about what their beliefs are. Partly because I haven't watched it, partly because those beliefs would have been altered in the process of writing it.


Any sign that it's affected how she has ruled in court cases ?

[Broomstick]

She belongs to the religious sub-group of Catholicism ("People of Praise") that inspired Margaret Atwood to write The Handmaid's Tale.

Nope.

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/am ... reme-court

Dang. It gets really annoying when propaganda gets repeated by multiple news outlets.

That's less worrying.

But it also means that I know nothing about why Broomstick called her a nutjob. Even if The Handmaid's Tale was inspired by the sub-group she belongs to, that doesn't tell me anything useful about what their beliefs are.

Enough of one that in the 2006 commencement address at Notre Dame's law school she exhorted the graduates to, "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God."

That quote would qualify for me, because I'm pretty sure that this "kingdom of God" wouldn't be what I want or include me as a full citizen.

But maybe not for others.

OK, how about ruling that either burial or cremation can be legally required for fetal remains, thus not only significantly increasing the costs of abortion but also imposing this on parents in miscarriage no matter how early in the pregnancy this occurs. It's all part of declaring every conception as a human being with the same rights as a born child or an adult.

She was against the Obama administration's ACA allowing the employees of religious institutions the option of buying birth control without having the religious institution pay for it. In other words, your employer decides if you get birth control, not you or your doctor.

Yes, that is consistent with Catholic doctrine, but she's not nominated for a position with a Catholic institution, she's being considered for membership in a secular institution for the entire country. I don't care if she's Catholic, I do care if she's trying to impose her religion on all the rest of us.

Those two alone mean I don't want her on the court, imposing her Catholic mandate on the rest of the country.

In Cook County v. Wolf she sided with Trump's administration making it harder to obtain permanent residency. It basically gives an excuse to bar those the majority of people who entered the US as refugees from obtaining this, and makes them deportable at whim. In other words, she supports Trump's views on immigration. Have no clue if that stems from her region or her bigotry.

That's all I got this morning.

[Gandalf]

It was also said at Notre Dame, a Catholic college. Why wouldn't she, at a catholic founded, and private college, not make a reference to the Catholic faith? If she had said this at some other law school that wasn't catholic funded/run, then yeah, that's a sign.

That's more than a "reference to the Catholic faith."

That's a weird call to action.

[MKSheppard]

ACB is confirmed, it seems.

[Darth Yan]

Well fuck. At this point the Dems may have to stack the courts.

[Broomstick]

Let's win an election first, then make that decision.

[Soontir C'boath]

Well fuck. At this point the Dems may have to stack the courts.

Ha. Hahahahaa. Haahahahahahahahahaha. Pelosi, Schumer, certainly Feinstein, and the rest of the Democratic leadership have clearly shown they don't give a fuck either way.

[Gandalf]

Well fuck. At this point the Dems may have to stack the courts.

Ha. Hahahahaa. Haahahahahahahahahaha. Pelosi, Schumer, certainly Feinstein, and the rest of the Democratic leadership have clearly shown they don't give a fuck either way.

This is one of those things that will need to wait until there's a stronger demsoc wing of the party to actually prompt a serious change. If the current DNC tried to expand the court they'd probably find some clones of Thomas or Scalia just to not upset anyone.

[LaCroix]

While getting a supreme court judge unseated or adding seats is something you need to rely on the representatives, you can do your part to "unstack" the courts at lower levels, local, district and appellate....

https://youtu.be/w6zSWkteRJY
Citizens brigade of court watchers.

Tl,dr this former prosecutor is starting an overwatch group who will lodge official complaints if they see a judge badly misbehave, which will allow for the removal of said judges. There will be training and so on. Mitch crammed 200 unqualified and biased judges down your throats, sometimes against protests by the bar association that they are not qualified...
This is how you can get them kicked off their benches...

[Gandalf]

Unfortunately I'm not in a space to watch a video. With whom do they lodge their complaints?

[Rogue 9]

Unfortunately I'm not in a space to watch a video. With whom do they lodge their complaints?

The House of Representatives, for impeachment. The easiest way to do that is to find perjury in their confirmation testimony before the Senate, but the main topic of the video is looking for judicial misconduct, which can be done because almost all court proceedings are open to the public and is also punishable by impeachment and removal.

[Gandalf]

The House of Representatives, for impeachment. The easiest way to do that is to find perjury in their confirmation testimony before the Senate, but the main topic of the video is looking for judicial misconduct, which can be done because almost all court proceedings are open to the public and is also punishable by impeachment and removal.

That seems odd. Could a sufficiently motivated party in the House just start mass impeachments, considering that they would be judge and jury in the matter?

[Knife]

The House of Representatives, for impeachment. The easiest way to do that is to find perjury in their confirmation testimony before the Senate, but the main topic of the video is looking for judicial misconduct, which can be done because almost all court proceedings are open to the public and is also punishable by impeachment and removal.

That seems odd. Could a sufficiently motivated party in the House just start mass impeachments, considering that they would be judge and jury in the matter?

As currently structured? Yes.

The House would impeach, could really be anything under US Constitution. The House could, if they want, just impeach all Trump judges as such. Or specific ones. It's inherently an political act so there is no need for a 'crime' or any such thing. At worst, it could be 'because we wanted to'. But most would prefer something like the judge was ineligible, or they perjured themselves, or some other more legit reason. But they could for anything they wanted under the Constitution.

The Senate convicts, to the Dems would have to have a majority there as well.

[FireNexus]

The House of Representatives, for impeachment. The easiest way to do that is to find perjury in their confirmation testimony before the Senate, but the main topic of the video is looking for judicial misconduct, which can be done because almost all court proceedings are open to the public and is also punishable by impeachment and removal.

That seems odd. Could a sufficiently motivated party in the House just start mass impeachments, considering that they would be judge and jury in the matter?

As currently structured? Yes.

The House would impeach, could really be anything under US Constitution. The House could, if they want, just impeach all Trump judges as such. Or specific ones. It's inherently an political act so there is no need for a 'crime' or any such thing. At worst, it could be 'because we wanted to'. But most would prefer something like the judge was ineligible, or they perjured themselves, or some other more legit reason. But they could for anything they wanted under the Constitution.

The Senate convicts, to the Dems would have to have a majority there as well.

Supermajority. Or 17 GOP senators willing to crucify GOP judges.

[Rogue 9]

The House of Representatives, for impeachment. The easiest way to do that is to find perjury in their confirmation testimony before the Senate, but the main topic of the video is looking for judicial misconduct, which can be done because almost all court proceedings are open to the public and is also punishable by impeachment and removal.

That seems odd. Could a sufficiently motivated party in the House just start mass impeachments, considering that they would be judge and jury in the matter?

The House is the grand jury and prosecutor; the Senate is the judge and trial jury. Both chambers of Congress must be involved; the House can't remove, and the Senate can't charge.

I said that before finishing the video, though (because I was running up against a deadline) and apparently there is a form to report judicial misconduct, which he talks about filing with the "committee responsible for dealing with complaints of judicial misconduct." I'm unclear on which committee that is if it isn't the House Judiciary, though.