SCOTUS Watch

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:41 am

This sorta slipped into the news last night...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court says Justice Thomas hospitalized since Friday with infection.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:45 am

That has become a conspiracy theory delight from all angles. The left is convinced he had COVID and/or his heart is failing and I even saw someone on the right think it was quite the coincidence considering they are about to vet out another Black justice.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:38 am

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:41 am This sorta slipped into the news last night...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court says Justice Thomas hospitalized since Friday with infection.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:50 am

FWIW the Supreme Court has said that it's not covid. Of course, it's possible that the court is relying solely on Thomas's people for that statement.

Another question, if it is actually covid, is whether Thomas has been honest about being vaccinated.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:18 am

You dare question the honesty of a Justice of The Supreme Court !?

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:25 am

From what's out there in public this doesn't sound like it's too serious. BUT, if he's not released by tomorrow then it's probably more serious than what's been made public.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:36 am

Yep thats her

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:24 am

So how many yes votes do we think that she's going to get? I'm guessing 52 right now, though I think 50 (plus a tiebreaker) is more likely than 54 at this point.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:51 am

Her hearing is live right now on Twitch if anyone cares.

https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Mar 21, 2022 2:06 pm

It's sad when I half think that Manchin will tank it. I mean would we be surprised at this point?

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:11 am

I can't believe that we've slid past talking about Roe being overturned directly into Republicans (Blackburn and Sasse, most recently) talking about Griswold being wrongly decided. Even if you eliminate the birth control implications, you're still talking about overturning the ruling that established the right to privacy.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:30 pm

Senator Graham, still toolin' along as only a toolin' tool can.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:33 pm

All I can say is I voted against him. Sigh.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:39 pm

Can't ask during a job interview. Check.

Can ask during a SCotUS hearing? Check.

Being a Senator and conveniently forgetting that Article VI indicates: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Oh, he's just asking questions? Oh, ok.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:26 pm

I listened to that exchange. Sen. Graham is all butt hurt over Republican candidates getting asked questions. Because they were selected for those views. While Jackson is getting a “free pass” on a double standard. Pretty weak.

Also it’s ok to be assigned a Gitmo case as a public defender but not to write an amicus on those issues as an associate while being paid at a law firm. Even if it’s for the Cato institute.

If the wrong groups celebrate you and say bad stuff about his pick, then Graham’s very concerned. Very weak and transparent to satisfy the GOP base.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:59 pm

Mr. Graham, I would rate my faith in Religion at least 8 points higher than your faith in Democracy.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:07 pm

Dogstar wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:11 amI can't believe that we've slid past talking about Roe being overturned directly into Republicans (Blackburn and Sasse, most recently) talking about Griswold being wrongly decided.

It's madness. I still can't believe we're running full speed ahead into darkness and they actually are succeeding at keeping us distracted by complaining about having to ask about pronouns.

Even if you eliminate the birth control implications, you're still talking about overturning the ruling that established the right to privacy.

Right. I wish we could be explicitly clear on this. They are essentially advocating for the idea that the government can police your conduct in your bedroom and criminalize it. They are reactionary radicals.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:18 pm

Fun fact: CNN.com is doing a bang up job covering this. Their live stream is the B-roll feed. It mostly seemingly focuses on Durbin drinking a Diet Coke or staring vacantly some direction while the questions and answers are not on this camera.

Edit: They fixed it. Guess the real-time ennui of Dick Durbin wasn't as compelling to others as it was to me.

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:30 pm

Where's my WTF GIF?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:39 pm

Dogstar wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:30 pm

Where's my WTF GIF?

NW Indiana Times

Specifically concerning interracial marriage, Braun rejected the reasoning of a unanimous Supreme Court that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right and states depriving Americans of it on an arbitrary basis, such as race, is unconstitutional.

He acknowledged leaving such a question to states is likely to lead to situations where a marriage may be recognized in one state and not in another, but he shrugged it off as "the beauty of the system."

And yet I guarantee you that he supports "constitutional carry" with his chief argument being that a patchwork of state laws is cumbersome and unconstitutional.

None of these questions to the nominee have anything to do with the nomination. It's just for exposition and self service. None of their positions are grounded in any sort of consistent logic or belief.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:02 pm

What year is this? Am I stuck in a temporal causality loop again? DAY AND DATE NOW MISTER!!@!@!!!

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm

There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:04 pm

Shocking exactly no one, Hawley is a hypocritical? disingenuous gasbag.

Still, he’s done his job and at least one - and possibly multiple - Senators will vote against confirmation using his shot as an excuse. They would have anyways, mind you, but they can use this as convenient cover.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:48 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:04 pm Shocking exactly no one, Hawley is a hypocritical? disingenuous gasbag.

Still, he’s done his job and at least one - and possibly multiple - Senators will vote against confirmation using his shot as an excuse. They would have anyways, mind you, but they can use this as convenient cover.

Page unavailable. What was the gist?

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:23 pm

Jaymann wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:48 pm
Skinypupy wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:04 pm Shocking exactly no one, Hawley is a hypocritical? disingenuous gasbag.

Still, he’s done his job and at least one - and possibly multiple - Senators will vote against confirmation using his shot as an excuse. They would have anyways, mind you, but they can use this as convenient cover.
Page unavailable. What was the gist?

Sorry, fixed link here.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm

Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.

I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm
Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.

This circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:13 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm
Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.
This circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.

I'd call the usual proceeding a circus. This is a sleazy conspiracy-laced side show.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:17 pm

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:04 pm

Meanwhile SCOTUS is doing it's own best to demonstrate it isn't afraid to use its new political power. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 much like Roe is effectively whittled down to nothing.

Related hot take

In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion on the shadow docket, over the dissent of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, the Supreme Court has rejected a redistricting plan that a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court had adopted for drawing state assembly and senate districts. I am on my way to teach and so I have time for just a brief analysis here, but the way this case was handled is quite bizarre and is another signal of a conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court showing increasing hostility to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The majority decision essentially says this: there was an impasse between the Democratic governor and the Republican legislature over drawing district lines. So the court had to draw lines in the first instance. It set forth criteria which essentially said that parties should propose maps that make the least change from the maps of the last decade. The court adopted the Governor’s maps, and those maps added another majority-minority district around Milwaukee. The governor added this district saying it was required by the Voting Rights Act because the failure to draw the district would violate Section 2 of the VRA. When the state supreme court adopted the Governor’s maps, it left open the possibility that they could be challenged later as violating the VRA or as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander (a Shaw claim), violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause. There was no full airing of either issue in this fast-track litigation to draw the district lines.

The Supreme Court’s opinion today says either the Governor or the Supreme Court misapplied the Supreme Court’s VRA and racial gerrymandering precedents, in part by elevating just one of the VRA Gingles factors (proportionality). It said that the VRA should be read in light of the racial gerrymandering cases and require the drawing of a majority-minority district only when a certain kind of strict scrutiny analysis is applied. The state supreme court should have considered under strict scrutiny “whether a race-neutral alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district would deny black voters equal political opportunity.”

This ruling is bizarre on many levels, all canvassed by the dissenting opinion. The state supreme court did not purport do to a full VRA analysis: it was adopting maps, and those maps could have been challenged later on VRA or equal protection grounds. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court majority resolved some uncertain issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation. The Court did so on skimpy briefing with no oral argument or a chance to fully consider the issues, treating the stay request as a cert petition and deciding the full case on the merits. And, at least on my first quick look, the Court’s substantive resolution of these issues even further narrows the scope of Section 2 of the VRA, making it harder for plaintiffs to win such cases.

So, to sum up: the Court used a case in an emergency procedural posture to reach out and decide an issue that could have waited for full briefing and argument either in a lower court in a challenge to the maps or if the Supreme Court had set the case for argument. It decided these issues in ways hostile to minority voting rights without giving a full opportunity for airing out the issues and pointing out how this will further hurt voters of color. It continues to chip away at the Voting Rights Act without acknowledging that it is killing off the last major protection for minority voters from discriminatory districting plans.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:14 pm

GOP- If ya cant win just change the rules(laws).

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:22 pm

It's also "fun" because we're building a solid body of evidence that SCOTUS is acting politically. Very serious people told us that wasn't supposed or going to be happening. It isn't a clear absolute slam dunk case yet but the pattern emerging is one where SCOTUS is making declaratory rulings that are fast tracking entire cases (inconsistently to boot) and slow tracking cases...in ways that seem to be advantaging a political entity that they all align with. And they can't seem to help it or don't care. Whatever the case it is becoming harder to pretend it isn't happening. Sotomayor in particular is just pointing it out openly over and over.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:52 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm
Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.
This circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.

You have that much confidence in Manchin?

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:00 pm

It really IS a circus, they should change the format of confirmations somehow.

95% of it is showboating and individual pols playing to their base by acting like petulant children in many cases (Lindsey F. Graham, I'm looking at you). It has reached "absurd theater" levels IMO.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:03 pm

Alefroth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:52 pm
Kurth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm
Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.
This circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.
You have that much confidence in Manchin?

If Manchin does kill this then he might as well get it over with and switch parties. And that's mostly glib but I don't even want to think through all the dem in disarray shit posting that'd occur.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:04 pm

Alefroth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:52 pm
Kurth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pm
Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
I don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.
This circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.
You have that much confidence in Manchin?

I have very little confidence in Manchin, but I don't see why he'd deep six this nomination.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:15 pm

Because he's a dick? He already said he wouldn't consider another nomination if they need to fill a spot before 2024. Because reasons?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:52 pm

I tuned back in after a gap and I think I just heard something that really puts into perspective how clueless these people are. Sasse was just opining against cameras at SCOTUS. His remarks indicate that's ok because they post audio clips a few days later.

The problem there is that about a year back SCOTUS switched to live audio of hearings. The guy is sitting on the judiciary committee. Come on. Fucking embarrassing. Even the people not clowning in full make up are still know nothing clowns.

Edit:

Lol - Elie Mystal noticed the same thing.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:01 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:41 am This sorta slipped into the news last night...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court says Justice Thomas hospitalized since Friday with infection.

This is getting mysterious. Thomas missed a third day of oral arguments today. No one has offered any updates on his condition.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:05 pm

He'll probably be in the hospital until the GOP gets a turn at President.