Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm There is also a chance that McConnell schedules the vote for a lame duck session. There is a chance he doesn't have the votes now. Collins can't vote for a conservative right now for instance. He will have to have a solid read on Senators' willingness to do a lame duck vote though. The calculus here is exceedingly complex right now.

At a facile level the least risk for him is to go for it but game it out and it becomes clear that there are no clear paths for McConnell. That is good tbh. If it was easy he'd definitely go for it damn the consequences.

My whole point is that McConnell filling the seat in a lame duck session gives the Dems political permission to "pack" (or +2 or +3) the courts.

Under those circumstances, it's undoing a cheat rather than cheating.

There you go. The dissolution might have just begun. He didn't say when but let's be real.

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:46 pm

I understand the feeling, but I don't want to hear this. We have an election in six weeks. We can still fight.

Do it. Fight like hell

FTFY

+1

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:52 pm

Enough wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:42 pm Friendly reminder, now would be an ideal time to lock in the refi and renew those passports.

Most of us can't. It's not an option.

Fight. Throw everything into GOTV.

My wife and some organized colleagues (including me) just sent out more than *seven thousand* hand-written postcards aimed at Democrats who'd skipped 2018 or this year's primary, informing them of procedures, websites, and dates for voting safely and easily by mail.

The lines are drawn. The approvals are barely moving. Everything this year is about turnout, and if you imagine that you can only influence one vote (your own), you're sure as hell not doing enough to save the country.

I totally agree with all of this and I don't have an option to the leave the country either and probably would not. But that won't stop me from making contingency plans so at least there is an option if that's all there is. In the meantime, yes this just turned up my fight to eleventy billion.

nobody's packing any courts any time soon

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:58 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm There is also a chance that McConnell schedules the vote for a lame duck session. There is a chance he doesn't have the votes now. Collins can't vote for a conservative right now for instance. He will have to have a solid read on Senators' willingness to do a lame duck vote though. The calculus here is exceedingly complex right now.

At a facile level the least risk for him is to go for it but game it out and it becomes clear that there are no clear paths for McConnell. That is good tbh. If it was easy he'd definitely go for it damn the consequences.

My whole point is that McConnell filling the seat in a lame duck session gives the Dems political permission to "pack" (or +2 or +3) the courts.

Under those circumstances, it's undoing a cheat rather than cheating.

Sure but it still is just delaying the inevitable. Unless we find some way to make peace this is just political warfare. What is the stable state?

RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:55 pmMcConnell is fighting a war in which his opponent is super concerned about the rules. That’s why he’s winning. I’m not clamoring for packing the court, but as long as your are concerned with norms and rules, you’ll keep losing.

This is both what's good and bad about Democrats. They keep trying to generally be good to the morals and ethics of the intent. Republicans are happy as pigs in shit to roll that through the mud and ignore it. Dems aren't immune to some ethical jiggling, but Repub's make what they do look like amateur hour.

And you're completely right. They'll keep losing until they figure out how to fight equally dirty.

I woke up my wife to give her the news and we both mourned for the loss of RBG and not just because she leaned liberal, but because of who she was as a person. This country can't afford to lose any more good people this year.

I'm hoping that Collins isn't a slam-dunk vote for the GOP since she's heavily on the ropes in Maine and people are fed up with her. I worry that this becomes irrelevant November 4th.

First Ill say Im sorry for her being so sick lately and suffering so much. May she be at peace now and have eternity with her beloved husband.

Second I have to say theres no chance now for decades that the Supreme Court will be in any way neutral or impartial. We can all go fuck ourselves.

Remember when Obama had MONTHS to get his pick in and couldn't thanks to the evil people? Anyone see that happening now with 2 months to go? No? Me either.

Daehawk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:14 pm We can all go fuck ourselves.

Or we can fight like hell, which is what a people deserving of their Republic would do.

Just saw this news and FUCk!

Daehawk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:14 pmRemember when Obama had MONTHS to get his pick in and couldn't thanks to the evil people? Anyone see that happening now with 2 months to go? No? Me either.

The evil people have already said that stuffing in a new nominee is fine because Trump isn't the Lame Duck that Obama was. He's a lame dick and very likely done after one term, but he's not absolutely and unquestionably done. So it's okay.

They'll even say it's perfectly fine if Trump is voted out, because reasons. It'll be an interesting argument they put forth to continue the process after November 4th.

Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:39 pm Justice Ginsburg, an historic American Supreme Court Justice, has just died. So the war begins and it is going to be as nasty as any in history.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/10030697 ... dies-at-87

This is just going to be awful for the country. I wish she could have held on longer, "the spirit was willing but the body was weak". We really don't need this on top of the current election cycle, which is exactly why nothing should be done until after the election but we all know what McConnell is going to do.

I really hate this.

Fuck me running America is over.

Little Raven wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:26 pm As I said in a previous thread, once politicians start packing the courts, democracy is usually dead on the table is fairly short order. As Grifman points out - that's a slide you cannot stop. There's a reason even FDR declined to cross that line.

Even in the worst case scenario, where one more conservative judge joins the Court, the Democrats would be stupid to try packing. The Supreme Court is not a very partisan organization, and frankly, it's the wrong place to go looking for policy changes. It's certainly not worth blowing the country up over.

The supreme court isint very partisan? Like a ton of major decisions haven't been just that?

Drazzil wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:24 pmLike a ton of major decisions haven't been just that?

Which decisions are you talking about? The court actually breaks down along "party" lines pretty infrequently, which makes sense, because justices tend to stick around for a long time while parties evolve.

Also, the Court doesn't really do what a lot of people seem to think it does. Their job is to serve as the final word on niche cases and constitutionality. There just isn't as much opportunity for partisanship as there is in the other branches.

I just got the news moments ago and I'm blinking back tears. Not just because of what it means for our country, which is extremely dire, but also because I really admire RBG -- all that she did, and all that she represented.

I can't take much more of this.

The thing that chaps my hide is McConnell isn't wrong when he says the American people voted for this. I'm not talking about the popular vote vs electoral, I mean ALL the various Republicans who've been voted into office since Obama ended his last term. Millions upon millions of people voted in the various pieces so that when this moment arrived they'd be ready. This year has been a wild one and we still have three and a half months to go. Thanks Republican voters, we couldn't have dug a hole this deep without you.

Senators beginning to weigh in.



Yeah. That’s what I’m talking about.

I think the right way to address this without harming the future of the country is via the non-partisan court packing scheme that Mayor Pete pushed during the primary. If it's feasible and works as intended.

Holman wrote: If McConnell rushes through a RBG replacement, "two new seats" would be a fair and attractive slogan for Dems to run on.

“If”?!?

I guaran -damn-tee you as soon as he heard the news, he started rubbing those scaly little turtle hands together and probably had a Grinch grin while doing it.

Also, whoever said “May you live in interesting times” can kiss my ass.

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:18 pm

This is getting interesting. Murkowski just last week said no:

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/09/18 ... -election/

Susan Collins has said no:



Charles Grassley said no:

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying ... nominee-in

I'll note that in the article above, Lindsey Graham said the same thing but I no longer trust him. He sold his soul to Trump a long time ago and he needs the support of the base in a tight re-election campaign in SC where he is in a tie with the Democratic challenger according to the latest poll.

That would just give the Republicans 49 votes. They would be short. So the problem is this:

Murkowski talked about before an election - what about the lame duck session?
Collins, well, you never know where she stands to be honest, but she would face pressure from both sides. Where would she come down?
Grassely I always thought of as an institutionalist but he has succumbed unfortunately IMO to Trumpism. And his comments were two years ago. Would he still stand by them? I have my doubts.

But this could get interesting.

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:37 pm I think the right way to address this without harming the future of the country is via the non-partisan court packing scheme that Mayor Pete pushed during the primary. If it's feasible and works as intended.

I'm not sure about his plan but we do need to do something to deescalate this issue on an ongoing basis for the good of the country.

How many Republicans have stated it *since* RBG passed?

(Not that I would necessarily trust them even then, but I think people can give different answers between a hypothetical and when it becomes reality)

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:50 pm How many Republicans have stated it *since* RBG passed?

(Not that I would necessarily trust them even then, but I think people can give different answers between a hypothetical and when it becomes reality)

i'm surprised anyone would even consider taking them at their word

hitbyambulance wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:53 pm

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:50 pm How many Republicans have stated it *since* RBG passed?

(Not that I would necessarily trust them even then, but I think people can give different answers between a hypothetical and when it becomes reality)

i'm surprised anyone would even consider taking them at their word

Same. It goes to reason that McConnell is painfully aware that he has another key opportunity that he *cannot* let pass. The Republicans are in a pickle on the national scene. They are boxed in and can't reliably expand their coalition. The only way for them to survive is to seize power whenever they can. So I expect McConnell will conclude he has no choice here. The timing is the real unknown. It'll partially depend on the unreliable Trump factor plus whatever negotiations he has to pull off behind the scenes. Whatever they say out loud is just table setting for the real action.

malchior wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:10 am

hitbyambulance wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:53 pm

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:50 pm How many Republicans have stated it *since* RBG passed?

(Not that I would necessarily trust them even then, but I think people can give different answers between a hypothetical and when it becomes reality)

i'm surprised anyone would even consider taking them at their word

Same. It goes to reason that McConnell is painfully aware that he has another key opportunity that he *cannot* let pass. The Republicans are in a pickle on the national scene. They are boxed in and can't reliably expand their coalition. The only way for them to survive is to seize power whenever they can. So I expect McConnell will conclude he has no choice here. The timing is the real unknown. It'll partially depend on the unreliable Trump factor plus whatever negotiations he has to pull off behind the scenes. Whatever they say out loud is just table setting for the real action.

McConnell has already announced a nominee and vote will be coming. They expect to have a nominee within 2 to 3 days.

Little Raven wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:31 pm

Drazzil wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:24 pmLike a ton of major decisions haven't been just that?

Which decisions are you talking about? The court actually breaks down along "party" lines pretty infrequently, which makes sense, because justices tend to stick around for a long time while parties evolve.

Also, the Court doesn't really do what a lot of people seem to think it does. Their job is to serve as the final word on niche cases and constitutionality. There just isn't as much opportunity for partisanship as there is in the other branches.

Bush v Gore and Citizens United come to mind, although refusing to impeach Trump comes to mind. Time to
revisit Madison v Marbury.

Drazzil wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:51 amBush v Gore and Citizens United come to mind

The Supreme Court has heard hundreds of cases since 2000. Many hundreds, in fact. The fact that only 2 cases along party lines come to mind is significant in just how rare it actually is.

although refusing to impeach Trump comes to mind

Impeaching Trump is well outside the powers of the Court as outlined in the Constitution. The founders intended the voters to be the check on the Executive, not the Supreme Court.

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:37 pm I think the right way to address this without harming the future of the country is via the non-partisan court packing scheme that Mayor Pete pushed during the primary. If it's feasible and works as intended.

Pete's plan was is credited to come from this paper from the Yale Law Journal. It had several proposals but the one Pete picked up was to expand from 9 to 15 judges. 5 Republicans/5 Democrats (10 permanent members) and 5 chosen by the permanent 10 unanimously to serve a 1 year term. It is called the 'Balanced Bench' in the linked text.

Another interesting proposal in the paper was to make a massive group of Associate Judges of the Supreme court and dole cases out via a lottery system. It is called 'The Supreme Court Lottery' in the text. It's worth a skim if anything to see what the discussion looks like.

Wait, there are were only 2 5-4 cases that split along ideological lines in the last two decades?

That can't possibly be right, can it?

Edit: In 2019: Barr v Lee, Barton v Barr, Thole v Bank, Agency for Int l Development v Alliance for Open Society, Kansas v Garcia, Hernendez v Mesa, McKninney v Arizona, RNC v DNC, Espinoza v Montana Dept of Revenue,

9 out of 63 (Of course, that doesn't mean that those cases weren't more important or more controversial. Indeed, by the 5-4 nature, they probably were more controversial)

20 out of 63 were voted unanimously (or at least voted the same way, even if sometimes with concurrences or with justices that didn't participate)

Probably been said already, but I just got home from a long day at work and haven't read, but it really is so disheartening just how much worse this year could still get. Really unbelievable

Defiant wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:09 amWait, there are were only 2 5-4 cases that split along ideological lines in the last two decades?

Oh, I'm quite sure there were more. But it's much more rare than most people think.

Which isn't very surprising, really. I mean, we like to think that the Democrats are Progressive and the Republicans are Conservative...but in practice, both parties are fairly inconsistent about ideology. Republicans are FOR states rights until they're against them, and Democrats are AGAINST foreign wars until it's time to wage them. Furthermore, parties change...sometimes quite rapidly. The Republican Party that elevated Roberts to the Court barely exists now. Given that most Justices now serve at LEAST a decade and half...it's not very surprising that they generally don't march in lockstep with their party.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:17 am

Defiant wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:09 amWait, there are were only 2 5-4 cases that split along ideological lines in the last two decades?

Oh, I'm quite sure there were more. But it's much more rare than most people think.

Which isn't very surprising, really. I mean, we like to think that the Democrats are Progressive and the Republicans are Conservative...but in practice, both parties are fairly inconsistent about ideology. Republicans are FOR states rights until they're against them, and Democrats are AGAINST foreign wars until it's time to wage them. Furthermore, parties change...sometimes quite rapidly. The Republican Party that elevated Roberts to the Court barely exists now. Given that most Justices now serve at LEAST a decade and half...it's not very surprising that they generally don't march in lockstep with their party.

Yes, there's been a trend that justices tend to drift leftwards over the decades. Also that the chief justice often tends to be a uniting figure (to help in the non-partisan reflection of the court).

And that last part will help to prevent 5-4 decisions if the majority can persuade one or more justice to come over to their side. There's also the possibility of unanimous decisions, because the issue is so clear cut that all justices would agree.

But not every supreme court decision is created equally. Some are more important, some less so. 5-4 decisions are more likely to be controversial simply because they are 5-4 decisions (especially when they're on party lines) - which could suggest there's significant support for both sides of the issue among the public at large. I would think they're more noticeable and/or more likely to be potentially groundbreaking. (Of course, they don't always go along party lines, but I would think that would be the most likely permutation of a 5-4 decision).

Defiant wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:41 amBut not every supreme court decision is created equally. Some are more important, some less so. 5-4 decisions are more likely to be controversial simply because they are 5-4 decisions (especially when they're on party lines) - which could suggest there's significant support for both sides of the issue among the public at large. I would think they're more noticeable and/or more likely to be potentially groundbreaking. (Of course, they don't always go along party lines, but I would think that would be the most likely permutation of a 5-4 decision).

All of this is true, and probably leads to the widespread perception that the Court is a largely partisan organization. But perceptions are often wrong.

If Trump gets him nominee (and, let's be honest, unless he MAJORLY screws up, he will) then the Court will be 6-3 rather than 5-4. This doesn't mean the end of the world, or an imminent dictatorship or anything...but it WILL be meaningful. In particular, I'd expect states to have to watch their gun laws VERY closely. Maybe, if they're feeling REALLY gutsy, they go after Roe vs. Wade, but if history is any guide, that's a fantastic way to move Democrats to the polls.

Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:13 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm

Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:57 pm
Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

1869 was a long time ago. As with most of the Constitution, the future demands revision.

In the mid-nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices would be appointed after a long and mature career and could then be expected to die before their 80s. The average tenure of all justices prior the current incumbents is under 17 years.

Brett Kavanaugh will probably get at least 30.

Increasing lifespans and a tendency to strategically appoint younger justices warps the historical progress of the court. This makes the "perfect balance" of nine justices something different than it was 150 years ago.

You've asserting a need for change without specifying if there any real reason beyond "packing the court". If 9 isn't the right number, what is and why (if there is an answer beyond pure political needs)?

The problem is what is to prevent the Republicans from packing the court whenever they take control again. You're not really solving the problem. Expand the court to 12, well, why not 15 for the Republicans? 0r 21 for the next Democratic winners? Where exactly does this stop?

51? Every state plus DC. 101? Every Senator plus DC.

An unrelated question - does anyone know the best country to look at for a chemical engineer and his family trying to move on a work visa?

McConnell has sometimes been called the gravedigger of Democracy. I think that is way too generous but read this and decide for yourself. Bravo to the person who leaked this.

We had to do something, so last night we binge-donated to four Dem candidates for senate:

John Hickenlooper (CO), Mark Kelly (AZ), Sara Gideon (ME), Cal Cunningham (NC)

Here's a list of senate candidates with chances of flipping Republicans out:

1. John Hickenlooper - CO
2. Mark Kelly - AZ
3. Sara Gideon - ME
4. Cal Cunningham - NC
5. Theresa Greenfield - IA
6. Jon Ossoff - GA
7. Steve Bullock - MT
8. Raphael Warnock - GA
9. Jaime Harrison - SC

Recurring weekly donations are best because they make campaign planning easier.

Don't bother donating to McConnell's opponent. She already has enough money to cause him trouble, but she's not going to win.