Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:a court ruling from a few years ago made it so that Congress can effectively perpetually keep itself out of recess if it wants to.

By refusing to hold a sub-committee meeting to vote on whether or not they are in recess? This system is so broken and yet they still have jobs and benefits.

El Guapo wrote:There would be significant standing and political question legal obstacles for such a suit

Why wouldn't The People have standing?

RunningMn9 wrote:

El Guapo wrote:There would be significant standing and political question legal obstacles for such a suit

Why wouldn't The People have standing?

The People don't have an avatar that can suffer injury, sign legal papers, etc.

The closest thing to "The People" in a lawsuit is the Department of Justice, which might be what you are getting at. A suit by the executive branch might be more plausible (the last round of Obamacare suit was a suit by the House, so you could probably use that precedent).

However, even if you could get to the merits, it's really hard to see how you could craft a Supreme Court ruling to effectively end a Republican blockade. Even if you ruled something like "the Senate must act within X days" (and god knows where you would find a basis for that), it would be easy enough for the Senate to just vote every single nominee down (who is not a Republican) in short order.

Question - Is there any point at which Obama could make Garland a recess appointment between now and the end of his term, or is that possibility gone?

Defiant wrote:Question - Is there any point at which Obama could make Garland a recess appointment between now and the end of his term, or is that possibility gone?

It never existed. There was a court ruling a few years back that allowed Congress to keep itself in a perpetual technical state of non-recess (essentially by having a few people gavel-in and gavel-out Congress every few days). Without recess there are no recess appointments.

So can the Democrats block any Republican nominations for the next four years?

You haven't heard? You Democrats have to be the bigger people.

Yeah, the dems had eight years of Obama getting away with whatever he wants. Now the Republicans have a sweeping mandate, so it's the dems' turn to work together and compromise for a change. The era of congressional obstruction is over!

Republicans imply that blocking a Supreme Court nomination will result in additional pain inflicted upon Democrats:

Republicans won’t come out and say it, but there’s an implicit threat in their confidence: If Democrats play things the wrong way, they might find themselves on the wrong end of a legacy-defining change to Senate rules that scraps the chamber’s 60-vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees.

“We’re going to confirm the president’s nominee one way or the other. And there’s an easy way and there’s a hard way,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “They just need to accept that reality.”

Yes, they are total serious and totally disgusting, reprehensible individuals.

Smoove_B wrote:Yes, they are total serious and totally disgusting, reprehensible individuals.

Yes, but the Senate Majority party (whichever side it's been) has been threatening to invoke the nuclear option for a while now. At some point, one of the sides will do it. And when they are out of the majority, they will immediately bleat about how unfair it all is.

But they're not even pretending like they are interested in the actual process. They didn't come out and say, "We are hoping to schedule confirmation hearings shortly after January and would expect that process to unfold smoothly (unlike how we ran things)" or whatever. It's immediately with the "it's going to be our way or else suffer, dick nuts." They're disgusting.

Yep - I don't much care that it has been degenerating. We're seeing norm after norm fall and it is almost entirely in the favor of one party which is starting to look like they exclusively favor one part of the population more and more. This might not end well.

Patent disputes:

The nation's highest court said in a unanimous opinion that damages for design patent infringement can be based only on the part of the device that infringed the patents, not the entire product.

The ruling reshapes the value of designs, and how much one company has to pay for copying the look of a competitor's product. Current law said an award could be collected on the entire profits of an infringing device. In this case, that's the $399 million Samsung paid Apple late last year. But this decision means that amount will likely go down.
...
The Supreme Court didn't, however, say how damages should be determined.

The case will go back to lower courts for the damages to be reexamined.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a temporary stay in the death penalty case of Ronald Smith, an Alabama death row inmate whose execution was scheduled for later Thursday evening.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/ ... index.html



Another courtesy vote?

Just a move to allow them to discuss it more I guess. In the end the execution went on.

I know this isn't new, but I'm still astounded he has the balls to come out and say it:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday that he will not tolerate Democratic efforts to block President-elect Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

He won't tolerate them because...blocking a nomination would be intolerable. Except when it's not. Not only do we elect these people but we pay them and give them benefits. Unreal.

They're RepubliCANs when they're in charge, they're RepubliCAN'Ts when not.

Sure, why not. Let's add this to the mix:

Trump said Thursday that he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the "nuclear option" — changing Senate rules on a majority vote — if Democrats block his Supreme Court pick.

But my favorite part (emphasis added):

In an interview taped with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday morning, Trump said he “would” encourage McConnell to kill the 60-vote threshold on nominees to the high court. Trump plans to name his nominee next week.

“I would. We have obstructionists,” Trump said, dinging Democrats for delaying the confirmations of Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general and Mike Pompeo as CIA director. “Why are they doing that?”

Off.the.charts.delusional.

Then the Democrats just come in in 4/8/20 years, bump the number of justices up to 15, load 'er up, then change the rules back. On and on it goes.

So it's Gorsuch. Could have been worse, but should have been Garland, of course. Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him, but he seems qualified and occasionally I'm pleasantly surprised by the ability of USSC justices to rise above ideology.

Well, his name starts with G and has the right number of letters, at least.

Isn't somebody somewhere being elected? We wouldn't want to rush to confirm with an election hanging in the balance.

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

Exodor wrote:

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

This. So much this.

It's mostly academic, though. Democratic senators, outside of a couple like Manchin or Heitkamp, will feel obligated to filibuster Gorsuch, because if they don't, Democratic voters will absolutely lose their collective shit. McConnell's going to kill the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees, and he'll be confirmed.

Would be nice if we could just pack all the theatre into one vote. "Pretend that you said this, then I'll pretend that I said the other thing..."

Defiant wrote:

Exodor wrote:

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

This. So much this.

I don't think he should either. I'm just not certain I'd be for blowing the last remaining vestige of minority protection over this particular nomination.

geezer wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Exodor wrote:

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

This. So much this.

I don't think he should either. I'm just not certain I'd be for blowing the last remaining vestige of minority protection over this particular nomination.

McConnell already said that he would get rid of the filibuster against SCOTUS nominees if the democrats filibustered, *before* the nominee was announced. So...the filibuster protection is not really worth worrying about.

McConnell has proven to be interested only in power and winning. There is no filibuster anymore, practically speaking.

Let the Democrats fight to the end -- and make sure the nominee is on record about being willing to curb Presidential powers and force the US Marshals to obey court orders.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 3966656512

We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

Kraken wrote:We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

You're probably right, and the outcome is foreordained anyway.

It shouldn't be be smooth sailing, though. At the very least, we should use the confirmation hearing to show where Trump's actions and intentions violate the Constitution and betray American values. Make this last a long time.

The Dems should dig for dirt, but not finding any they should treat him kindly, and confirm him swiftly, while making two points during his confirmation

1. Rule of Law is more important than partisan points.
2. Those that sacrifice liberty for "security" deserve neither.

Holman wrote:

Kraken wrote:We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

You're probably right, and the outcome is foreordained anyway.

It shouldn't be be smooth sailing, though. At the very least, we should use the confirmation hearing to show where Trump's actions and intentions violate the Constitution and betray American values. Make this last a long time.

There's going to be a fight anyway. First, if democrats don't make a show of opposing Gorsuch, Democratic voters are going to lose their collective shit. Second, as the Republicans have unfortunately shown, the opposition needs to make a show of opposing almost everything in order to attach controversy to the President and make things difficult both in the short term and come election time.

El Guapo wrote:
There's going to be a fight anyway. First, if democrats don't make a show of opposing Gorsuch, Democratic voters are going to lose their collective shit.

Which sucks, because the smart thing to do would be to vote the guy in. He's going in anyway, and fighting him will just allow the Republicans to rewrite the procedures in a way that benefits them. Right now, Trump is at the height of his popularity ( ). Pick your fights. Save the final filibuster in Supreme Court confirmation history until a time when Trump's support isn't so strong.

Kraken wrote:We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

I would agree, there were several "bomb throwers" on the list that Trump could have chosen but didn't. There's a lot of outrageous stuff that Trump has done and will do. I'm afraid if you pour a lot of effort into this, people are just going to get fatigue. To be honest, I'm already tired mentally and emotionally from all of Trump's stuff and it's only been 10 days or so. One can only take so much before they are just numbed (which I think is part of his strategy). Let's save our efforts for the real battles that need to be fought.

While I don't even know if it matters at this point, opposing Trump's pick based on on ideology isn't the point. The pick should be opposed because it wasn't his to make. The fact that a hearing for Garland was outright ignored for 9+ months is disgusting. To be able to ignore the process without any repercussions? That's how you sow apathy - because what's the point in doing anything if the elected officials just get to do whatever it is they want when it's convenient? Without addressing what just happened over the last year, it's going to continue to happen the next time an appointment is made and the tit-for-tat cycle will never end. Individuals need to be held accountable, period.

They won't be held accountable, regardless of what we do. We have one good card available, and this hand is one that is 100% unwinnable. A future hand may be winnable. Save the card.

Good strategy Trumps symbolic last stands.

Blackhawk wrote:They won't be held accountable, regardless of what we do. We have one good card available, and this hand is one that is 100% unwinnable. A future hand may be winnable. Save the card.

Good strategy Trumps symbolic last stands.

It's not a good card, though. The SCOTUS nominee filibuster is dead letter - it will be abolished as soon as it matters. The only question is whether the democrats force McConnell to pay the political price for casting it aside (small though it will be), or whether the next democratic majority leader has to do it the next time they're trying to confirm a democratic SCOTUS nominee.

I have no idea what the "political price" could be. If the last year taught us anything, it's that all the obstructionism of the Republicans worked out perfectly for them. Most voters didn't seem to give a shit and I'm not very confident they will care now (or, at least, the voters that voted for Trump/Republicans).

Kraken wrote:We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

+1

It's also wrong, ideologically. The Republicans had no basis whatsoever to deny Garland a hearing and vote. It was a complete and total dereliction of duty. I won't be happy to see Democrats try to obstruct Gorsuch now (other than on sound and principled objections to his fitness). Not only would it be futile, it would be equally wrong.