b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 ACB: don't expect the court to help you, at all, for anything 100% chance she falls in the conservative line on voting rights and other related issues where you ultimately don't have the chance to hold the other branches accountable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 lol projection from 2013 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Not really important, but I’ve heard the McConnell scheme of denying confirmations to an opposition president and then filling seats when his party has the White House as “Court Stacking” and I kinda like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Not really important, but I’ve heard the McConnell scheme of denying confirmations to an opposition president and then filling seats when his party has the White House as “Court Stacking” and I kinda like it. I'm not disagreeing but to be fair, it wasn't just Mitch! It was Republicans like Ron johnson, Cruz, etc who wouldn't sign their blue slips back when Dems had the Senate so that appeals and circuit court judges seats were unfilled until trump took over, a norm that was not given to the democrats when the shoe was on the other foot. These people are playing Calvinball with norms to achieve their ideological goal: an explicitly conservative tribunal of last resort with lifetime appointments so they can make the hard decisions of striking down popular but un-"conservative" positions like environmental regulations and laws(specifically but not exclusively), medicare and social security, the right to choose generally, protection for pre-existing conditions, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaljedi Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 20 hours ago, Jason said: I get tired of people bitching about ageism. At some point you really shouldn't have a ton of responsibility over other people. After 65 or 70 you've definitely lost a step and are probably having a hard time keeping up with today, and I really think there needs to be an age cap of 70 for all government positions, elected or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 18 minutes ago, finaljedi said: I get tired of people bitching about ageism. At some point you really shouldn't have a ton of responsibility over other people. After 65 or 70 you've definitely lost a step and are probably having a hard time keeping up with today, and I really think there needs to be an age cap of 70 for all government positions, elected or not. @CitizenVectrondoesnt canada have an age 75 limit for judges, but otherwise it's a lifetime appointment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 ^my feeling on pete. He's 100% right here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 2 hours ago, sblfilms said: Not really important, but I’ve heard the McConnell scheme of denying confirmations to an opposition president and then filling seats when his party has the White House as “Court Stacking” and I kinda like it. I think it’s incredibly important. It’s how Biden and Democratic leaders should pivot on the question of court packing, every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 21 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: and there it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I mean, McCain really was shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said: I mean, McCain really was shit. But he insisted Obama isn't a Muslim that one time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cusideabelincoln Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: ACB: don't expect the court to help you, at all, for anything 100% chance she falls in the conservative line on voting rights and other related issues where you ultimately don't have the chance to hold the other branches accountable Fuck everything in that opening statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 3 hours ago, finaljedi said: I get tired of people bitching about ageism. At some point you really shouldn't have a ton of responsibility over other people. After 65 or 70 you've definitely lost a step and are probably having a hard time keeping up with today, and I really think there needs to be an age cap of 70 for all government positions, elected or not. I’m instituting a new rule after this election. I’m not voting for anyone 70+. I’d even prefer to not vote for anyone 60+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said: He means six. Scalia’s seat would still be empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, MarSolo said: He means six. Scalia’s seat would still be empty. Kennedy wouldn't have been blackmailed into retirement doe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jason said: Kennedy wouldn't have been blackmailed into retirement doe. Or kennedy, a republican, wanted to have his successor chosen by a republican president and confirmed byaa republican Senate. That's why he retired before the midterms just in case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Or kennedy, a republican, wanted to have his successor chosen by a republican president and confirmed byaa republican Senate. That's why he retired before the midterms just in case! Yes but either way we have 7, not 6, under president Hillary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 30 minutes ago, Jason said: Kennedy wouldn't have been blackmailed into retirement doe. Yikes, I completely forgot about his retirement. Ah, imagine having no Brett Kavanugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 RBG would have retired if Hillary had won though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I’m starting a petition to have Chuck launched into the sun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: @CitizenVectrondoesnt canada have an age 75 limit for judges, but otherwise it's a lifetime appointment? Correct. Federal judges must retire at 75, and some provinces have a limit of 70 for provincial courts. However, judicial appointments here are far less partisan to begin with (and none are elected), and the nomination process is typically handled by legal/scholar groups separate from the government. So the Prime Minister will typically give general advice on what they are looking for (and there are rules on the composition of certain federal courts, such as having representation from both common law and civil courts), for example you want at least one expert on maritime law, someone who knows something about criminal matters, some who have been prosecutors, some who have been professors, etc. So the PM says what they want, the nomination group finds people willing, suggests a handful who are qualified, and the PM selects their choice. There is obviously an element of ideology (Liberal PMs will choose someone who has ruled more progressively, etc), but the people who are recommended tend to all be pragmatic nominations who are highly respected. Canada's legal community also tends to be quite a bit more liberal to begin with compared to the US. There is rarely any contention at all. In fact, the only I am aware of was when Stephen Harper tried to do an end-run around the process, making requests that (as it turns on in retrospect) narrowed the field to guarantee one certain person made the list (the person was highly partisan, and conservative, no coincidence). However, once they were appointed, there was outcry within the legal community as they actually didn't meet the legal requirements set forth in the constitution. The person being appointed at that time had to be experienced in civil law from Quebec, but this person actually sat on a federal Quebec court, meaning they didn't meet the requirement (as I remember it). So there was a lawsuit, it went to the Supreme Court, and the court itself ruled that its newest member could not sit on the court (he of course recused himself in the vote). Stephen Harper then nominated a well-respected judge who, while conservative, was non-controversial. So overall our system works quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 what a piece of shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Oh! Well, carry on then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Mushmouth Grassley couldn't talk very well this morning for the ACB hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 i can't believe they're going with this bullshit excuse of why she apparently won't repeal the ACA in a few weeks. Actually I can, but it's just so transparently stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Leahy speaking now. He's not being very persuasive. I think it's good to point out these people who may lose coverage if the ACA is overturned, but Leahy is the wrong person to tell their story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 beautiful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 I would guess he has tested negative since, no? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Joe said: I would guess he has tested negative since, no? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 A bunch of them were talking about breaking quarantine if they needed to in order to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.