SCOTAL Itch

[The Man]

Kennedy has been awful lately, true, but he certainly wasn't going to overturn his own landmark decisions on gay rights, and he was at least squishy on abortion rights rather than an outright reactionary. This is awful news no matter how it's drawn.

[Kyuss Apollo]

[Zehava]

He's always got the stupid smug look on his face. Makes me want to punch him.

[The Man]

The appropriate term is Backpfeifengesicht. The Germans have a term for almost everything. I'm not sure he outdoes Ted Cruz in the Backpfeifengesicht department, though.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Walker Bragman

Progressives and Democrats should be focusing on the election in 2020 because 1) it is a census year — meaning the makeup of the House of Representatives for the following decade will depend on down-ballot voting — and 2) there may be openings on the Supreme Court.
[...]
I’m Not Afraid of Donald Trump [emphasis in original]
[...]
Finally, let's talk about the Supreme Court.

We have no way of predicting who Trump would appoint, but we can speculate with Hillary Clinton. While she has said that her litmus test for nominees will be commitment to overturning Citizens United v. FEC, there is little reason to trust her given how much she benefits from the current campaign finance system that is a product of that ruling and others. Clinton's reliance on dark money and coordination with super PACs, along with her lack of serious discussion and failure to prioritize this issue belie her promise to reform.

This is the single most important, and inclusive problem today because it affects our ability to deal with every other issue. It is also the one area Democrats are not necessarily better than Republicans. President Barack Obama's recent Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, is one of the judges responsible for the disastrous SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling which gave us Super PACs, and upheld Citizens United. Trump has talked about appointing additional Scalias.
[...]
In the end, it is doubtful that the more negative aspects of Trump's platform will ever come to pass. In 2016, the lesser-of-two-evils is not so clear.

Fuck this guy. And fuck any dumb piece of shit who promoted this piece or similar thinking.
For example, fuck this guy:

Originally Posted by davidm

The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016

I will add that I think Trump, if elected, will do nothing to impede gay or transgender rights and will not appoint Scalias to the Supreme Court. All his rhetoric suggesting he will do such stuff is malarky to gull the rubes

Not the only examples of this, but the easiest for me to find off the top of my head/don't involve like, Facebook stalking and blurring out real names or extensive Twitter history searches. But I saw it many other places.

"Hillary isn't going to appoint someone to overrule Citizens United, so who cares anyway?" (Also don't ask them for evidence of that other than "she works within the campaign finance laws we have instead of unilaterally disarming" and "I don't like her" because they don't have it.)

"It's fearmongering and blackmail to say that the GOP is going to ban abortion!"

Well, the swing vote on Roe v. Wade just announced retirement. When Gorsuch 2.0 is on the court, even the recent gay marriage decisions will be vulnerable.

Conservatives are willing to hold their noses and vote for all sorts of assholes and idiots because they want those court seats. Lefties whine if you bring it up. We see which strategy is paying more dividends.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm sure McConnell will stick to his principles and insist that no confirmation hearings be held until after the November elections. After all, as he has so eloquently claimed in the past, it would be against the will of the American people to hold confirmation hearings less than a year before an election.


Surely, he'll remember and stick to those principles, right? Right?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Or hold onto that to try to make that MAGA turnout in November is the thirst for a SCOTUS seat.

h/t:

Just so you heard it here first:

Don't be surprised if talk soon shifts to Repubs potentially slow-rolling the Kennedy replacement until after the midterms by choice to make them a referendum on control of the Supreme Court instead of on Trump's presidency.

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) June 27, 2018

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Surely, he'll remember and stick to those principles, right? Right?

Of course! But then again:

The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on @POTUS @realDonaldTrump’s nominee to fill this vacancy. We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall.

~ Mitch McConnell (R-shitnozzle)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Man

Kennedy has been awful lately, true, but he certainly wasn't going to overturn his own landmark decisions on gay rights, and he was at least squishy on abortion rights rather than an outright reactionary. This is awful news no matter how it's drawn.

10-4 on gay rights. Kennedy did more to advance the law in that regard than any other person in U.S. history.

There were a couple of things going on in that Masterpiece Cakeshop case. First and foremost, some utterly moronic statements from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, statements dripping with anti-religion animus, allowed the Court to take the easy way out and find a Free Exercise Clause violation. It's almost impossible to make a FEC stick, but the dumbass bureaucrats whose actions were at issue gave the majority an easy out that also let them avoid the rather tangled Speech Clause issues presented in that case.

The second thing is ongoing lack of comfort with test the courts use to decide FEC clause cases. The test dates back to a 1990 SCOTUS case (Scalia wrote the majority opinion) that was widely criticized by scholars and politicians all over the political/ideological spectrum as making it way too hard to prove a FEC violation. The outrage was sufficiently intense that it led to passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which in turn led to the 2014 Hobby Lobby abomination discussed upthread. SCOTUS doesn't really want to overrule the 1990 case and open a floodgate of dipshit FEC litigation, but majority of justices don't much like how narrow the test is.

But then Kennedy wrote that utterly feckless concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii:

In all events, it is appropriate to make this further observation. There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects. The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even comment upon what those officials say or do. Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.

In other words, "We're powerless to do anything about it, but please Mr. President Donald Trump, pretty please with sugar on top, try to be a bit less Donald Trump-like plzkthx."

That's what you want for your swan song? That's how you want to go out? Jesus H. Donkey-Blowing Christ.

Also, @ hateful anti-religion statements of lolorado bureaucrats are outcome-determinative, but hateful anti-religion statements of POTUS don't count (or at least don't count enough to make a difference).

[Stephen Maturin]

Looks like Judges Thomas Hardiman and Brett Kavanaugh are the finalists. They're both 53 years old, and (along with 50-year-old Neil Gorsuch) will allow Trump to forcibly cornhole the U.S. citizenry from beyond the grave, as Rehnquist did for Nixon.

[Stephen Maturin]

Kavanaugh it is. Those who were paying attention during Shrub's first term will recognize Kavanaugh as the 38-year-old GOP partisan hack nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia with zero judicial or litigation experience. His principal accomplishment at the time was playing a prominent role in authoring every Republican's favorite clown-punching material, the Starr Report.

On another malodorous note, this'll be 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices nominated by presidents who at one time or another failed to get 50% of the popular vote (Ginsburg and Breyer by Clinton, Roberts and Alito by Shrub,1 Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump).

1 Shrub appointed Roberts and Alito after the 2004 election, in which he got just over 50% of the popular vote. However, he got substantially less than half the popular vote when he was originally "elected" in 2000.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

When my nephew was only about two, he would sometimes poop in his diaper and then fish out a handful to show you his handiwork.

He has passed that baton to the New York Times Opinion page. https://t.co/AOSM2QqycJ

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) July 10, 2018

Bonus:

Breaking: #SCOTUS

Trump to appoint Brett Kavanaugh to SCOTUS seat vacated by Justice Kennedy's retirement.

Kavanaugh previously asserted a sitting POTUS couldn't be subpoenaed or indicted.

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) July 10, 2018

[The Man]

ME: "Did Justice Anthony Kennedy's son Justin, at Deutsche Bank, Putin/Trump's favorite one-stop-shop for money-laundering, spot Brett Kavanaugh the cash to suddenly pay off all his enormous credit card debt last year?"

MAGIC 8 BALL: "Outlook good."https://t.co/fMQHP6BOFs

— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) July 12, 2018

I leave writing a punchline as an exercise for the reader.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Unsurprising thrad of interest:

Remember that meeting where McConnell refused to sign the bipartisan statement calling out Russian interference in the 2016 elections?

Well, the July 24 meeting where GOP senators agreed not to ask for three years of Brett Kavanaugh's papers might be that kind of hinge moment.

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) August 18, 2018

[The Man]

The indispensable Charles Pierce on the current farce in the Senate:

Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Is a Farce - Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse Takes It to Republicans

There isn't a sliver of legitimacy to any of this.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Kavanaugh just referred to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs," which is not only an anti-science lie, it's an anti-choice extremist phrase that shows that our right to access both abortion and contraception would be in SERIOUS danger if he is confirmed. #StopKavanaugh pic.twitter.com/TWqaU0YjmH

— NARAL (@NARAL) September 6, 2018

Senator Leahy, in devastating fashion, outlines how Kavanaugh has misled the committee about receiving stolen documents and collaborating with the guy who stole them, Manny Miranda pic.twitter.com/Je3EHaq8go

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 6, 2018

Holy shit

Cornyn reads a rule saying "any senator...who discloses the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the senate" shall be expelled or dismissed from the senate

Booker looks him dead in the eye and says, "Bring it." pic.twitter.com/eOdx2Z1RST

— Melanie Schmitz (@MelsLien) September 6, 2018

[The Man]

Maddow’s reporting on Kavanaugh has been absolutely essential. Here she breaks down the Democrats’ strategy in the confirmation hearings (demonstrating convincingly that it genuinely is a strategy), and a surprising thing I’ve gotten from this is that there’s actually a nonzero chance that Senator Waterboy might actually be persuadable as a no vote. It’s a very low chance, but it’s not zero.

Call your Senators.

Democrats Aim for Potential Cracks in GOP Support...

…also this, which I haven’t yet watched:

Overlap in Brett Kavanaugh Nomination, Trump...

Lastly, the more I see Harris on the teevee, the more I want her to be our next president. There are a few other candidates who could still persuade me, but holy fuck, she’s good.

[erimir]

(Who's "Senator Waterboy"?)

[The Man]

Rubio. A reference to his infamous water break.

Marco Rubio Pauses Speech for Water Break -...

I have a habit of using derogatory nicknames for him, and I thought I’d used that one often enough that people would’ve picked up on it, but it was probably still my bad for not explaining it. (The context was actually probably in my original post, as I’d actually written something about calling his office tomorrow, but then I changed that to a general instruction to everyone to call their senators, which eliminated the context, so I should’ve just been more careful with my revision process.)

[BrotherMan]

Harris/Booker 2020

[Zehava]

The only way Sen. Booker's response could have been better is if he were to stand up, throw his arms out to his side and yell, "Bring it, bitch!"

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Alternately, make a kissy face and say, "Oh honey, bring it."

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

LOL

��BREAKING: A criminal complaint and judicial ethics complaint are being filed against Kavanaugh for perjury in Congressional testimony — and LOOK WHO’S REVIEWING IT!

Happy Saturday, everyone!#MerrickGarland #CancelKavanaugh #StopKavanaugh #BlockBrett pic.twitter.com/fpZhqrz6QX

— Kristin Mink (@KristinMinkDC) September 8, 2018

welp

Only the government can file a federal criminal complaint. You can send something you label a criminal complaint, but you’re basically cosplaying, kind of like a sovereign citizen. These are serious times. Try to be more serious, dipshit. https://t.co/9ohgpoVETU

— TreasonHat (@Popehat) September 8, 2018

[chunksmediocrites]

Confidential emails reveal Kavanaugh wanted to make author of Bush-era torture memo a judge
Best subtitle ever*:

On the other hand, Kavanaugh is a very good carpool dad.

In case anyone needs a reminder on who John Yoo is:

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo had written legal opinions, including co-writing the Torture Memo of August 1, 2002, that narrowly defined torture and American habeas corpus obligations. They authorized what were called enhanced interrogation techniques and were issued to the CIA. In addition, at the time the OLC issued a new definition of torture. Most actions that fall under the international definition did not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.

In addition, on March 14, 2003, Yoo wrote a legal opinion memo in response to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, in which he concluded that torture not allowed by federal law could be used by interrogators in overseas areas.

If only someone named Obama and the Democratic administration had held torturers accountable, instead of giving them a pass, maybe it wouldn't be so difficult for Democrats to point this out. Right. Now.


*Referencing this op-ed: why, why, why, why is this fucking relevant, Julie O'Brien and Washington Post? Democracy dies in darkness indeed, motherfuckers.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Since saying "this is not normal" has become the new normal, I thought it would be helpful to have a list of things we now know about #Kavanaugh that we didn't know about nominees going as far back as... Neil Gorsuch:
* He lied to Congress
* He was forwarded emails entitled "SPYING" and claims he didn't know what they were about.
* He was on email chains that included racist jokes, and said nothing.
* He was willing to accept "interim" racial profiling
* He's advised presidents that Affirmative-action is a "racial set aside"
* He advised presidents how to give the SG the appearance of independence, while arguing for a unitary exec.
* He didn't think Nixon could be indicted
* He doesn't think any President can be indicted
* Except Bill Clinton
* He doesn't think Roe is "settled law."
* He called birth control "abortion inducing drugs."
* He won't answer questions on torture.
* He was prepped by a law firm that also handled the President's defense against the Mueller investigation
* He won't rebuke the President for his attacks on the judiciary.
* He has some kind of baseball ticket habit that he cannot afford.
* And he started the whole hearing, making up a "precedent" which has no basis in text or law which he exclusively uses to not answer Qs from Dems
Gorsuch was a more "normal" nominee than Kavanaugh, and all Gorsuch was trying to do was fill a seat stolen for him by unprecedented obstruction from the Republican party.

Thread by @ElieNYC: "Since saying "this is not normal" has become the new normal, I thought it would be helpful to have a list of things we now know about […]" #Kavanaugh