The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread

nsacpi said:
Since states make laws governing elections (within a framework set forth in the constitution) isn't it a form of judicial activism for the four justices voting to review this case not to defer to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case?
Click to expand...

They aren't deciding the case on its merits in determining whether or not to issue a stay. The analysis is different. To support a stay you have to show:

1- There's a "reasonable probability" that four Justices will agree to grant cert
2- There's a "fair prospect" that a majority of the SCOTUS will agree the lower court's decision was wrong
3- Irreparable harm will result from denying the stay
4- In a close case the justice weighs the relative harms to the parties and the interests of the public

What's interesting here is that, unless I'm wrong and I'll admit the internal workings of SCOTUS stays isn't something I'm an expert on, Alito could have issued the stay alone. Justices are each assigned federal circuits. Requests coming from their circuits are directed to them. The justice can then either issue the order themselves or refer the case to the full court in which case five votes are required. If the Justice issues the stay themselves the losing party can request the case be referred to the full court but such a request is rarely granted.

My guess is the justices generally agree not to decide big issues like a stay in this case alone. So Alito referred to the full court. The most likely element not met is the "Fair Prospect" of success.
 
I'd honestly be shocked if the SCOTUS, even with ACB strikes down the ACA in this case. They might kill the individual mandate but since it's currently a penalty of $0 that's no big deal.
 
fe572b1c56cb3bf203911754d4c195b6d39ed3eb.jpg
 
goldfly said:
[tw]1319268831924203520[/tw]
Click to expand...

I will again assert that we need a new constitutional amendment. It would have two sections. The first section would set the SCOTUS at 9 judges. The second section would state that all article 3 judges nominated by the President must be either confirmed or rejected by a majority vote of the full Senate within 120 days from the date of their official nomination or else they are deemed confirmed.

We need to put a stop to this nonsense of holding up federal judges
 
I agree, the problem is timing. It would be a hard sell to Democrats after the shenanigans of the last 4 years. Republicans I think would never agree to it unless a Republican was President or they believe they are about to get the Presidency. Democrats would probably be the same.
 
57Brave said:
fe572b1c56cb3bf203911754d4c195b6d39ed3eb.jpg
Click to expand...

Come on 57, you have to realize how silly that is. You could just as easily put pictures up there of ACB as Wonder Woman defending babies from attack and a picture of Ginsburg stomping on babies. Both cartoons would have similar legitimacy.

But no one wants to admit how nuanced and without objective answer the question of what legal and moral duties we as a society owe to a fetus/embryo is. It's far easier to just assume your answer to what duties are owed is correct and then accuse anyone who disagrees with you of atrocities.
 
@EdMarkey
: "For originalists [like Barrett], LGBT stands for Let's Go Back in Time."

Amy Coney Barrett opposes marriage equality and believes Title X civil rights don't apply to transgender people (the Court said they did in June).
 
zitothebrave said:
Nope. That would take a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Congress cannot pass a law that ties the hands of future Congresses.

Court packing is an emotional reaction. It's turning over the game board because you started losing. It tends to be proposed by extreme wings of a party when they get mad at the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top