SCOTUS talk

[Mike]

Wow. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law DOES protect LGBTQ persons from discrimination. It was a 6-3 decision penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch who was joined by Chief Justice Robert's and the four "liberal" justices on the right side of history.

[Tahlvin]

As a parent of a trans child, I am thrilled! Loved reading the decision from Gorsuch!

Interestingly enough, I read a story that the whole reason "sex" was included in that part of the 1964 civil rights law was thanks to a white supremacist. At the time, workplace protections for women was even more controversial than protecting people of color. He requested that "sex" be added to the language of that section of the law, hoping it would result in more lawmakers voting against it and the law failing to pass. It failed, and sex was included in the final law that was passed. And now, 56 years later, that portion of the law allowed two conservative SCJ's to interpret the law as applying to sexual orientation and gender identity as well as just biological sex.

[Mike]

They also chose to pass on tackling qualified immunity for the next term. Boo! But they've chosen to let California's immigration law stand, saying that states are not required to do ICE's bidding.

[Phoebe]

Great day for liberty! It will be really interesting to see what happens now, like where other courts take this when tested. I haven't read the decision yet, looking forward to it. I have heard similar story to what Tahlvin said - amazing that in the 60s, adding "sex" would have been controversial enough to use as a ploy!

[Tahlvin]

It's also interesting that they didn't take up the 2nd amendment cases for the next session. The one story I read was that 4 justices is all it takes to get it on the docket, so the 4 ultraconservative justices could have forced the court to hear those cases. But they wouldn't do that unless they were sure they could get Roberts to side with them on the decision. So the fact that they didn't force the court to take on those cases may mean they did not think they would get Roberts to side with them, or there was at least enough doubt that he wouldn't side with them, so they were better off not taking the cases.

[Mike]

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/ ... tml#item-1

A good discussion of the various pressures on both sides of the aisle as well as the various levers at their disposal in the upcoming fight over RBG's replacement.

I am not a fan of court packing. That's my least favorite Dem option. My most favorite is the option of bringing in the Senate Parliamentarian (a position I didn't know existed) and suing in federal court over violation of established Senate precedent (a thing I didn't know could be done). The Dems should be doing everything they can to block a Trump nominee, but if trying it up in court delays it until after a new president is sworn in... fantastic! A tactic straight out of Trump's own playbook.

[Eliahad]

Please dear Goddess, I hope they can tie it up. My very first reaction at the loss of such an amazing Justice was literally, 'well, I guess this is the end of the American experiment.' I believe Democrats have to win this fight if we want to see any of the progressive change a majority of Americans want actually come to fruition.

[Kyle]

If the republicans think Donald Trump can win, then the smart move is to NOT make a nominee prior to the election (which could make the republicans holding the senate more precarious) and instead say to the conservatives that are leaning against Trump- "Vote Trump and we can finally overturn Roe v. Wade!"

But they're not doing that, they've already announced that they're going to try to rush a nominee through. Which means they don't think Trump is going to win, so they're going to take what they can get before he's out of office.

[Phoebe]

Or perhaps they decided that having a fight about the nomination, particularly a fight they're likely to lose, makes the election about something other than the Coronavirus and horrible natural disasters and a crumbling economy that conservatives can't quite detect because the stock market hasn't crashed. Trying to make it about Black lives matter was not really getting the job done, but "rioters" plus Supreme Court nominee hanging in the balance locks in every one of their voters who might have been tempted to go for Biden. I suspect they actually need this seat to overturn Roe v Wade, not to mention everything stemming from Griswold, and a bunch of voting rights and defendants' rights issues. I was doubting that Roberts would actually take all of it away, at least not until the threat of Trumpism had faded. I could be wrong but I think Roberts loathes Trump and is willing to stand up to him on certain things, though not everything. So they really do need a 6-3 locked in majority. If we had a functional Congress it wouldn't matter so much. On the other hand, when I was at the lowest despair point last night, I thought about the young people I know under 25, who are the most left-of-center group of young people I've ever encountered, generation-wise. Current events are very much radicalizing a generation, but maybe not in a good way because they don't think the mechanisms of democracy work anymore.

[Kyle]

Im not sure they’re wrong. At least with respect to how our democracy is functioning.

[Phoebe]

True, true, what worries me is that I don't think they're committed to the possibility that such mechanisms do work and can work.

[Phoebe]

So you know the only way Barrett gets the nod is if she has promised fealty to her master, in the event of a disputed election, and I cannot help but be fascinated at how a person like her does this. Does she do it simply to secure her place on the Court, assuming that the best outcome is for her to sit there over multiple decades regardless of what happens in the next four years? I.e. to reach the goal of saving the all the lives from abortion, you might need to break some moral-principle eggs along the road? Does she do it because she thinks Trump is an imperfect but useful instrument for ushering in the Kingdom of God? Is she plain ol' hypocritical, or not caring? In all of those cases, she knows there is a moral problem with what she has to do to curry favor with the master, but does it anyway, in a display of outcomes-based reasoning that is completely at odds with her supposed moral commitments. Yet the weirdest case of all is if she is actually morally consistent, and believes that Trump is Good or even OK! Is that possible? Do you think people like this truly believe it, in their hearts?

[Mike]

[Mike]

And I also don't think she approves of Trump's morals. I think she is where she is now because she was at the top of the Evangelical Council's short list, and Trump needed a woman this time. For her part, a position on the Supreme Court is offered, so she takes it. It's where she can do the most good from her perspective. Trump's character is not a factor in her decision. I mean, if Harvey Weinstein offers your charity $10 million, no strings attached, do you politely refuse it because he's a scumbag? No, you take it and do good with it in spite of him.

But I don't know, she might be one of those who sees Trump as the imperfect vessel of our salvation. Maybe.

[Phoebe]

I appreciate you for seeing the good in people, but I don't think it's much of a question whether he asked for her loyalty in the event of a disputed election, and secured it. Maybe she will betray him, who knows, but surely she gave him an understanding. The puzzle for me is how she could do that - either by explaining it away as consistent with her moral principles, or knowing that it violated them? Which is it?

We weren't in the room, we cannot know for sure. So why am I so sure? First, because this is what Trump does, as many people from Comey on down have reported from firsthand experience. He expects loyalty and he is not shy about asking for it - he does this even when he knows that doing so breaks the law. He's like a crime boss and that's the primary organizational value.

Second, he needs something from her, something he cannot get without that assurance of being willing to play ball for his team. He has repeatedly stated his expectation that the court will need to rule on things related to this election. He does not give two cold craps about abortion - she handily checks the box of appealing to his base, as everyone expects her to be fully far-right conservative on almost any issue except the death penalty, so that's good enough. The only thing he actually cares about is himself, and not losing, and psychologically this is not a person who plays by normal rules or could manage to restrain himself from demanding the thing he wants from her. So, what are the odds he didn't? I place them very, very low.

That's how I arrive at, why did she agree, or at least give him a comfortable impression of agreeing? I am wondering whether people like this sleep at night comfortably because they're psycho, or because hypocrites, or because feel they are doing God's will in whatever odd way it may have to happen? Or does she not sleep well at night, but she feels she had to make this choice for the higher purpose? It's a mystery of human life to me.

I agree with you that she probably disapproves of his morals, but these women who believe in the need of being ruled are very, very strange, so there's no telling what she believes if she mistakes this man for a masterful alpha male. Part of my curiosity stems from the fact that so many people I used to know and even love have utterly lost their minds over Trump and Trumpism. They do not grasp what it means to be a man, so they think he qualifies as a good one.

[Mike]

Trump has been happy giving conservative evangelicals free run of the Supreme Court picks. He's fulfilling a promise to them, so he gives them what they want. His people prevented him from getting a meeting with Lagoa, because the decision makers on this issue had already settled on Barrett, and they were worried that a face-to-face with Lagoa would distract him. One on one, Trump very much wants to tell people what they want to hear, so they were worried he'd make promises they didn't want to follow through on. I don't see evidence that Trump is instrumental in his Supreme Court picks or that he is passionate about them beyond pleasing the right and pissing off the left. I dont believe he asked for such a pledge. I know he famously prizes loyalty, but I also think he just assumes that anyone he picks is automatically going to be loyal to him, even though Gorsuch and Cavanaugh have both ruled against his interests on occasion.

Your base assumption that you've built everything else on is that ACB absolutely gave Trump the equivalent of a loyalty pledge, and I feel that the evidence of that is circumstantial at best.

None of this changes her being bad for the court and the nation, btw.

[Kyle]

She can only pledge loyalty to her husband, who is her “master” under that far right religious group she’s in.

[akiva]

[Phoebe]

[Mike]

Senator: Would you respect established precedent?

Nominee: I would not seek to overturn "superprecedents", which are precedents that are so well established that they are no longer questioned. Anything else is on the table.

Great. So you refuse to overturn anything that no one is challenging. How brave and informative. A bold stance.