dagblog - Comments for "Ruth B Ginsburg is Dead"

Harvard Law School sez:

artappraiser — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 03:57:29 +0000

Harvard Law School sez:

pic.twitter.com/6grKomzAGc
— Harvard Law School (@Harvard_Law) September 19, 2020

JUST IN: Supreme Court honors

artappraiser — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:44:44 +0000

JUST IN: Supreme Court honors Ginsburg with black crepe and lowered flags. See more photos from the Supreme Court here: https://t.co/EdcmLZZcvY pic.twitter.com/qhYhxKCunK
— The Hill (@thehill) September 20, 2020

Is the essence of great legal

artappraiser — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 20:10:09 +0000

In reply to RBG vs Trump's amateurs

Is the essence of great legal scholarship.

I am fond of looking for exactly that when we have a surprising ruling in the recent past that doesn't cut along partisan lines. There is usually some great legal scholarship involved in convincing "the others" to look at a case with a new perspective. Usually find it!

RBG vs Trump's amateurs

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 19:35:39 +0000

In reply to Ruth B Ginsburg is Dead

RBG vs Trump's amateurs

(yes, RBG argued Sprogis in 1971 so that stewardesses couldn't be fired because they got married - an early step on a long list of leveling the playing field so that women weren't just fuck bunnies. But still, pack the courts and administration with a bunch of ignorant unqualified losers, the lesser known relevant cases may be lost & ignored)

Why should the SG know this 7th Circuit case? Because it articulated many of the principles that the Supreme Court later adopted in Price Waterhouse (see below from our brief). If you don't know Sprogis, you don't know Price Waterhouse. pic.twitter.com/nnH1QqQc4f
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) October 8, 2019

I think Lulu meant the answer

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:54:00 +0000

In reply to The constitution doesn't set

I think Lulu meant the answer is more, "No, not really, you'd likely have to wait for existing members at time of change to die off to get down too the new figure, as there's no mechanism in the Constitution to remove an SCJ (aside from impeachment?)"

It *might* be possible to completely disband the existing Supreme Court and create a "new and improved" SJ 2.0 with an arbitrary number of members (at least 1, the Chief Justice) since the Constitution just says there can only be 1 Supreme Court, and there's precedent for courts being disbanded.

“Flood of Love: Tributes pour

artappraiser — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 06:38:23 +0000

In reply to Ruth B Ginsburg is Dead

“Flood of Love: Tributes pour in for New York's legal legend” — @NYDailyNews on RBG pic.twitter.com/5FhUjhkXkT
— Mohamad Bazzi (@BazziNYU) September 20, 2020

I see right wing social media

artappraiser — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 04:28:19 +0000

In reply to Ruth B Ginsburg is Dead

I see right wing social media agitators attacking Romney, Collins & Murkowski on SCOTUS replacment. Examples:

1. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney don't run this country. If they want to leave open the possibility that a Democrat might appoint the next Supreme Court justice, their constituents should punish them at the ballot box.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 19, 2020

Lisa Murkowski is the Mitt Romney of Mitt Romneys.
— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) September 19, 2020

We don’t need @SenatorCollins

We don’t need @lisamurkowski

We don’t need @MittRomney

We can lose all 3 RINOs and still confirm the SCOTUS pick

Our great @VP would be the tie breaker
— Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) September 19, 2020

I don't see this with the Fox News talking heads yet though (i.e., Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson), they are sticking with culture wars and blue city government dysfunction for now

Lincoln Project's formal

artappraiser — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 04:16:11 +0000

In reply to Ruth B Ginsburg is Dead

Lincoln Project's formal statement on replacement:

Under no circumstances should a nomination go forward in the United States Senate.

Our full statement: pic.twitter.com/OP9qhP4IeS
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) September 19, 2020

The constitution doesn't set

ocean-kat — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 04:15:45 +0000

In reply to Maybe there is a codified

The constitution doesn't set the number of justices. Congress can easily change that number with legislation that the president signs. But removing a justice that has been appointed for life is much more difficult. While the number of justices has been changed several times over the years none have ever been removed. I suspect that it would be found unconstitutional to remove a supreme court justice except by impeachment. I doubt that either party would attempt such a thing.

Maybe there is a codified

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:43:14 +0000

In reply to yes but likely you couldn't

Maybe there is a codified method but an answer of "yes" is hardly justified if you cannot answer how. Having an even number of Supremes after the death of one and dealing with the potential problems of that until another dies does not seem a workable way to reduce the number.