Trump outrage of the day

[Roadrunner53]

Wow, now Donny Boy says if Biden is voted in there will be no Christmas, just wow...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-owns-with-warning-about-biden_n_5f9a69bec5b6a4a2dc82501e

[OtherJen]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

[Roadrunner53]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

Hahaha, the only copy...far fetched to say the least! This isn't the 1940's anymore! Dog definitely ate his homework. Hahahahaha!

[talltexan]

In one of his projects, Trump appoints a crony from the logistics business to "slow-walk" mail so that mail-in ballots won't be able to be counted against him.

In a different project, he puts one of his most reliable attack dogs in charge of getting information that will make it obvious just how corrupt his opponent is.

The only problem: the attack dog wants to mail the documents to someone!

[OtherJen]

In one of his projects, Trump appoints a crony from the logistics business to "slow-walk" mail so that mail-in ballots won't be able to be counted against him.

In a different project, he puts one of his most reliable attack dogs in charge of getting information that will make it obvious just how corrupt his opponent is.

The only problem: the attack dog wants to mail the documents to someone!

It has all the hallmarks of a Very Stable Genius plan, for sure.

[Roadrunner53]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

[talltexan]

That's why he suggests supporters monitor polls in urban areas. That's why Gov. Abbott is making it harder to vote in very specific urban counties in Texas. City-dwellers overwhelmingly support democrats. You can use a good deal of geographic profiling because we are sorted by where we choose to live.

[nessness]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

Polls have shown more Democrats than Republicans plan to vote by mail. So by suppressing mail-in votes, sure, he'll lose some votes, but Biden will probably lose more, which could be enough to tip the scales in a close race.

[sherr]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

Polls have shown more Democrats than Republicans plan to vote by mail. So by suppressing mail-in votes, sure, he'll lose some votes, but Biden will probably lose more, which could be enough to tip the scales in a close race.

By almost a 3:1 margin (47% of Ds, 17% of Rs in this poll). So if he can suppress/invalidate/ignore 100k mail-in ballots in a state, then he has probably "gained" about 50k votes relative to where he would have been.

The exact percentages vary by the poll, but the trend is present in all of them. This is why the Republicans have been so dead-set on sabotaging mail-in voting and Trump has constantly been telling his voters to vote in person.

[nereo]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

[brandon1827]

I see what you're saying there...but Trump has spent months telling his supporters that the virus is overblown. Judging by the numbers of unmasked people at his rallies, I would assume that the virus won't be a deterrent to people who plan to vote for Trump. It will be more of a deterrent to people who take it seriously; which overwhelmingly seems to be Biden supporters.

[nereo]

I see what you're saying there...but Trump has spent months telling his supporters that the virus is overblown. Judging by the numbers of unmasked people at his rallies, I would assume that the virus won't be a deterrent to people who plan to vote for Trump. It will be more of a deterrent to people who take it seriously; which overwhelmingly seems to be Biden supporters.

I don't think we will have a clear sense of what impact these factors have had on voting for many months, and possibly years.  What I suggested above is just one of several, none of which are mutually exclusive.

Think of it this way.  Suppose you live in a town where - despite the President's rhetoric about "rounding the corner" - there has recently had some large outbreaks and the local authorities are saying the hospital is at 'critical capacity'.  Then suppose it's cold, rainy, miserable November day?  Will a small percentage (say, 1-2%) of 65+ decide "nah, this ain't worth standing in line for an hour?"  It's possible.  Given that the margin of victory was < 1% for multiple states in previous elections, 2% of voters not going to the polls on election day could certainly be the difference.

[talltexan]

Even if Trump cannot cover the distance to victory by suppressing the vote, it also helps strengthen the Republican resistance to a Biden administration by allowing them to claim the election was compromised enough to not adequately reflect the will of the people.

[bacchi]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

Hahaha, the only copy...far fetched to say the least! This isn't the 1940's anymore! Dog definitely ate his homework. Hahahahaha!

It'd be damned ironic if the (supposed) papers were lost in the mail.

The Trump campaign certainly didn't use the first-in-class crew to think of this plot.

[Just Joe]

It is amazing how hard the GOP has worked over the past decade to disenfranchise millions of people.

Don't want people to have healthcare. Don't want people to vote by any reasonable means possible. Want to persecute LGBTQ peoples.

And then all the lies that any reasonably intelligent people can see through.

Side note: We drove by a crowd of Trump flag waving supporters with a bullhorn the other evening. They were repeating discredited QAnon BS.

I think our country is screwed.

[nereo]

It is amazing how hard the GOP has worked over the past decade to disenfranchise millions of people.

Don't want people to have healthcare. Don't want people to vote by any reasonable means possible. Want to persecute LGBTQ peoples.

And then all the lies that any reasonably intelligent people can see through.

Side note: We drove by a crowd of Trump flag waving supporters with a bullhorn the other evening. They were repeating discredited QAnon BS.

I think our country is screwed.

Decade?  I'm amazed at how many decades the GOP has relied on supressing voter turnout.  This was a topic of discussion in my HS government class, which was 20 years ago.
It wasn't a new tactic then, either.

[Roadrunner53]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

[dandarc]

My first reaction is "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."

He only really has to put on a good show a couple of hours a day, right?

[Just Joe]

Decade?  I'm amazed at how many decades the GOP has relied on supressing voter turnout.  This was a topic of discussion in my HS government class, which was 20 years ago.
It wasn't a new tactic then, either.

I stand corrected. Good point. ;)

[bacchi]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

[sherr]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus?

I'm generally against conspiracy theories, especially ones that have literally zero evidence to support them, so yes I believe he had it. The president of the USA is going to get literally the best medical care that exists in the world. It's not at all surprising that he recovered, the surprising thing is that he was so sick for so long, which is just a testament to his general poor health.

[caracarn]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

So it is important when looking at these that people realize the group sizes are not the same

Also from Pew Research Democrats have always been larger than Republicans from the total pool of voters since 1995, after being basically equal in 1994.   so that 50% of Republicans who say they will vote on Election Day is a smaller number than 50% of Democrats would be.  Given that the total number of registered voters according to the Census data in 2020 is 152,666,000 that means there are 50 million Dems and 44 million Reps, a not insignificant difference.  Given that over 75 million people have voted already, we have 50% of registered voters already done.  This already puts the accuracy of the chart in question for me because I believe more people chose to get out early or vote by mail than said they would in this survey and given how bad the pandemic how gotten since this poll was taken that is not implausible or illogical.  All the GOP machine has been arguing against was not voting in person, not about not going on Election Day, so I would venture to guess that some of that 50% (and likely some of the 20% Democrats) have changed they minds and have or will vote early in person.  If we hit over 102 million voters before election day (which is not unlikely given the trend) we will clearly prove that 33% are NOT voting on Election Day.  We should also realize that we've never achieved, nor will we likely this time, 100%, so we should assume 90% as a reasonable high turnout which means once we exceed 92 million then this survey is wrong.

Even if things stay as this poll suggests, those 50% of Republicans are a bit under 20 million assuming 90% turnout and you still have over 9 million Democrats voting giving a possible swing of just 11 million votes in an election with 137 million votes likely to be cast, or a bit under 10%.  Given Biden's polling lead exceeds this I still am optimistic that the red ripple will not be enough. 

If Trump wins it will require and electoral college Royal Flush quite more improbable than the 2016 one he drew and those votes will need to show up in the right states.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

[Just Joe]

It probably comes down to just whipping up enthusiasm so that his supporters will actually go vote.

On the other hand, our local Trump flag wavers downtown also guarantee that DW and I will go vote against them.

You can't verbally assault us with a bunch of BS and expect we'll vote for your side. I'd happily walk or bicycle several miles to vote against Trump's universe. ;)

[nereo]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

I'm with bacci and sherr on this one.  Avoid conspiracy theories that have no supporting evidence, especially when they would require scores of people to lie and.  Generally groups of people are really bad at keeping secrets (gossip), and the large the group the more certain it will come out.

Regardless, even if it was a ploy, I'd say it backfired.  Trump's wanted for months to talk about anything other than the virus, and his infection meant it remained the primary subject all week. A common conclusion from the entire episode was that Trump & Co. unleashed a super-spreader event largely because they didn't take even rudimentary precautions.

[jrhampt]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

I'm with bacci and sherr on this one.  Avoid conspiracy theories that have no supporting evidence, especially when they would require scores of people to lie and.  Generally groups of people are really bad at keeping secrets (gossip), and the large the group the more certain it will come out.

Regardless, even if it was a ploy, I'd say it backfired.  Trump's wanted for months to talk about anything other than the virus, and his infection meant it remained the primary subject all week. A common conclusion from the entire episode was that Trump & Co. unleashed a super-spreader event largely because they didn't take even rudimentary precautions.

Yep.

[OtherJen]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

He needs the adulation (and the money from donations and merchandise sales). It's why he brags about his crowd sizes. He doesn't actually give a shit about them.

[caracarn]

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

There is really is no way to stop the president from holding these events.  Local authorities can restrict meeting somewhere (what happened recently) but then they get a random field for a supporter and then people are stuck in freezing cold with no way back to their cars because buses are blocked on two land roads clogged with traffic. 

Trump is really the only candidate to use these rallies in this volume.  It is all because of his drive for ratings and popularity.  His rhetoric is always, looks at the size of my crowds, just like the inauguration four years ago which he still grumbles about.  His rallies are much smaller than pre pandemic only getting a few thousand people.

I am not proud, but I have at times said they can keep doing them and kill off Trump voters.  Survival of the fittest.  When people are too dumb to look out for their own safety, "it is what it is" as their leader says.

What I do not get is he is so pissed off now that he is just speaking out loud on how he'd never be there if not needing their votes and he'll never be back again.  He's telling them to their face he does not like them but they do not understand, again going back to "if too dumb".... 

[Travis]

Someone should probably have stopped Trump...

This is the guy who ran on "I could shoot somebody in broad daylight and get away with it" and it worked.  His Chief of Staff and Secretary of State tease journalists with how easily and often they violate federal campaign laws and there's nobody to stop them.

[scottish]

As we're nearing the date of the presidential election, I found this retrospective on the current president on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KDBBaQrYA

[bacchi]

The Tucker story is getting more comical.

After receiving a lot of criticism for mailing the hard copies of "proof" to LA, he admitted later Wed. night that they did have copies.

After people asked why they mailed paper, instead of email or sftp or VPN cloud, he now claims that they scanned it, put it on a flash drive, and then mailed the flash drive. That's what was lost -- not "those documents" but a flash drive sent via UPS.

No explanation of what's on the "lost" flash drive yet. They must still be working on that part of the serial.

[Travis]

The Tucker story is getting more comical.

After receiving a lot of criticism for mailing the hard copies of "proof" to LA, he admitted later Wed. night that they did have copies.

After people asked why they mailed paper, instead of email or sftp or VPN cloud, he now claims that they scanned it, put it on a flash drive, and then mailed the flash drive. That's what was lost -- not "those documents" but a flash drive sent via UPS.

No explanation of what's on the "lost" flash drive yet. They must still be working on that part of the serial.

The year 2000 says hello.

[nereo]

As we're nearing the date of the presidential election...

Technically, the election will go on until at *least* December 14th.  And Congress won't certify it until January 6th. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

On Monday Trump said "vaccines are coming momentarily" a flagrant falsehood  for the reason that "momentarily" means imminently, very soon , in the next few minutes, etc.

[GuitarStv]

As we're nearing the date of the presidential election...

Technically, the election will go on until at *least* December 14th.  And Congress won't certify it until January 6th.

It's going to take a while for the Supreme Court to decide which legal and valid ballots cast for Democrats to throw out . . .

[nereo]

As we're nearing the date of the presidential election...

Technically, the election will go on until at *least* December 14th.  And Congress won't certify it until January 6th.

It's going to take a while for the Supreme Court to decide which legal and valid ballots cast for Democrats to throw out . . .

That's a possibility, but not what I was getting at.  In most elections, SCOTUS has declined to intervene with ballot counting/validation (though see Bush v Gore).
The electors don't meet until December 14th, which is technically when the victor is decided.

[Just Joe]

On Monday Trump said "vaccines are coming momentarily" a flagrant falsehood  for the reason that "momentarily" means imminently, very soon , in the next few minutes, etc.

Along with his healthcare alternative to the ACA?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

Seems rather disingenuous.

The constitution isn't at question here in any way.  The constitution does not elaborate the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court or the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.  As in the past, changing the number of Supreme Court justices would therefore not change 'constitutional constancy'.  This is an illogical argument.

I knew   that "constitutional constancy" is not relevant to  the number of justices on the Court because as you correctly posted,  the Constitution is silent as to their number.


You dismissed out of hand many concerns that the current packing of the court with conservative justices would impact abortion rights predominantly by arguing that conservative justices would use stare decisis to preserve decisions previously made. 

Whether predominantly liberal or conservative I do not think of any  Court of nine justices as a packed Court.


Why do you believe that the same would not be used by liberal leaning judges to protect the Citizens United decision that you are so attached to?
Fundamentally, your argument remains unchanged - that liberal judges are less trustworthy than conservative ones.  This is evidence of strong personal bias.

One of the reasons is that Roe has been reaffirmed "many times"  while Citizens United has not and is consistently opposed by the Court's liberal bloc.

"I will tell you what my view now is:[Roe] is an important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." I think Kavanaugh said this during his confirmation hearing.

Another reason is that the Court's conservative bloc has  consistently upheld the First Amendment's right of free speech.



In 2018, on Thanksgiving eve,  C.J. Roberts declared  "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Roberts deserves a scolding (I was of a mind to send him an admonitory  missive)  for insulting the  public's intelligence in general and  Court watchers' in particular for each  knows the Court has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc and that Roberts himself is  the swing vote  who joins in the opinions of either.


"The primary means to petition the Court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review."


"The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the petition is denied."

The justices do have their  predilections, liberal or conservative,   which   are an ingredient in the mix of considerations each of four justices weigh  when deciding to grant  certiorari or not.

I think it is fair to say that a Court packed with justices inclined to align themselves with the liberal bloc is at least a  Court that may tilt in favor of granting certiorari  in cases favorable to liberal causes and denying it in cases favorable to conservative causes.

[GuitarStv]

One of the reasons is that Roe has been reaffirmed "many times"  while Citizens United has not and is consistently opposed by the Court's liberal bloc.

"I will tell you what my view now is:[Roe] is an important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." I think Kavanaugh said this during his confirmation hearing.

Still seems rather disingenuous.  In 2003 Kaveneaugh wrote:

"I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so."

- https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/269-kavanaugh-email-re-whether-roe/e6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

By my current count, there now exist six Justices on the Court who would be happy to override Roe.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

[former player]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

If Democrats win the Presidency along with majorities in the House and Senate the Supreme Court will be looking isolated.  It will be interesting to see whether the strength of the right wing ideology on the court outweighs common sense.  If it does I would hope the Democrats expand the Supreme Court and the Federal District and Appeals courts to offset McConnell's court packing, and legislate on issues the court might reverse course on such as the right to provide abortion care, gay marriage and so on.

[nereo]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

If Democrats win the Presidency along with majorities in the House and Senate the Supreme Court will be looking isolated.  It will be interesting to see whether the strength of the right wing ideology on the court outweighs common sense.  If it does I would hope the Democrats expand the Supreme Court and the Federal District and Appeals courts to offset McConnell's court packing, and legislate on issues the court might reverse course on such as the right to provide abortion care, gay marriage and so on.

That's the thing about SCOTUS though.... with life-time appointments they're pretty much insulated from the other two branches, and impervious to the political drifts of the country at large.  One could make a compelling argument that SCOTUS en masse has been more conservative than the country as a whole for decades now.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

If Democrats win the Presidency along with majorities in the House and Senate the Supreme Court will be looking isolated.  It will be interesting to see whether the strength of the right wing ideology on the court outweighs common sense.  If it does I would hope the Democrats expand the Supreme Court and the Federal District and Appeals courts to offset McConnell's court packing, and legislate on issues the court might reverse course on such as the right to provide abortion care, gay marriage and so on.

 Under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause  in ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2:  "The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

If the Democrats maintain their majority in the House and win a majority in the Senate  they have the option of exercising their power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction instead of packing the Court.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

If Democrats win the Presidency along with majorities in the House and Senate the Supreme Court will be looking isolated.  It will be interesting to see whether the strength of the right wing ideology on the court outweighs common sense.  If it does I would hope the Democrats expand the Supreme Court and the Federal District and Appeals courts to offset McConnell's court packing, and legislate on issues the court might reverse course on such as the right to provide abortion care, gay marriage and so on.

That's the thing about SCOTUS though.... with life-time appointments they're pretty much insulated from the other two branches, and impervious to the political drifts of the country at large.  One could make a compelling argument that SCOTUS en masse has been more conservative than the country as a whole for decades now.

However one chooses to characterize the current Court it's a far cry from the Warren Court.

This is indisputable.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I really do wonder how far the minority in the country can go in imposing their will on the majority before the majority bring out the torches and pitchforks. Lately, we've started seeing signs that Americans are getting tired of having no voice and are starting to move away from peaceful methods of protest. If the situation continues, I expect protests to become much more violent and destructive.

If Democrats win the Presidency along with majorities in the House and Senate the Supreme Court will be looking isolated.  It will be interesting to see whether the strength of the right wing ideology on the court outweighs common sense.  If it does I would hope the Democrats expand the Supreme Court and the Federal District and Appeals courts to offset McConnell's court packing, and legislate on issues the court might reverse course on such as the right to provide abortion care, gay marriage and so on.

That's the thing about SCOTUS though.... with life-time appointments they're pretty much insulated from the other two branches, and impervious to the political drifts of the country at large.  One could make a compelling argument that SCOTUS en masse has been more conservative than the country as a whole for decades now.

Just wanted to chime in and say this was a very interesting thought that makes a lot of sense. Lifetime appointments lend themselves to the SC being more conservative than the population in general.

[talltexan]

Counterpoint: only Republican Presidents being allowed to appoint SCOTUS Justices leads to them being more conservative than the country in general.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Counterpoint: only Republican Presidents being allowed to appoint SCOTUS Justices leads to them being more conservative than the country in general.

Neither a president's nor a  justice's party affiliation is any  assurance of how they will rule once they're seated on the Court.

No justice's tenure on the Court more conclusively epitomizes  this verity than that of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

 "The Warren Court has been recognized by many to have created a liberal 'Constitutional Revolution.'"


Chief Justice Earl Warren was nominated by Republican President Eisenhower who later declared Warren's nomination was “the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made."

Wikipedia

Warren was born in 1891 in Los Angeles and was raised in Bakersfield, California. After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, he began a legal career in Oakland. He was hired as a deputy district attorney for Alameda County in 1920 and was appointed district attorney in 1925. He emerged as a leader of the state Republican Party and won election as the Attorney General of California in 1938

Earl Warren...served as the Republican Governor of California from 1943 to 1953 and Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969.

Warren is generally considered to be one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court justices and political leaders in the history of the United States.

 The Warren Court has been recognized by many to have created a liberal "Constitutional Revolution", which embodied a deep belief in equal justice, freedom, democracy and human rights.

In July 1974 after Warren died, Los Angeles Times commented that "Mr. Warren ranked with John Marshall and Roger Taney as one of the three most important chief justices in the nation’s history."

 In December 2006, The Atlantic cited Earl Warren as the 29th most influential person in the history of the United States and the second most influential Chief Justice, after John Marshall.

In September 2018, The Economist named Warren as "the 20th century’s most consequential American jurist" and one of "the 20th century's greatest liberal jurists".

[sherr]

Counterpoint: only Republican Presidents being allowed to appoint SCOTUS Justices leads to them being more conservative than the country in general.

Neither a president's nor a  justice's party affiliation is any  assurance of how they will rule once they're seated on the Court.

Well sure, that was probably true before the Republicans founded the Federalist Society to pre-vet all their judges so that they can be super duper sure that the only judges they nominate for anything are super-duper conservatives.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Counterpoint: only Republican Presidents being allowed to appoint SCOTUS Justices leads to them being more conservative than the country in general.

Well sure, right now in this particular instance. In general, though, Republicans appointing "reliable conservative" justices hasn't really happened at least to Republican satisfaction until very recently. Before, Democrats appointed the Ginsbergs who were reliably progressive and Republicans were, again from a Republican standpoint, hit or miss. Sure, you had a Scalia but you also had a Kennedy. Sure you had a Thomas, but you also had a real flip flop with Souter. So, if we're talking about a general trend over years of conservative justices, having Republican presidents appoint them has been no real indicator of solid conservative justices. I think nereo's point is much more valid from an overall point of view.

[FIPurpose]

No, the GOP donors have been extremely happy with all of their justice picks, including Kennedy. They all vote the right way on any vote that affects their pocketbook, and the swinging vote on social issues from a few of the centrist ones keeps bringing in a reliable voter base to keep voting in judges who all reliably uphold corporate interests. Koch et al. could care less if gay marriage is legal.