scalia dead

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:56 pm UTC

Why seven over 9? And the reason court packing isn't done anymore is because of the political backlash. Though, I suppose the Democrats could have done it in 2008. It's not a nice thing to do. It's akin to Obama emptying Guantanamo by pardoning everyone inside.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

Seven sacraments, lucky sevens, seven virtues, seven vices. 777 jackpot. Seven days, all the stories where things only happen "every 7 years" (ex: Pirates of the Caribbean ending). 7 is perfectly neutral pH.

What does nine have going for it? Cloud 9? And... that's about it. Seven is probably a more symbolic number than 9.

This is the worst way to decide something that has huge importance to the country. >_<
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: scalia dead

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

I had just googled that a few minutes ago in reference to a song... "The number seven has a long history of mystical and religious associations: seven deadly sins, seven Sleepers, seven-league boots, seven ages of man, seven days of creation, seven hills of Rome, seven lucky gods of Japanese mythology, the Seven Sages, seven sisters, seven stars, seven wonders of the world, and the man in question is himself the seventh son of a seventh son".

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

There is no perfect number. If they really wanted to fix it they could amend the Constitution to state explicitly how they want the process to work. But they won't, because the way it works now they have some hope of rigging the game. Which is what everybody wants.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: scalia dead

Postby Dauric » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

Probably has that distinction because 7 is the biggest prime you can count to on your fingers.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:53 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Probably has that distinction because 7 is the biggest prime you can count to on your fingers.


Well, it varies from culture to culture. 8 (and 108) are apparently the most important number in East Asian countries (Japan / China). The Chinese Olympics started on the 8 seconds into the 8th minute of the 8th hour of the 8th day of the 8th month in 2008 (2008 / 8 / 8 8:08.08), and like the number 7 for us Americans, a huge number of Chinese stories (religious and historical) are centered on the number 8.

Christian-Judeo Biblical mythology is generally based on the number 7, and that's older than the Greek concepts of prime numbers.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: scalia dead

Postby Dauric » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Dauric wrote:Probably has that distinction because 7 is the biggest prime you can count to on your fingers.


Well, it varies from culture to culture. 8 (and 108) are apparently the most important number in East Asian countries (Japan / China). Christian-Judeo Biblical mythology is generally based on the number 7, and that's older than the Greek concepts of prime numbers.


You don't need the formal classification of the Prime Numbers to recognize that you can't put seven objects evenly in two or three boxes. Even if nobody was calling them "prime" numbers, the practical effects of the quantity would have been noticeable.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Dauric wrote:Probably has that distinction because 7 is the biggest prime you can count to on your fingers.


Well, it varies from culture to culture. 8 (and 108) are apparently the most important number in East Asian countries (Japan / China). Christian-Judeo Biblical mythology is generally based on the number 7, and that's older than the Greek concepts of prime numbers.


You don't need the formal classification of the Prime Numbers to recognize that you can't put seven objects evenly in two or three boxes. Even if nobody was calling them "prime" numbers, the practical effects of the quantity would have been noticeable.


The Ancient Egyptians almost certainly had some concept of prime numbers, dating back to circa 1500 BCE.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2961
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: scalia dead

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:The Ancient Egyptians almost certainly had some concept of prime numbers, dating back to circa 1500 BCE.

They also invented the Pyramid Scheme... *nodnod*

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Dauric wrote:Probably has that distinction because 7 is the biggest prime you can count to on your fingers.


Well, it varies from culture to culture. 8 (and 108) are apparently the most important number in East Asian countries (Japan / China). Christian-Judeo Biblical mythology is generally based on the number 7, and that's older than the Greek concepts of prime numbers.


You don't need the formal classification of the Prime Numbers to recognize that you can't put seven objects evenly in two or three boxes. Even if nobody was calling them "prime" numbers, the practical effects of the quantity would have been noticeable.


Well, from a mathematical perspective, there are plenty of interesting whole numbers less than 10. Each number has a wide variety of properties. But which numbers become culturally relevant almost seems random. The US doesn't give the number 4 any real importance, aside from the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (EDIT: And the four classical elements. That's about it though). While China considers the number 4 so unlucky that most buildings don't have a 4th floor. (kinda like how floor 13 is skipped in a lot of US buildings).

I mean, 8 can just as well be described as mathematically important, as the largest cube that can be counted on one(EDIT: I mean, you two) hands. (2 * 2 * 2 == 8). Why Eastern cultures have chosen 8 as the luckiest of lucky numbers instead of 7 is just... IMO, a cultural accident. On both sides.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby ijuin » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

If the Republican Senators don't like Obama's nominee, then they should reject him/her, and if they really don't want anybody that Obama nominates, then they should just keep rejecting all of them as they are nominated. It's the refusal even to participate in the process that is going beyond the pale here--it smells much too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home".

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5362
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Somerville, MA
Contact:

Re: scalia dead

Postby doogly » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

4 is the number of physical perfection, 3 of spiritual, so you can see why 7 and 12 are such hugely important numbers. again, west.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: scalia dead

Postby Zohar » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:If the Republican Senators don't like Obama's nominee, then they should reject him/her, and if they really don't want anybody that Obama nominates, then they should just keep rejecting all of them as they are nominated. It's the refusal even to participate in the process that is going beyond the pale here--it smells much too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home".

The problem is Obama may nominate someone that would be very difficult for them to reject without angering the public. The only way to make sure of that is to say "we're not playing the game"
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: scalia dead

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:35 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
ijuin wrote:If the Republican Senators don't like Obama's nominee, then they should reject him/her, and if they really don't want anybody that Obama nominates, then they should just keep rejecting all of them as they are nominated. It's the refusal even to participate in the process that is going beyond the pale here--it smells much too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home".

The problem is Obama may nominate someone that would be very difficult for them to reject without angering the public. The only way to make sure of that is to say "we're not playing the game"



Really, at this point, this is pretty much they only option they have left... other than doing their job, of course.

Seriously, their approval rating is (almost) the lowest it has ever been, so they can't really fuck it up any more than they already have.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: scalia dead

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:16 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Seriously, their approval rating is (almost) the lowest it has ever been, so they can't really fuck it up any more than they already have.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: scalia dead

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

I think I missed my chance for a joke that all cases should be decided by Seven of Nine...
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:19 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
ijuin wrote:If the Republican Senators don't like Obama's nominee, then they should reject him/her, and if they really don't want anybody that Obama nominates, then they should just keep rejecting all of them as they are nominated. It's the refusal even to participate in the process that is going beyond the pale here--it smells much too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home".

The problem is Obama may nominate someone that would be very difficult for them to reject without angering the public. The only way to make sure of that is to say "we're not playing the game"

You and the GOP are overestimating the chances of the public caring. It's just not an important issue to the "everyday" folks, aka the uninformed public. If the public knew enough to come vote because of some SCOTUS shenanigans, they'd come vote against all the other dumb stuff we had before. Remember the fiscal cliff? The repeated budget battles? The public just doesn't care.

Edited.
Last edited by sardia on Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:02 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: scalia dead

Postby Zohar » Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:the "everyday" folks, aka the retards.

That is incredibly offensive and obnoxious.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:04 am UTC

Zohar wrote:
sardia wrote:the "everyday" folks, aka the uninformed public.

That is incredibly offensive and obnoxious.

Noted and retracted. I stand by my assertion that it takes quite a bit more than some stalling, which risks ties that will be resolved next year, to galvanize the public. This is hardly sequestration or fiscal cliff. I dunno, maybe it's like voter fraud laws? Kinda important, and the public doesn't really care?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:23 am UTC

This isn't about the fringes, it's about the middle, people who do care. But having said that this is the price you pay for gay rights and abortion, both things decided by the court. It needed to be done but anyone who thought there wasn't a price to be paid now knows better. This election is reminding me of George McGovern v Richard Nixon.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:57 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:This isn't about the fringes, it's about the middle, people who do care. But having said that this is the price you pay for gay rights and abortion, both things decided by the court. It needed to be done but anyone who thought there wasn't a price to be paid now knows better. This election is reminding me of George McGovern v Richard Nixon.
How does this lead to the Senate nominating a justice?
Can you connect the line between people in the middle, who for some reason care, to the Senate? The ending and beginning are obvious. Angry people>>>????>>>>Threat of Senate elections swinging 1 way due to angry people caring. What is the middle step? Widespread condemnation and calls overwhelming Congress for delaying the nomination? I don't see any signs of that. Perhaps you're expecting a different chain of events?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: scalia dead

Postby ucim » Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:34 am UTC

sardia wrote:The public just doesn't care.

No, that misstates it.

I think the public does care, but is too frustrated by its inability to make a difference. To actually make a difference in the face of idiocy, bigotry, deep pockets, an entrenched power base, and the media takes a real, strong, concerted, well focused, and prolonged effort, with no guarantee of any success. Social change happens this way, but gradually. Picking a justice happens too quickly for ordinary people to make any difference at all. The governed are pretty much irrelevant to those doing the picking.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby ijuin » Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:50 am UTC

Zohar wrote:
ijuin wrote:If the Republican Senators don't like Obama's nominee, then they should reject him/her, and if they really don't want anybody that Obama nominates, then they should just keep rejecting all of them as they are nominated. It's the refusal even to participate in the process that is going beyond the pale here--it smells much too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home".

The problem is Obama may nominate someone that would be very difficult for them to reject without angering the public. The only way to make sure of that is to say "we're not playing the game"


This presupposes that stonewalling will produce LESS backlash than rejecting a nominer. If that were at all certain, then the GOP's threat of stonewalling would not be the top political news item this week.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:06 am UTC

ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:The public just doesn't care.

No, that misstates it.

I think the public does care, but is too frustrated by its inability to make a difference. To actually make a difference in the face of idiocy, bigotry, deep pockets, an entrenched power base, and the media takes a real, strong, concerted, well focused, and prolonged effort, with no guarantee of any success. Social change happens this way, but gradually. Picking a justice happens too quickly for ordinary people to make any difference at all. The governed are pretty much irrelevant to those doing the picking.

Jose



You are dividing, erroneously, America into three groups, conservative base, liberal base, and independents. That's wrong because most so called independents are fake, they actually vote consistently partisan 90% of the time. What do you mean by idiocy, bigotry, deep pockets, and an entrenched power base? If you noticed, the establishment power bases are the most open and tolerant part of each party. Trump's campaign is big on being anti-establishment, and antibig pockets, but take on the mantle of idiocy and bigotry. So yea, I disagree with you on pretty much every front.
What I expect from a public that cares is
Irresponsible event happens
Public cares.
Votes out a party due to said event.
That isn't what happens in past elections. It's very hard to point to any one single event or series of events that can be directly attributed to a resulting election.

PS, am I being partisan, or are you describing mostly the GOP here? Not that the GOP are saints, but it doesn't help describe the country as a whole.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: scalia dead

Postby ucim » Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:55 am UTC

sardia wrote:You are dividing, erroneously,[...]
I'm not even looking at the individual stances. I'm looking at your statement that "people don't care".

They care. They are just disenfranchised, and thus, disheartened. They are also easily swayed by emotion (which is why advertising of any sort works in the first place).

Also, there's more than one issue.

Irresponsible event happens
Public cares
Public weighs irresponsible event against things the guilty party agrees with them on.
Public weighs this event against the irresponsible events that the alternative would bring.
It's all or nothing. It's always like that when it comes to the ballot box.

Now, to go against just this one irresponsible thing is hard. This isn't just voting, this is activism. Most people don't have the time, the ability, or the stomach for it. Not that they don't care, but they are ineffective at caring, so they don't do.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby maybeagnostic » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:18 am UTC

So you are making some big distinction between "people don't care" and "people care but won't do," however the two are functionally equivalent. If the majority don't express their caring through some actual actions, then caring is meaningless.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2961
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: scalia dead

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:43 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:So you are making some big distinction between "people don't care" and "people care but won't do," however the two are functionally equivalent. If the majority don't express their caring through some actual actions, then caring is meaningless.

i.e. people "could care less", but act as though they "couldn't care less"...

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: scalia dead

Postby Dauric » Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:22 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:So you are making some big distinction between "people don't care" and "people care but won't do," however the two are functionally equivalent. If the majority don't express their caring through some actual actions, then caring is meaningless.


They're functionally equivalent as an outcome, but not in how they need to be addressed. To wit: I don't care about sports, they simply never resonated with me in my youth, and despite living in Colorado and the local Football team winning the Superbowl, I don't mentally/emotionally connect with the wider celebratory goings on.

This is different from disenfranchisement. There's an inherent frustration when someone does care, but is (and/or -feels-) prevented from being able to influence a solution.

Now that I write it out, it actually strikes me that this may be a relevant distinction to the current anti-establishment vein in the presidential election. If you genuinely don't care from a lack of connection then there's no reason to rock the boat by changing the guard. They're doing the governance thing without becoming a concern to the voters, why go through the trouble of electing someone else who might be more troublesome, who might create policies that would interfere with your daily life and force you to care about the machinations of politics and policy.

However in this election the (so-called) "Anit-Establishment" candidates are the ones getting the electoral traction. If the prevailing attitude was "Meh, whatever." Trump wouldn't be a viable candidate, he's a massive douchebag and a generally horrible human being. That said his rhetoric has a tone that resonates with a frustration in the political status-quo. I'm not saying his suggested policies would actually change the aspects to of our political environment that are causing that frustration (they'd probably make it worse), but it has the emotional resonance to conservative voters who do care but feel unheard by the establishment.

Bernie Sanders is the same deal. His message resonates with the social activists, it resonates with the image of the civil rights movement. His policies may or may not be as realistic or as likely to be enacted as Trump's Mexico Border Wall, but that's secondary to the emotional appeal that he represents as someone with the stated goals of reducing public disenfranchisement.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: scalia dead

Postby Zohar » Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:37 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
Zohar wrote:The problem is Obama may nominate someone that would be very difficult for them to reject without angering the public. The only way to make sure of that is to say "we're not playing the game"


This presupposes that stonewalling will produce LESS backlash than rejecting a nominer. If that were at all certain, then the GOP's threat of stonewalling would not be the top political news item this week.

I'm not saying it makes political sense, I'm saying it's the only reasonable explanation I can think of.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Can you connect the line between people in the middle, who for some reason care, to the Senate? The ending and beginning are obvious. Angry people>>>????>>>>Threat of Senate elections swinging 1 way due to angry people caring. What is the middle step? Widespread condemnation and calls overwhelming Congress for delaying the nomination? I don't see any signs of that. Perhaps you're expecting a different chain of events?
I don't expect anything, but what I think is that the middle is going to be uncomfortable if the Senate won't give the nominee a hearing. In Senate elections that are close the middle may take the election away from an incumbent and give it to a challenger in response.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby Lucrece » Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:10 pm UTC

The public doesn't give two shits about judicial appointments. The Democratic base only shows up for Presidential elections, and they're the only ones angered by turned down appointments.

These past congressional elections have been decided overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans precisely because it's older people who tend to lean Republican who actually show up to vote. Reoublicans have no fear of being punished electorally for declining an appointment by a Democratic president.

Especially when to most Americans the impact of judicial appointments is not even remotely proximate to their lives. Few of them will even perceive the repercussions of said appointments outside political activists.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby ijuin » Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

If rejecting the nominees is not going to hurt the Republicans in re-election, then why do they not simply reject them instead of saying "we refuse to accept OR reject"? The fact that they are trying to opt out of the process makes it sound like they believe that either choice would hurt them more than the stonewalling would.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:56 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:If rejecting the nominees is not going to hurt the Republicans in re-election, then why do they not simply reject them instead of saying "we refuse to accept OR reject"? The fact that they are trying to opt out of the process makes it sound like they believe that either choice would hurt them more than the stonewalling would.

Refusing to hold a hearing means you are 1 step further away from the accept/reject process. It's a way to further stick it to the man(Obama). In all honesty, it was probably a reflex statement, instead of a well thought out one. As you can tell, the GOP is backpedaling when they realized they can just filibuster the nominee anyway, so holding a hearing doesn't hurt as much. (The GOP still doesn't want to be shown as obstructing a very well qualified candidate, but a filibuster prevents all debate.)

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: scalia dead

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:32 pm UTC

I love that holding your hands over your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALA" until Obama goes away is actually seen as the most sensible option.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5728
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: scalia dead

Postby Thesh » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I love that holding your hands over your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALA" until Obama goes away is actually seen as the most sensible option.

What happened to the upvote option?
Behold your only true messiah. An entity of which you're a part.
A vast and cold indifferent being. A grey clad mass without a heart.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby ijuin » Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:19 am UTC

sardia wrote:Refusing to hold a hearing means you are 1 step further away from the accept/reject process. It's a way to further stick it to the man(Obama).


Yes, and the biggest risk from this is that the potential backlash when the public catches on that "sticking it to the man" is the sole priority of their party and that actually doing their jobs is irrelevant.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby leady » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:19 am UTC

ijuin wrote:
sardia wrote:Refusing to hold a hearing means you are 1 step further away from the accept/reject process. It's a way to further stick it to the man(Obama).


Yes, and the biggest risk from this is that the potential backlash when the public catches on that "sticking it to the man" is the sole priority of their party and that actually doing their jobs is irrelevant.


What risk? democrats want a replacement, republicans want to wait - the rest won't care. The average citizen is gloriously uninformed about everything.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10292
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: scalia dead

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Why seven over 9? And the reason court packing isn't done anymore is because of the political backlash. Though, I suppose the Democrats could have done it in 2008. It's not a nice thing to do. It's akin to Obama emptying Guantanamo by pardoning everyone inside.


Seven is a better number than nine because it's prime. Harder to get even splits. Nine can potentially have a three way split. Granted, not usually a big concern for the supreme court because of the nature of judgements, but some numbers are just better for voting bodies.

Six, for instance, is particularly bad. Of course, seven judges with one recusing themselves puts you at six, so that's a concern, I suppose.

That's mostly an aside to this particular situation, though. Changing the overall number of judges to eight doesn't seem ideal. 8's not a great number. Changing it to 7 would be...awkward. Can't really vote someone off the island.

ijuin wrote:If rejecting the nominees is not going to hurt the Republicans in re-election, then why do they not simply reject them instead of saying "we refuse to accept OR reject"? The fact that they are trying to opt out of the process makes it sound like they believe that either choice would hurt them more than the stonewalling would.


It's a procedural thing. If your goal is to stop action, there's no actual need to act at all. Killing things without ever bringing them to a vote happens all the time in politics, actually. Big dramatic votes on controversial things are not actually even all that common. Most votes are pretty much routine shit on things that everyone already knows the result of, and a lot of other stuff dies a quick death because it can't get the necessary support to make it to a vote.

It also provides less news, because "republicans still stalling" becomes a boring headline, where if they keep rejecting everyone promptly, the media has new events to report on.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2961
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: scalia dead

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Seven is a better number than nine because it's prime. Harder to get even splits. Nine can potentially have a three way split. Granted, not usually a big concern for the supreme court because of the nature of judgements, but some numbers are just better for voting bodies.

If there's a possibility of some-yes, some-no, some-unsure, then seven voters could as easily be in the ratios 3:3:1 or 2:2:4 (for equal yes:no). Depending on the nature of the 'third way', that could be as trivially disadvantageous as a traditional <n>:<n> split of any odd number, after an odd number of abstentions/recusers leaves a possible deadlock amongst the even number of remaining parties. Primes don't help any, in that situation.

Granted that "Are we having pizza, pasta or boeuf bourguignon for lunch?" being split 3:3:3 in a group of nine (all of them intransigent, at least whilst their own first choice has not yet been positively ruled out, to force them to decide further under a Single Transferable Vote system) isn't exactly decisive but, while I'm not that familiar with the nature of SCOTUS verdicts, I'm doubtful that this would ever be an insurmountable problem of any import... Do they even have the "Not proven" verdict, as of Scottish courts? (a.k.a. the "we're reasonably sure we know you did it, but we can't legally say you did do it... you haven't earnt the badge of 'innocent', consider yourself lucky that you didn't get the 'guilty' one instead" verdict...)

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: scalia dead

Postby Dauric » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:58 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Do they even have the "Not proven" verdict, as of Scottish courts? (a.k.a. the "we're reasonably sure we know you did it, but we can't legally say you did do it... you haven't earnt the badge of 'innocent', consider yourself lucky that you didn't get the 'guilty' one instead" verdict...)


No, we don't have the "Not Proven" verdict in the U.S., and as far as SCOTUS t's not even a guilty/not-guilty as what they rule on is the constitutionality of a case, not the merits of the case itself (ie: did the police violate constitutional rules while looking for evidence, or more often, does a particular law an/or method of enforcing said law violate the constitution.). SCOTUS rulings tend to be for one or the other party in the case brought to them.

SCOTUS however does have the concept of a "Dissenting majority opinion". This is the case where the majority rules in favor of one party, but the majority is split on why they ruled that way. I forget the case (I think it was regarding police using tracking devices), SCOTUS ruled in favor of the defendant that the tracking device was an illegal search, however there was a dissenting opinion in that part of the majority believed the case was applicable as case precedent in future cases, where the other part of the majority believed the case had certain aspects that made it a poor example for precedent and the SCOTUS would have to revisit the issue when a clearer case came to their attention.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests