New Supreme Court Nominee?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ketanji Jackson probably.

This was my reading a year ago as well.

viewtopic.php?p=9661#p9661

Nice call.

- Doc

[Xenophon]

Nice call.

- Doc

Time will tell. I could see several different options and I don't think Judge Wright is way off the mark either.

Given some of this admins other 180s though I could honestly see him hard FUBARing this and appointing some random white guy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Nice call.

- Doc

Time will tell. I could see several different options and I don't think Judge Wright is way off the mark either.

Given some of this admins other 180s though I could honestly see him hard FUBARing this and appointing some random white guy.

As much as I like white people, in a very abstract in-group sorta way, I actually would like to see a black woman appointed. Eric Weinstein (whatever you think of him - cool) made an interesting point on a Joe Rogan podcast I watched, man, maybe a year or two ago, that he’d like to see more black women appointed to positions of power because hr thought they’d just cut through people’s BS and speak the truth, which he felt was very necessary for our society right now. And by truth, actual truth, not whatever lies people have decided to pass off as the truth these days. I found his reasoning compelling and thought it worth trying out. Not gonna lie, I was low-key hoping a black woman would’ve got the Democrat nomination this last go around, but it is what it is. So. Yeah. Supreme Court. If Biden doesn’t want to completely implode the Left he’ll follow through on his promise.

- Doc

[huckelberry]

Given some of this admins other 180s though I could honestly see him hard FUBARing this and appointing some random white guy.

This hits me as a bizarre observation. I find myself unable to think of any 180s . Is this something happening on fox news that I miss having given up watching ?

[Xenophon]

Given some of this admins other 180s though I could honestly see him hard FUBARing this and appointing some random white guy.

This hits me as a bizarre observation. I find myself unable to think of any 180s . Is this something happening on fox news that I miss having given up watching ?

I literally don't watch cable TV so I don't understand what that has to do with anything. 180 might be a bit harsh but it isn't a secret that quite a few of Biden's campaign promises have either had no movement or severally limited implementation. Without wanting to deep dive too much or derail this thread I can think of: promises around student loan forgiveness, fracking, a whole host of criminal justice reform (ending for-profit prisons, decriminalizing marijuana, eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, etc), paid family leave, free community college... I could keep going but I think you get my point.

On paper his administration was supposed to be much more progressive than it has been, would it be that big of a surprise if they dropped the ball on this promise too? I fully recognize that not all of those are 100% to be laid at his feet but given his pivots on tuition alone I think it is fair to not hold your breath for too much here.

[canpakes]

On paper his administration was supposed to be much more progressive than it has been, would it be that big of a surprise if they dropped the ball on this promise too? I fully recognize that not all of those are 100% to be laid at his feet but given his pivots on tuition alone I think it is fair to not hold your breath for too much here.

To be fair to any President, they're only going to get so far with some promises if Congress allows it via their votes.

Although, the lease sale thing (just tossed by the USDC DoC) was a good example of a '180' that the Administration had full control over. That decision by the Administration was weird.

[Res Ipsa]

On paper his administration was supposed to be much more progressive than it has been, would it be that big of a surprise if they dropped the ball on this promise too? I fully recognize that not all of those are 100% to be laid at his feet but given his pivots on tuition alone I think it is fair to not hold your breath for too much here.

To be fair to any President, they're only going to get so far with some promises if Congress allows it via their votes.

Although, the lease sale thing (just tossed by the USDC DoC) was a good example of a '180' that the Administration had full control over. That decision by the Administration was weird.

Did the administration have control over that? I haven't followed it that closely, but I thought the administration was ordered to go through with the sale by a federal court? What did the administration argue on the motion that just held the sale to be improper? Confession: I never took administrative law. It's scary -- like patent law.

ETA: I found the order from the first case. Biden issued an executive order that paused the sales while certain issues were examine. Thirteen states sued the federal government in federal court in Louisiana to have the executive order declared invalid and to effectively order the feds to proceed with the sale. They also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring the feds to not enforce the pause until the merits of the case were decided or the Court of Appeals overruled the trial judge. The judge granted the motion for a PI. The feds filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. But in the meantime, they were legally required by court order to proceed with the sale. Here is a link to the order granting the motion for preliminary injunction. https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_f ... _ew_01.pdf

In a second lawsuit, filed after the Preliminary Injunction was issued in the first suit, several environmental groups sued the feds for declaration that the lease sale was invalid because the Trump administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act when it approved the sale to begin with. https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/ ... .31.21.pdf That suit was filed in federal court in D.C. The Court allowed the state of Louisiana and the American Petroleum Institute to intervene in the lawsuit. The environmental groups, the federal defendants, Louisiana and the API all filed what are called "summary judgment" motions. Filing a summary judgment motion is like saying "even if every fact you claim is true, I still win on the law." The parties agreed to file their motions after the sale, but before the leases were issued.

The Court granted part of and denied part of each motion.https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/ ... .27.22.pdf Skimming the order (it's 68 pages), the federal defendants did defend the EIS issued under the Trump administration. I've never understood the extent to which the executive branch has any duty to defend actions taken under a prior administration in litigation. I'm guessing that the order in the first lawsuit had some effect on how the administration defended the lawsuit. On the other hand, most of the order addresses arguments raised by the intervenors and the plaintiffs, with the feds mostly in the background. The Court held that the administration had violated the NEPA when it approved the sale because it did not properly account for the contribution of petroleum expected to be sold to foreign countries in calculating the impact of additional greenhouse gases. It rejected all of the Plaintffs other theories. When it came to the appropriate remedy, plaintiffs argued that the sale should be vacated and the determination remanded to the appropriate agency. Intervenors argued that the issue should be remanded to the appropriate agency without vacating the sale. And the feds took no position. The Court agreed with plaintiffs and vacated the sale. Now the appropriate agency must redo the Environmental Impact Statement, which will affect whether the sale can proceed.

My best guess is that Louisiana and the API intervened because they were concerned that the feds would mount a weak defense. And, with the intervenors in the case aggressively defending the existing EIS, the feds happily took a backseat to the intervenors. They defended the existing EIS (which they may have been obligated to do -- I don't know the answer). But the pretty clearly let the intervenors take the lead. Not only that, part of the reason the Biden Administration gave for the pause that was invalidated in the first case was that the EIS prepared by the Trump administration was inadequate. And the court referred to Biden Administration statements in discounting the feds defense of the EIS. So, I dunno, maybe some seven-dimensional chess was being played.

Interpret how you wish. Personally, I don't think characterizing this as a 180 by the Biden Administration fairly captured what happened. **Shrugs**

[canpakes]

:: many, many interesting details snipped for space ::

… So, I dunno, maybe some seven-dimensional chess was being played.

Interpret how you wish. Personally, I don't think characterizing this as a 180 by the Biden Administration fairly captured what happened. **Shrugs**

Res, that’s a much fuller explanation of the process than I’ve seen to date. I appreciate that you took the time to provide this information.

I’ll buy your conclusion about this not exactly being the ‘180’ that it might have appeared to be, especially considering how weird it seemed in the first place.

[Binger]

I would care a lot more about what the Supreme Court did or had to say if Beyonce was a justice for life.

Seriously. That is not meant as a joke or a derail or anything. I would straight up give that court a lot more of my attention if she were on it for the duration. As it is now, I could not give even one half a crap or one damn about that court. There is absolutely nothing they could do or say to pique my interest. OSHA masks and mandates and voter this and Rovy Wade or lambs in school - nothing could make me care about that damn court. Put 27 more justices on it, whatever. Do not care. Unless, Beyonce is on the court of course.

[Res Ipsa]

:: many, many interesting details snipped for space ::

… So, I dunno, maybe some seven-dimensional chess was being played.

Interpret how you wish. Personally, I don't think characterizing this as a 180 by the Biden Administration fairly captured what happened. **Shrugs**

Res, that’s a much fuller explanation of the process than I’ve seen to date. I appreciate that you took the time to provide this information.

I’ll buy your conclusion about this not exactly being the ‘180’ that it might have appeared to be, especially considering how weird it seemed in the first place.

My pleasure. Part of why I like doing what I do is figuring this kind of stuff out. It's like doing puzzles for me.

I'm not really sure how to think about Biden and 180s or flip flops or what have you. I think he may have written checks that his ass can't cash, given how the composition of the Senate turned out. I don't know nearly enough about how some of this stuff works. Does Biden actually have the Constitutional power to cancel debt owed to the U.S. Government? I dunno. The result of the first of the two oil lease cases tells me there are limits to what the executive actually can do. Maybe when I hear a presidential candidate promise stuff I should mark them with a mental asterisk. *If you elect me enough representatives and senators.

In general, I think Congress has ceded way too much power to the executive branch, going at least as far back as the War Powers Act. I don't blame one party over the other -- i think they're all complicit. Ironically, though, Congress can only claw that power back if the parties cooperate in the legislative branch and take positions contrary to whoever is president. Hard for me to imagine how to get there from here.