General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

17. Does seem like a particularly boneheaded move

Tue Aug 27, 2019, 01:20 PM

Aug 2019

I have to agree with Tribe on this one:

“I agree the Court should drop this case as moot and am usually a fan of [Senator Sheldon Whitehouse] but I think this brief was inappropriately — and stupidly— threatening,” Tribe wrote. “If anything is calculated to get the Court’s back up, it’s a brief like this. Really bad move.”

Gotta wonder whether these five are actually hoping to push the court in the other direction.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Five Democratic senators throw a legal bombshell at the Supreme Court with unusual brief in gun case [View all] Soph0571 Aug 2019 OP

Yeah, go after the judges jberryhill Aug 2019 #1

Does seem like a particularly boneheaded move FBaggins Aug 2019 #17

You're missing the point. Haggis for Breakfast Aug 2019 #45

Apparently so FBaggins Aug 2019 #54

This. This was an unnecessary and stupid thing to do. DetroitLegalBeagle Aug 2019 #59

"Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely high court judges." - - Morrissey LuvNewcastle Aug 2019 #64

what do you suggest doing about corrupt judges? diva77 Aug 2019 #28

worked for FDR Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2019 #31

The FDR administration did not call judges corrupt in filings before the same court, no jberryhill Aug 2019 #34

No he called them old fashion, implied they were senile Farmer-Rick Aug 2019 #41

FDR didn't have to be subtle FBaggins Aug 2019 #53

Well around 1937, when the RepubliCON Great Depression rebounded, Farmer-Rick Aug 2019 #55

Identify the case brief in which that happened jberryhill Aug 2019 #56

I am not implying a similar case Farmer-Rick Aug 2019 #57

Best news of the day!!! katmondoo Aug 2019 #2

"Amicus" seems like the wrong word here (nt) Recursion Aug 2019 #3

It's an Animus Brief CaptainTruth Aug 2019 #44

damn, beat me to it GMTA Celerity Aug 2019 #51

The Senators who filed the brief are... hedda_foil Aug 2019 #4

Thanks elleng Aug 2019 #27

I don't see Whitehouse doing this sort of thing without something going on behind the scenes. pecosbob Aug 2019 #5

Whitehouse is no intellectual giant hack89 Aug 2019 #7

I'm surprised to hear that - I thought his speech on the "Roberts' Five" was brilliant at the diva77 Aug 2019 #19

He is an astute politician hack89 Aug 2019 #22

and this one cannot even handle draughts Celerity Aug 2019 #52

LOL RhodeIslandOne Aug 2019 #36

Read Whitehouse's book, "Captured"(2017) and I think you'd change your mind. I think it's brilliant. ancianita Aug 2019 #38

Melanie Wachtell Stinnett is the brains of that partnership. hack89 Aug 2019 #40

The brains? How? She's cowritten for people other than politicians. Is she the brains of them, too? ancianita Aug 2019 #43

There is a reason people hire "cowriters" hack89 Aug 2019 #49

Not at all. They already know more than the writers. The writers are there to make their knowledge ancianita Aug 2019 #71

Suspect there is a lot going on, strategically. The Speaker must be aware, etc. empedocles Aug 2019 #33

+1 Indeed. ancianita Aug 2019 #37

Should be useful in raising some campaign cash hack89 Aug 2019 #6

What? paleotn Aug 2019 #11

It is foolish to think this will influence the court hack89 Aug 2019 #21

Not yet, and this isn't meant to influence the court. paleotn Aug 2019 #24

"threaten them with irrelevance" hack89 Aug 2019 #26

Actually there is it would involve increasing the number of chief justices enough that cstanleytech Aug 2019 #46

And you get that through the Senate how? Nt hack89 Aug 2019 #50

Not this Senate. paleotn Aug 2019 #58

I didnt say it could or would happen right now rather I am pointing out the potential way it could cstanleytech Aug 2019 #67

You're assuming the political makeup is static paleotn Aug 2019 #60

So the next Republican Senates add another two justices hack89 Aug 2019 #65

And this is all to make the Supreme Court look LESS political? FBaggins Aug 2019 #69

If there is another Republican Senate paleotn Aug 2019 #70

It could also be very productive... LanternWaste Aug 2019 #23

When every legal analysis says it is a waste of time hack89 Aug 2019 #25

I don't understand the strategy here Amishman Aug 2019 #8

The right wingers are not cemented, they're chisled in granite. paleotn Aug 2019 #10

Yep! It's long past time our side said something, calimary Aug 2019 #12

+1 diva77 Aug 2019 #20

Except they are not voting as a bloc, we are seeing splits Amishman Aug 2019 #30

Yet then there was the recent ruling they made rubber stamping gerrymandering. cstanleytech Aug 2019 #47

Setting the stage for Mayor Pete's presidency? n/t RichardRay Aug 2019 #9

The Constitution doesn't say that SCOTUS can only have 9 members... paleotn Aug 2019 #13

It's been tried before Wednesdays Aug 2019 #35

Different times. Different circumstances. paleotn Aug 2019 #63

Recommended. H2O Man Aug 2019 #14

Good for them.. mountain grammy Aug 2019 #15

K&R ffr Aug 2019 #16

Wowser! That's a pretty ballsy move. nt procon Aug 2019 #18

K&R... spanone Aug 2019 #29

We get the Senate and the Presidency. kairos12 Aug 2019 #32

The brief is irrelevant, what's news is the Democrats are fighting! bucolic_frolic Aug 2019 #39

This will backfire hilariously. Loki Liesmith Aug 2019 #42

Our senators make the staggering claim that politics influences SCOTUS appointments. aikoaiko Aug 2019 #48

It was more of a warning to the justices not to use their position cstanleytech Aug 2019 #68

Expect.... ewagner Aug 2019 #61

28 USC 1 Mike Niendorff Aug 2019 #62

Truth to power. world wide wally Aug 2019 #66