Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
It is not a separate, split off category but a subcategory of voters that would otherwise lack critical mass to affect standard community political processes for issues relevant to them but not to the majority in the district. For example, minority populations often have greater poverty and unemployment rates in neighborhoods defined by ethnic clustering, but poverty and unemployment is not an issue at large in a district where that neighborhood is bundled into a largely affluent, white district that dominates all elections with its pet issues (like, say, property tax rates and private education rebates, to go with some bland bougie concerns). I know it upsets you to think that race may serve as a reasonably reliable proxy for these types of political concerns in local and national issues, but as we haven't figured our shit out with race, it does no one but the usually white majority any favors to pretend that a "community of interest" can't be influenced by clustering ethnic demographics.
Race should not be a factor if race is used to discriminate and when it is heavily relied on as the predominant reasoning to diminish fair representation. Race can be considered but it cannot unjustifiably be relied on too heavily. The Court ruled on this in May in Cooper v Harris when it struck down North Carolina's map because of the "relied on too heavily" standard which, while irritatingly imprecise, still indicates that there are gradations of consideration of race that are permissible. Your absolutist stance against any consideration of race as a factor is not supported.
I think (given the vote distribution of minorities in this country which is usually about 80/20 in favor of Democrats and the distribution of votes in this country which is about 50/50) I would rather have multiple close districts, each containing 20% latinos than 4 100% white districts and a latino district. It is true that the latino district assures that there will be one Democrat/Latino voice on the council but it also assures that there will be 4 Republican/White voices who have zero inclination to listen to the issues of the minority party or the minority.
Providing representations of minorities in government is important, but not at the cost of those minorities actually being able to do anything. Gerrymandering to produce ethnically representative government looks a hell of a lot like a Republican plan to ensure Republican control would.
Districts should be created by computer, divided by population, as close to geometric as possible, as compact as possible respecting ONLY state and national boundaries.
He spent the recess doing photo ops for conservatives and touting his right-wing creds. Probably a lot.
I find myself at a loss to form any coherent response to the things Gorsuch does and says individually because my brain is still going "but but but what the fuck" at the sheer shadiness of Congressional republicans getting this Justice into his stolen seat in the first place
I know I should be inured to these things and focused on details moving forward but I'm mystified
How is there a conservative in this country who isn't apoplectic that this was pulled off in their name?
I just ... is it naive that I have an emotional response to this level of decorum and tradition being breached? I guess so.
I honestly cannot understand how Gorsuch can go to work every day knowing he is the literal destruction of our government and democracy embodied and given form. That he is, by the standards any impartial arbiter would ascribe, a walking crime.
Let's keep this confined to discussion of the actual arguments being presented before the court rather than the very broad topic of gerrymandering itself, which is something that more properly merits its own thread.
Please see above.
We also have a thread about unions. Stick to discussing the arguments/merits made in the actual case in front of SCOTUS.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
I didn't say it was an indisputable reason, just that there is clearly an easy to see benefit. At least better than whatever the fuck that lawyer was trying to say.
Personally I've never heard a convincing argument for any way to distribute districts. If your district is cohesive then at least you are assured of getting one representative who actually represents your ideals; even if it is at the expense of the other representatives perhaps not caring about you at all.
But then I'm not convinced that the minority party in a district has any affect at all on the majority voted representative. It's nice to think that the representative would try and compromise to get some of the moderate votes, but that doesn't seem to happen in practice. Although, maybe that is more a failing of the voting public being too partisan and unwilling to flip their vote these days. Hard to say. I've never heard of a redistricting plan that didn't seem to have some major flaws.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I think the split-line method is the easiest; the founders could have done it. We'd just accept the present partisan spread and let it change over time as it will.
Let's keep this confined to discussion of the actual arguments being presented before the court rather than the very broad topic of gerrymandering itself, which is something that more properly merits its own thread.
Please see above.
We also have a thread about unions. Stick to discussing the arguments/merits made in the actual case in front of SCOTUS.
I honestly can't see the merits of overturning Abood. It requires literally deciding that free rider problems do not exist. I understand why it is going to get 5* votes, but the jurisprudential reasoning seems likely to be the worst kind of legal ghettoizing of language to remove consequences from reality.
Anything he's the tipping vote on deserves one. He's only there because of an abuse of the Senates power. Same with every blocked judge Trump appoints if they change the rules like was contemplated.
At the risk of picking up a dispute long put to rest, I don't see why this is a controversial bit of snark.
Spool, you've stated and agreed repeatedly that McConnell went off the reservation to make this happen. Regardless of Gorsuch's skill as a jurist, regardless of whether or not his opinions line up with a given expected bias, or he represents a perfect example of an unbiased legal mind, the steps that got him into the seat have a lot of bullshit on them.
That stink carries on, and is something that can't just be forgotten or swept under the rug. It's a stain on SCOTUS, and possibly one that may never be addressed without getting into absurd hypotheticals.
I think 'an asterisk from a PA forumer' is probably the least of the things that might keep him up at night.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
We go forward by understanding some people are going to use an asterisk and others aren't, and recognizing as you've already stated that it's one of those things we're not going to agree on.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
Why should you treat the law as settled if the only reason it's 5-4 one way and not 5-4 another way is because of a single election? That applies to decisions I like as well like Obergefell or Sebelius. It's not even a critique of Gorsuch per se.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Plus Gorsuch is on the Court itself, he's not an assistant to a SCOTUS judge. That's how SCOTUS is tainted by him, his opinions and votes matter in deciding cases.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Plus Gorsuch is on the Court itself, he's not an assistant to a SCOTUS judge. That's how SCOTUS is tainted by him, his opinions and votes matter in deciding cases.
If he treats the position with the respect is deserves, that's one thing.
But he seems all too aware of why he's on the court, and where a better person might attempt to confound expectations and rise above the unsavory circumstances of his appointment, he seems content to revel in what is essentially nepotism of the highest order.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I did not attack the likely ruling as illegitimate. When the Court ultimately rules the way it will against AFSCME that will be standing law and I will follow it. (Well, I won't. I'm not in a Union and I don't work for one.) None of that removes the stain of his appointment. Nothing short of resignation will. Regardless, I cannot see how ruling for Janus can follow anything other than abstracting the world to a magical place without free riders, and then requiring the world to work that way or fail on it's theoretical imperfections that have no bearing on the Court's decision.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I did not attack the likely ruling as illegitimate. When the Court ultimately rules the way it will against AFSCME that will be standing law and I will follow it. (Well, I won't. I'm not in a Union and I don't work for one.) None of that removes the stain of his appointment. Nothing short of resignation will. Regardless, I cannot see how ruling for Janus can follow anything other than abstracting the world to a magical place without free riders, and then requiring the world to work that way or fail on it's theoretical imperfections that have no bearing on the Court's decision.
Of course, the failure of unions is the whole point of the legal challenge in the first place.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Yeah, I mean FFS Gorsuch was traveling Kentucky with Mitch essentially campaigning for him a couple weeks back.
It's bad when other justices do other things that could be conflicts of interest, but to do it this soon into his tenure really strikes me as either exceedingly poor judgment or simply a lack of respect for the job.
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Yeah, I mean FFS Gorsuch was traveling Kentucky with Mitch essentially campaigning for him a couple weeks back.
It's bad when other justices do other things that could be conflicts of interest, but to do it this soon into his tenure really strikes me as either exceedingly poor judgment or simply a lack of respect for the job.
tbh the fact that he took the job makes me question his respect for it
I guess I should just let it slide. McConnell was and remains bullshit, but I've said many times that no taint attaches to the Court itself, and it's just one of those things that we're not going to agree on.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Yeah, I mean FFS Gorsuch was traveling Kentucky with Mitch essentially campaigning for him a couple weeks back.
It's bad when other justices do other things that could be conflicts of interest, but to do it this soon into his tenure really strikes me as either exceedingly poor judgment or simply a lack of respect for the job.
It's just that he understands what he is: a political hack. I mean, he's not the only one either. He's just more open about it. It's almost refreshing. Almost.
I'm less interested in rehashing that argument at this point, we've spilled plenty of virtual ink declaring why people think he is or isn't a hack and is or isn't legitimate.
I'd prefer to focus on the actual legal arguments that are going on in cases this session. Let's look at his actions and words this term and make some judgments off that data. For instance, how he learned day 1 that RGB gon' school him in orals without mercy if she feels like it.
+8
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Always fun bumping this thread /s
Back in June, Texas Supreme Court basically said "Sure, Obergefell said we had to marry them, but that just meant we had to give them a piece of paper saying they're married, not like...all the cool stuff that goes with it."
Back in June, Texas Supreme Court basically said "Sure, Obergefell said we had to marry them, but that just meant we had to give them a piece of paper saying they're married, not like...all the cool stuff that goes with it."
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, LGBT advocates can hope for a pyrrhic victory at best. Conscientious objectors to same-sex weddings may be pressed into service, but only at the long-range cost of intensifying their opposition. A vindication of religious liberty, meanwhile, would tarnish that value, however unfairly, with the taint of discrimination.
According to NPR, the baker's lawyers will argue that since his cakes are works of art, forcing him to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding would be a violation of his right to free speech - and they have a point, imho, because while he refused to make the couple a custom cake, he did offer to sell them baked goods off the shelf. The couple's side, meanwhile, argues that since the baker didn't even let them state what they wanted written on the cake, this was a clear case of discrimination (refusing to hear their request because they are gay) and not a freedom of speech issue.
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, LGBT advocates can hope for a pyrrhic victory at best. Conscientious objectors to same-sex weddings may be pressed into service, but only at the long-range cost of intensifying their opposition. A vindication of religious liberty, meanwhile, would tarnish that value, however unfairly, with the taint of discrimination.
According to NPR, the baker's lawyers will argue that since his cakes are works of art, forcing him to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding would be a violation of his right to free speech - and they have a point, imho, because while he refused to make the couple a custom cake, he did offer to sell them baked goods off the shelf. The couple's side, meanwhile, argues that since the baker didn't even let them state what they wanted written on the cake, this was a clear case of discrimination (refusing to hear their request because they are gay) and not a freedom of speech issue.
Back in June, Texas Supreme Court basically said "Sure, Obergefell said we had to marry them, but that just meant we had to give them a piece of paper saying they're married, not like...all the cool stuff that goes with it."
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, LGBT advocates can hope for a pyrrhic victory at best. Conscientious objectors to same-sex weddings may be pressed into service, but only at the long-range cost of intensifying their opposition. A vindication of religious liberty, meanwhile, would tarnish that value, however unfairly, with the taint of discrimination.
According to NPR, the baker's lawyers will argue that since his cakes are works of art, forcing him to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding would be a violation of his right to free speech - and they have a point, imho, because while he refused to make the couple a custom cake, he did offer to sell them baked goods off the shelf. The couple's side, meanwhile, argues that since the baker didn't even let them state what they wanted written on the cake, this was a clear case of discrimination (refusing to hear their request because they are gay) and not a freedom of speech issue.
Doesn't seem pyrrhic to me.
What he's getting at is that you can't force someone to believe something they don't believe, and no one wants art produced under duress, so it would be a symbolic victory that accomplishes nothing in practice except giving the anti-LGBT crowd something to rally against.
Cakes are barely art. Especially wedding cakes which are usually just decent executions of basic frosting variations. By this same reasoning practically anyone involved with a wedding could deny on the basis of it being some kind of art: the dj/band, the invitations, the florist, the tailors, the food all technically has a presentation component, and thats just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Its possible it was a timing issue. That Houston pressed the benefits before Obergefell and so because Texas law at the time said they were not married the benefits were illegal. I can't find anything that particularly explains the case in the time i have so someone else will have to find this one.
So basically Texas made gay marriage useless by making it not give spousal rights to anyone involved, pretty much making it moot, and no one is doing anything about it?
Posts
I think (given the vote distribution of minorities in this country which is usually about 80/20 in favor of Democrats and the distribution of votes in this country which is about 50/50) I would rather have multiple close districts, each containing 20% latinos than 4 100% white districts and a latino district. It is true that the latino district assures that there will be one Democrat/Latino voice on the council but it also assures that there will be 4 Republican/White voices who have zero inclination to listen to the issues of the minority party or the minority.
Providing representations of minorities in government is important, but not at the cost of those minorities actually being able to do anything. Gerrymandering to produce ethnically representative government looks a hell of a lot like a Republican plan to ensure Republican control would.
Districts should be created by computer, divided by population, as close to geometric as possible, as compact as possible respecting ONLY state and national boundaries.
I honestly cannot understand how Gorsuch can go to work every day knowing he is the literal destruction of our government and democracy embodied and given form. That he is, by the standards any impartial arbiter would ascribe, a walking crime.
Please see above.
We also have a thread about unions. Stick to discussing the arguments/merits made in the actual case in front of SCOTUS.
I didn't say it was an indisputable reason, just that there is clearly an easy to see benefit. At least better than whatever the fuck that lawyer was trying to say.
Personally I've never heard a convincing argument for any way to distribute districts. If your district is cohesive then at least you are assured of getting one representative who actually represents your ideals; even if it is at the expense of the other representatives perhaps not caring about you at all.
But then I'm not convinced that the minority party in a district has any affect at all on the majority voted representative. It's nice to think that the representative would try and compromise to get some of the moderate votes, but that doesn't seem to happen in practice. Although, maybe that is more a failing of the voting public being too partisan and unwilling to flip their vote these days. Hard to say. I've never heard of a redistricting plan that didn't seem to have some major flaws.
I honestly can't see the merits of overturning Abood. It requires literally deciding that free rider problems do not exist. I understand why it is going to get 5* votes, but the jurisprudential reasoning seems likely to be the worst kind of legal ghettoizing of language to remove consequences from reality.
Anything he's the tipping vote on deserves one. He's only there because of an abuse of the Senates power. Same with every blocked judge Trump appoints if they change the rules like was contemplated.
No. So long as Gorsuch serves on the Court it has an asterisk in my mind. Even on a 9*-0 Opinion affirming the Bald Eagle as America's symbol.
Spool, you've stated and agreed repeatedly that McConnell went off the reservation to make this happen. Regardless of Gorsuch's skill as a jurist, regardless of whether or not his opinions line up with a given expected bias, or he represents a perfect example of an unbiased legal mind, the steps that got him into the seat have a lot of bullshit on them.
That stink carries on, and is something that can't just be forgotten or swept under the rug. It's a stain on SCOTUS, and possibly one that may never be addressed without getting into absurd hypotheticals.
I think 'an asterisk from a PA forumer' is probably the least of the things that might keep him up at night.
regardless, idk how we go forward in the thread where every 5-4 split is attacked as illegitimate out of hand. Maybe we don't.
We go forward by understanding some people are going to use an asterisk and others aren't, and recognizing as you've already stated that it's one of those things we're not going to agree on.
SCOTUS rulings are binding precedent regardless.
Why should you treat the law as settled if the only reason it's 5-4 one way and not 5-4 another way is because of a single election? That applies to decisions I like as well like Obergefell or Sebelius. It's not even a critique of Gorsuch per se.
I dunno, Gorsuch seems to not be treating his position with much deference so far, and based on how RBG and others responded to his oral arguments, it wouldn't surprise me to find out if there's a lack of mutual respect. And with the entire reason for his appointment basically being one especially tainted by politics, I'm not sure that I agree that some of that taint doesn't carry over to the rest of the court. Much in the same way Trumps elevation to POTUS has reduced the integrity of the office itself, Gorsuch's existence on the court diminishes the credibility of the entire body.
Plus Gorsuch is on the Court itself, he's not an assistant to a SCOTUS judge. That's how SCOTUS is tainted by him, his opinions and votes matter in deciding cases.
If he treats the position with the respect is deserves, that's one thing.
But he seems all too aware of why he's on the court, and where a better person might attempt to confound expectations and rise above the unsavory circumstances of his appointment, he seems content to revel in what is essentially nepotism of the highest order.
I did not attack the likely ruling as illegitimate. When the Court ultimately rules the way it will against AFSCME that will be standing law and I will follow it. (Well, I won't. I'm not in a Union and I don't work for one.) None of that removes the stain of his appointment. Nothing short of resignation will. Regardless, I cannot see how ruling for Janus can follow anything other than abstracting the world to a magical place without free riders, and then requiring the world to work that way or fail on it's theoretical imperfections that have no bearing on the Court's decision.
Of course, the failure of unions is the whole point of the legal challenge in the first place.
Yeah, I mean FFS Gorsuch was traveling Kentucky with Mitch essentially campaigning for him a couple weeks back.
It's bad when other justices do other things that could be conflicts of interest, but to do it this soon into his tenure really strikes me as either exceedingly poor judgment or simply a lack of respect for the job.
tbh the fact that he took the job makes me question his respect for it
It's just that he understands what he is: a political hack. I mean, he's not the only one either. He's just more open about it. It's almost refreshing. Almost.
Not to say I like his attitude currently but his record is just not the mess y'all are trying to claim.
I'd prefer to focus on the actual legal arguments that are going on in cases this session. Let's look at his actions and words this term and make some judgments off that data. For instance, how he learned day 1 that RGB gon' school him in orals without mercy if she feels like it.
Back in June, Texas Supreme Court basically said "Sure, Obergefell said we had to marry them, but that just meant we had to give them a piece of paper saying they're married, not like...all the cool stuff that goes with it."
Houston appealed this farcical ruling and Supreme Court isn't touching it.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
edit: "Fine, the law says we have to give you a driver's license, but it doesn't say we actually have to let you operate a motor vehicle."
What did the circuit court say?
Edit: Wow. Upheld without comment?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Not upheld, just no TRO.
Doesn't seem pyrrhic to me.
Yeah that one's straight bullshit.
What he's getting at is that you can't force someone to believe something they don't believe, and no one wants art produced under duress, so it would be a symbolic victory that accomplishes nothing in practice except giving the anti-LGBT crowd something to rally against.