Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] : Back in black robes - new judicial session has begun

19293959798100

Posts

  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    SCOTUS mostly upheld Texas's gerrymander in 5-4 decision with the usual suspects being in the majority. They only accepted the challenge for one state House district.

    I really wish Gorsuch never got to be a justice.

    Well, you can impeach him. Or you can just let the Republican party profit from their crimes of conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in US elections.

    I really wish you wouldn't do that thing where you identify that "you" can impeach Gorsuch / Trump / whoever, instead of saying that "a post-election US government", or "the American government", or simply "the US" can do so

    you're referring to something that is a national problem that individual people have no direct agency over, nor are the people here of the persuasion to pull a lever to make that happen if there was one, nor is there a a readily-available remedy for the problem

    Yes, by accident of fate or access to immigration, you're Canadian, we get it

    SummaryJudgment on
    tERiPJd.jpg
    HappylilElfSo It Goesa5ehrenSleepMrMisterMatevdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    spool32 wrote: »
    You try it and you lose the electorate. Not even FDR had the juice to get it done. It's a fools errand, a progressive fantasy. You have a better chance of passing an amendment or, even better, winning some state legislatures.

    This is why the GOP stacking the court in their favor damaged the court from this point on. The Dems gave to react in proportion or they don’t get opportunities where they can sway the court logically RE: elected seats. Even when they have presidents. Of course the Dems are going to react thinking about counter measures when they think the SCOTUS is captured by their political rivals. They have no reason not to, and you know as well as I do this wasn’t going to stay a one time option for the Republicans.

    Its more difficult to do as you suggest when the GOP are excellent with gerrymandering and have a court that is ok with th doing that and getting rid of minority protection laws like the VRA.

    Harry Dresden on
    H3Knuckles
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.

    We tried that bit but it didn't work out.

    KetarMegaMekHarry DresdenAstaerethSo It GoesenlightenedbumCommander ZoomwanderingSleepLovelydavidsdurionsStabbity StyleBrodyHavelock2.0ForarJepheryMazzyxMatevYamiB.I ZimbrashrykeKetBraJragghenBullheadMrVyngaardsanstodoCptKemzikEdith UpwardsIncenjucarYoutubeDarkPrimusMagellPolaritieNobodyFencingsaxHacksawdispatch.omrondeauN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunHefflingH3Knuckles
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.

    Win the presidency AND the senate. If you don't win the senate but do win the presidency then there will be no replacements for justices that retire or pass on.

    Harry DresdenCommander ZoomMegaMekSleepLovelyBrodymonikerYamiB.OrcaSurfpossumRiusIncenjucarFencingsaxHacksawCantidemrondeauQanamilN1tSt4lkerjdarksunHefflingH3Knuckles
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    On the positive side 2020 is a really good year in theory for democrats to pick up seats in the senate. 2018 is a really hard map but that table flips in 2020.

    wanderinga5ehrenRedTide
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    I'll make any necessary sacrifices to dark gods to ensure RBG survives through January of 2021

    kedinik on
    ExtreaminatuswanderingSo It GoesQuida5ehrenMrMisterForarMatevBullheadnever dieArbitraryDescriptorOrcaMrVyngaardEdith UpwardsmiscellaneousinsanityCantideN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenjdarksun
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Looks like Thomas drew the California abortion disclaimer case so I'm reading that is bad news.

    Edit: Hmm...a point that the first amendment theory saying the government can't force doctors to say certain things actual torpedoes a number of anti-abortion laws in southern states.

    Edit2: Apparently the court is getting in shape for their own Korematsu with the travel ban case.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykePhoenix-DYoutubeMagellMegaMekmrondeau
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    This court is a fucking menace to a free society.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Harry DresdenMatevshrykeGnome-InterruptusKnight_OrcaAistanMrVyngaardCptKemzikEdith UpwardsIncenjucarYoutubeMagellMegaMekHacksawSpoitdispatch.oCantidemrondeauQanamilElldrenMayabirdjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Looks like Thomas drew the California abortion disclaimer case so I'm reading that is bad news.

    Edit: Hmm...a point that the first amendment theory saying the government can't force doctors to say certain things actual torpedoes a number of anti-abortion laws in southern states.

    How does he square that with Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
    At the conference of the Justices two days after oral argument, Justice Souter defied expectations, joining Justices O'Connor, Stevens, and Blackmun, who had likewise refused to do so three years earlier in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. This resulted in a precarious five Justice majority consisting of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas that favored upholding all five contested abortion restrictions. However, Justice Kennedy changed his mind shortly thereafter and joined with fellow Reagan-Bush justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter to write a plurality opinion that would reaffirm Roe.[8]
    Rehnquist and Scalia each joined the plurality in upholding the parental consent, informed consent, and waiting period laws. However, they dissented from the plurality's decision to uphold Roe v. Wade and strike down the spousal notification law, contending that Roe was incorrectly decided. In his opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned the fundamental right to an abortion, the "right to privacy," and the strict scrutiny application in Roe.[34] He also questioned the new "undue burden" analysis under the plurality opinion, instead deciding that the proper analysis for the regulation of abortions was rational-basis.[35]

    In his opinion, Justice Scalia also argued for a rational-basis approach, finding that the Pennsylvania statute in its entirety was constitutional.[36] He argued that abortion was not a "protected" liberty, and as such, the abortion liberty could be intruded upon by the State.[37] To this end, Justice Scalia concluded this was so because an abortion right was not in the Constitution, and "longstanding traditions of American society" have allowed abortion to be legally proscribed.[38] Rehnquist and Scalia joined each other's concurrence/dissents. White and Thomas, who did not write their own opinions, joined in both.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Just started reading this but basically they're saying that because Trump had some State department flunkies come up with an excuse that didn't mention religion we can totally ignore all his public statements about it being totally about religion.

    Also I sincerely doubt anybody who hasn't read the decision would have any chance at naming the reason given justifying the ban.

    CouscousEdith UpwardsH3Knuckles
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

    WaPo: https://wapo.st/2yGqO36

    Youtube
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Just started reading this but basically they're saying that because Trump had some State department flunkies come up with an excuse that didn't mention religion we can totally ignore all his public statements about it being totally about religion.

    Also I sincerely doubt anybody who hasn't read the decision would have any chance at naming the reason given justifying the ban.

    The majority used the rational basis standard, standard so easily passed that it is amazingly hard to craft a law that violates the standard without practically trying to do so.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Reads to me like further surrender of power to the presidency if they claim something is for "national security" purposes.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    a5ehreniTunesIsEvilJepherymonikerMatevshrykeOrcaMrVyngaardEdith UpwardsMagellMegaMekFencingsaxCantideN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Also this demonstrates the hilarious bullshit that was Masterpiece Cakeshop. The president's statements are irrelevant, but some civil rights commissioner's are so vital we have to let the bigots win.

    Maybe you just like bigots.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    iTunesIsEvilDevoutlyApatheticwanderingIlpalaSleepHakkekageStabbity StyleQuidDoctorArchdestroyah87JepheryForarAridholmonikerYamiB.AstaerethMatevI ZimbrashrykeKetBraJragghennever diePhoenix-DKnight_ViskodDunderGnome-InterruptusOrcaAistanMrVyngaardsanstodoPreacherCptKemzikEdith UpwardsZomroskyknytKetarIncenjucarAimDarkPrimusMagellKraintPolaritieLovelyFryMegaMekHacksawdispatch.oCantideQanamilN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunabotkinHefflingH3Knuckles
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Annnnnd, they ruled the travel-ban is legit because they tried really hard to ignore Trump's tweets.
    Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."

    From Roberts' reading:
    Court says Proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA."
    Addresses the issue of the president's statements on excluding Muslims from the US. Says "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility."
    Court says that it will look beyond the face of the Proclamation to consider the plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence about the president's motivations, "but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
    Says the proclamation is based on legitimate purposes, without saying anything about religion. Proclamation is result of a "world wide review process" by multiple cabinet agencies. Notes taht it doesn't apply to Iraq, "one of the largest predominately Muslim countries in the region."
    "under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today tat plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim."
    Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."

    [ed] Quotes are from SCOTUSblog's livestream.

    iTunesIsEvil on
    Youtube
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

    WaPo: https://wapo.st/2yGqO36

    oh for fuck's sake

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    HakkekageExtreaminatusJepherymonikerBullheadMatevGnome-InterruptusOrcaMrVyngaardEdith UpwardsZomroIncenjucarMagellLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oCantideN1tSt4lkerdiscriderElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    It wasn't just Trump's tweets. People close to him also defended it as a Muslim ban.

    SleepHakkekageJepherymonikerKetBraJragghenPhoenix-DMatevCptKemzikEdith UpwardsIncenjucarLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Fuck Mitch McConnell

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    SleepHakkekageExtreaminatusTomantaSo It GoesJepheryenlightenedbummonikerCommander ZoomYamiB.mxmarksAstaerethNogginshrykeKetBraJragghenBullheadMatevGnome-InterruptusOrcaAistanMrVyngaardsanstodoCptKemzikEdith UpwardsZomroIncenjucarAimMartini_PhilosopherYoutubeDarkPrimusMagellKraintsilence1186LovelyNobodyMegaMekHacksawFencingsaxGimdispatch.oSlacker1913CantideQanamilN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenjdarksunabotkinHefflingH3Knuckles
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.

    About that:
    Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

    So I guess that's nice.

    HakkekageMrMisterYoutube
  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know Texas booniesRegistered User regular
    Also this demonstrates the hilarious bullshit that was Masterpiece Cakeshop. The president's statements are irrelevant, but some civil rights commissioners are so vital we have to let the bigots win.

    Maybe you just like bigots.

    Consequences for thee but not for me.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu/Auldhaerz Swygkhansyn (both on Mateus), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
    SleepmonikerMatevOrcaCptKemzikEdith UpwardsIncenjucarDarkPrimusLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxhippofantHacksawCantidewanderingN1tSt4lkerMayabirdjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

    WaPo: https://wapo.st/2yGqO36

    To be clear, they revoked the preliminary injunction against the ban because they say that the plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. There will be a round two in like a few years if they go through the normal appeals process on this.

    a5ehrenspool32MrMisterSo It GoesFencingsaxElldrenH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.

    About that:
    Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

    So I guess that's nice.

    So they would be fine with forcible relocation of US citizens to concentration camps as long as it isn't explicitly and solely on the basis of race and they could come up with some half assed justification for it.

    RedTideKetBraOrcaEdith UpwardsMagellLovelyN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.

    About that:
    Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

    So I guess that's nice.

    The bolded worries me for when Kiddie Korematsu makes it to SCOTUS.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    DevoutlyApatheticiTunesIsEvilZythonYamiB.KetBraGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthCptKemzikEdith UpwardsDarkPrimusMegaMekCantideN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.

    About that:
    Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

    So I guess that's nice.

    The bolded worries me for when Kiddie Korematsu makes it to SCOTUS.

    ah yes. "They're not citizens, so fuck 'em."

    Mind you, at this rate we might well be putting actual citizens in camps (again) by the time it gets there...

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    OrcaYoutubeLovelyH3Knuckles
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited June 2018
    This bullshit about the ban being facially neutral, and the administrations paper thin national security interest surviving rational basis review because any statements made by those officials regarding their true motivations outside of that unsubstatiated interest is outside the scope of review, is so infuriating I think I’ve lost a kidney

    Plaintiffs sure are unlikely to win on the merits of their case because you’ve told the courts to discard any evidence related to the merits of the case

    I’m fucking seething even though I knew this was coming because fuck this timeline

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    monikerYamiB.BrodyGnome-InterruptussanstodoEdith UpwardsDarkPrimusAresProphetLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxHeirdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    This is from SCOTUSblog:
    Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address. It's subtext is pretty close to the surface, and seems designed to chastise the Executive while agreeing with the majority that there was not anything the Court could do about it.

    What a fucking useless asshole.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Commander ZoomSo It GoesCouscousHakkekagemonikerYamiB.kedinikStabbity StyleshrykeKetBraiTunesIsEvilDoctorArchPhoenix-DMatevGnome-InterruptusOrcaCptKemzikGiggles_FunsworthEdith UpwardsZomroIncenjucarAimMartini_PhilosopherKraintMagellDarkPrimusPolaritieAresProphetPantsBMegaMekHacksawGimdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardQanamilElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Breyer's dissent is like "Hey, guys, we can look at how they're actually applying the order, and it's not neutral. Morons."

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    RedTideHakkekagemonikershrykeKetBradestroyah87iTunesIsEvilMatevGnome-InterruptusOrcaCptKemzikEdith UpwardsZomroMartini_PhilosopherMagellKruiteLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardQanamilN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

    WaPo: https://wapo.st/2yGqO36

    Well, silver lining, at least they're not being thrown in to concentration camps.

    Yay...

    :(

    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    What the fuck, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide whether or not things are unconstitutional!

    SleepHakkekageTomantamonikerStabbity StyleKetBraBrodyBullheaddestroyah87never diePhoenix-DMatevGnome-InterruptusOrcaEdith UpwardsZomroIncenjucarAimMartini_PhilosopherMagellDarkPrimusspool32PolaritieLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive

    Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    Jepherya5ehrenSleepdestroyah87MatevIncenjucargrumblethornFencingsaxMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive

    Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant

    Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.

    a5ehren on
    spool32Fencingsaxdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I have a hard time seeing the judicial overreach of saying that if the President of the United states openly targets Muslims and says he wants to ban them, his law being facially neutral and someone can pulled a neutral argument for it out of their ass won't prevent it from being unconstitutional.

    HakkekageMatevMegaMekElldrenH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    .
    kaid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.

    Win the presidency AND the senate. If you don't win the senate but do win the presidency then there will be no replacements for justices that retire or pass on.

    Recess appointments of like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Noam Chomsky to get them to accept Deval Patrick and Lawerence Tribe

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    YoutubeGiggles_Funsworth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    With apologies to ACA and what not, Sotomayor might be the best thing Obama ever did:
    Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Estab­lishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Procla­mation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.

    Don't often see direct condemnation of fellow justices like that. She'll probably be decried as being horribly uncivil.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    HakkekagemonikerStabbity StyleIlpalashrykeOghulkKetBraForarBrodyiTunesIsEvildoomybearGnome-InterruptusOrcasanstodoMatevEdith UpwardsZomroIncenjucarMartini_PhilosopherYoutubeKraintMagellAresProphetLovelyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oSlacker1913CantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    So just rewrite Executive Orders until you can put enough of a fig leaf up for a 5*-4 decision.

    God damn it.

    HakkekageBullheadGnome-InterruptusOrcaMatevEdith UpwardsFencingsaxMrVyngaardElldrenH3Knuckles
  • DiplominatorDiplominator Hardcore Porg Registered User regular
    I don't understand how requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to have a "we are charlatans" sign is different from requiring cigarette packages to bear a Surgeon General's Warning.

    Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.

    YamiB.Edith UpwardsLovelyElldren
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive

    Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant

    Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.

    Reminds one of Rome's transition from a republic in reality to an republic in name only - the Senate granting all its authority to the Imperator until it was functionally powerless.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    ExtreaminatusSleepStabbity StyleEdith UpwardsYoutubegrumblethornFencingsaxhippofantMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerMr RayElldrenH3Knuckles
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    With apologies to ACA and what not, Sotomayor might be the best thing Obama ever did:
    Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Estab­lishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Procla­mation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.

    Don't often see direct condemnation of fellow justices like that. She'll probably be decried as being horribly uncivil.

    A lot of jerkoffs in bowties clucking about how this is what happens when you let those people on the bench for sure.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Edith Upwards
This discussion has been closed.