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

194969899100

Posts

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered 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.

    The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    When the Muslim ban first happened I was melting down and beast was getting into a Facebook fight with his mother who, I very distinctly remember, said none of this would affect me and also not to get hysterical because “checks and balances”

    Checks and balance requires equal branches to provide the check and the balance. Kennedy in his argument is essentially taking a hedge trimmer to the judicial branch and claiming it can’t possibly be expected to comment on the improper exercise of the presidents constitutional authority when he SAYS it’s constitutional, and also he really wants to do it!

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    SleepJepherymonikerNecoAstaerethGnome-InterruptusOrcasanstodoStabbity StyleMatevEdith UpwardsZomroMagellAresProphetFencingsaxMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    wHjIaap.jpg
    Kennedy thinks adhering to the Constitution is important, but they just aren't going to do anything to ensure that happens.

    HakkekageIlpalamonikershrykeJepheryGnome-InterruptusMatevEdith UpwardsIncenjucarMartini_PhilosopherAresProphettsmvengyMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    I'm very glad Sotomayor is on the court

    HakkekageenlightenedbumRedTideGnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleMatevEdith UpwardsSo It GoesMartini_PhilosopherAresProphetFryFencingsaxHeirGimdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenMayabirdjdarksunmiscellaneousinsanityabotkinH3Knuckles
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Jephery wrote: »
    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.

    You don't have to go back that far. Every nation that directly adopted the American system (mostly Latin American examples) fell into dictatorship. It's why when we were rebuilding Japan and Germany, we explicitly and purposefully made sure to choose different models.

    Phillishere on
    SleepJepheryBigJoeMCptKemzikMatevEdith UpwardsShortyYoutubeFencingsaxwanderingN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksun
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    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.

    The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.

    Why do you think Thomas and other SCOTUS justices wouldn't find a way to thread that needle and say those are OK?

    I ZimbraGnizmoYoutubeFencingsaxH3Knuckles
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    wHjIaap.jpg
    Kennedy thinks adhering to the Constitution is important, but they just aren't going to do anything to ensure that happens.

    If the Rule of Law is voluntary it is not Rule of Law.

    a5ehrenDevoutlyApatheticHakkekageshrykeOghulkIlpalaAstaerethCptKemzikSleepdestroyah87Gnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleMatevEdith UpwardsCaptain InertiaIncenjucarMagellDarkPrimusJaysonFourPolaritieAresProphetMegaMekFencingsaxHacksawdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardNecoN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    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.

    The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.

    Why do you think Thomas and other SCOTUS justices wouldn't find a way to thread that needle and say those are OK?

    The question mainly depends on how long it takes for a case on that basis to filter up to SCOTUS. Check back after the 2020 election :P

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    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

    What are you even talking about dude? Should I use y'all instead for it's clear americanesss or something? I guess I'm sorry the english language dropped it's second-person plural pronoun awhile back? I didn't think the point was unclear in the slightest there.

    Gorsuch is up there making sure the voting system is rigged in hugely racist ways and if y'all leave him there it will confirm that one is allowed to profit from illegally conspiring to influence the election. It's like letting a bank robber pay his legal bills with the money he stole or something. Though as Ebum points out, the chances of that actually happening are basically zero so packing the courts is probably the better option.

    Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_Funsworthmrondeau
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    3febzhqervk5.jpg
    How does Justice Kennedy think this is supposed to work? Just saying Congress/the people should do it doesn't make sense because Congress can represent a minority of the USA due to how both Houses work even before getting into things like voting laws.

    Couscous on
    HakkekageMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkerElldrenH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I guess we know why Masterpiece was supposedly "narrow." Because they would contradict it what, two weeks later?

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    KetBraPhoenix-DshrykeHakkekageYamiB.CptKemzikGnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleMatevEdith UpwardsZomroJragghenYoutubeMartini_PhilosophermonikerMegaMekFencingsaxMrVyngaardwanderingN1tSt4lkerElldrenH3Knuckles
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    I think one of the few things keeping liberals trust in our institutions has been SCOTUS, and I think it's safe to say there's little reason for the liberal coalition to continue trusting it.

    Like, Sotomayors dissent is pretty strong and brings up a recurring theme: how do we continue if our institutions willfully ignore truth and fact?

    raoADVy.png
    JepheryIlpalaZombie HeroHakkekageKnight_YamiB.CptKemziksanstodoGnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleEdith UpwardsMatevZomroShortyJragghenMagellYoutubeIncenjucarDarkPrimusJaysonFourmonikerGiggles_FunsworthLovelyHacksawCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunmiscellaneousinsanityabotkinH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    You are talking about the guy who said:
    We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
    Don't except intelligence or coherence here.

    shryke on
    JepheryYamiB.CptKemzikMatevmonikerMegaMekFencingsaxCantideElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • BogartBogart I Will Cure You Registered User, Moderator mod
    I hate to demand civility when right now that's being used as a way of shutting down reasonable protest, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows this forum isn't a democracy. Disagree politely, or take a break from the thread.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    They said it passed the rational basis test.

    This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.

    Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    HakkekagePhoenix-DOghulkGnome-InterruptusMatevZomroMartini_PhilosopherDarkPrimusJaysonFourPolaritiemonikerFencingsaxCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    This is a pretty good joke of a ruling.

    Real shining legacy you're going to have, Roberts.

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    CptKemzikEdith Upwards
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    I guess we know why Masterpiece was supposedly "narrow." Because they would contradict it what, two weeks later?

    Shelby County was supposed to be "narrow" too until they blew that all up with Abbott. Round and round we go.

    The roberts court is firmly planted in bottom 3 courts of all time, and the only reason they don't get to be number 1 or 2 just yet is because they haven't had their dred scott or korematsu yet. Though this case, when it eventually ends up back at scotus for real, will probably be up there.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    YamiB.OrcaGnome-InterruptusMatevYoutubemonikerGiggles_FunsworthMegaMekSpoitCantideElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Kennedy thinks adhering to the Constitution is important, but they just aren't going to do anything to ensure that happens.

    Seriously though, who is to say what is or is not Constitutional if the SCOTUS refuses to do so?

    The voters who elected the president are going to say whatever he does is constitutional, the opposition is going to say its unconstitutional. So Constitutionality is now a popularity contest instead of reasoned argument and precedent.

    }
    "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!".
    SleepOghulkGnome-InterruptusYoutubeGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxCantideN1tSt4lkerH3Knuckles
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Wait so did SCOTUS rule on the ban, or just lifted/denied the TRO?

    That SCOTUSBlog post seemed sounded like the latter, and, if so, I remain optimistic. Moreso than when I last posted about it.

    V.3 concerned me, because it had the fig leaf of removing two muslim countries, adding two non, and adding waivers for "anyone."

    Again, unless I misunderstand, I get their position here claiming it's not an obvious slam dunk because of these fig leaves. But it's been leaking out that the waiver process is implemented in incredibly bad faith, and that seems like the sort of thing that could reveal the country sub for what it is, and probably came out too late to affect their decision.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    MrMister
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I'm reading through Sotomayr's dissent and I'll be posting excerpts:
    To determine whether plaintiffs have proved an Establishment Clause violation, the Court asks whether a reasonable observer would view the gov­ernment action as enacted for the purpose of disfavoring a religion. See id., at 862, 866; accord, Town of Greece v.
    Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 19).In answering that question, this Court has generally
    considered the text of the government policy, its operation, and any available evidence regarding “the historical back­ground of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy inquestion, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by” the decisionmaker.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    a5ehrenHakkekageMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxN1tSt4lkerjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Viskod wrote: »
    They said it passed the rational basis test.

    This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.

    Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.

    The rational basis does not need to be real. The law doesn't need to actually further a legitimate end of government to meet the standard.

    You can see why almost no laws fail to meet the rational basis standard.

    Couscous on
    kedinikHakkekageMrMisterMatevMrVyngaard
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    They said it passed the rational basis test.

    This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.

    Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.

    Rational basis is the least rigorous standard of review, by which the majority of the court evidently means to say “no standard of review” based on how many times they claim that everything is facially neutral and on the up and up and there’s no need or reason to investigate further (nay, in fact, they are forbidden to!)

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    ViskodGnome-InterruptusMegaMekH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Here she directly refutes the Korematsu part of the majority, by bringing up that it was in fact Trump who made the comparison:
    On December 8, 2015, Trump justified his proposal during a television interview by noting that President Franklin D. Roosevelt “did the same thing” with respect to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

    This is part of a long passage where she documents all the times he said he wanted to ban all Muslims, including a statement that was on his campaign website until May 2017.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Gnome-InterruptusYoutubeMartini_PhilosopherMegaMekFencingsaxdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are limits on the justicability of the ban, given assumed facial neutrality and assumed executive authority in the area. I can imagine the court not wanting to be in the position of ruling on and endless series of bans, with respect to the intentions behind each, and with it being queasy about the separation of powers issues that would be involved in potentially taking open ended custodianship of immigration policy. I mean, I can also see thinking that this is what’s constitutionally required! But Kennedy’s basic claim in the excerpt that constitutionality is not equivalent to justicability doesn’t strike me as ridiculous.

    In any case, I haven’t read the opinions yet. Maybe I’ll have a more informed opinion later.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Random rude comment by a random rude CA official?

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Explicitly bigoted arguments for the travel ban?

    MEH

    YamiB.Hakkekagedestroyah87Stabbity StylePhoenix-DEdith UpwardsMatevGnome-InterruptusZomroskyknytCouscousJragghenMartini_PhilosophertzeentchlingPolaritieAresProphetLovelyOghulkMegaMekdispatch.oCantideN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    That same day, President Trump explained to the media that, under EO–1, Christians would be given priority for entry as refugees into the United States. In particu­lar, he bemoaned the fact that in the past, “If you were a Muslim [refugee from Syria] you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” Id., at 125. Considering that past policy “very unfair,” President Trump explained that EO–1 was designed “to help” the Christians in Syria. Ibid. The following day, one of Presi­dent Trump’s key advisers candidly drew the connection between EO–1 and the “Muslim ban” that the President had pledged to implement if elected.
    Ibid. According to that adviser, “[W]hen [Donald Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put
    commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” Ibid.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykeHakkekageGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.

    We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.

    cursedking on
    YamiB.RedTideAssuranSleepJepheryJragghenFeloniousmozMagellYoutubeKraintOrcaMatevgrumblethorntsmvengyLovelyRawkking GoodguyNobodyMegaMekQuidFencingsaxSpoitBullheadVeagledispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardNecoRickRudeGimElldrenjdarksunabotkin
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Sotomayor starts reference Trump tweets and has the kindness to note that all the fucked up grammar and spelling were in the originals.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykeForarSleepGnome-InterruptusBrodyYoutubeMartini_PhilosopherMatevJaysonFourPolaritieArbitraryDescriptora5ehrenAresProphetNobodyFencingsaxdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenMayabirdjdarksunabotkinHefflingH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Notably, the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant. Cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 18) (“The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to the affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what
    the Free Exercise Clause requires”). It should find the same here.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    IlpalaMrMistershrykeHakkekageGnome-InterruptusBrodyPolaritiea5ehrenArbitraryDescriptoriTunesIsEvilspool32KruiteFencingsaxBullheadnever dieN1tSt4lkerjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are limits on the justicability of the ban, given assumed facial neutrality and assumed executive authority in the area. I can imagine the court not wanting to be in the position of ruling on and endless series of bans, with respect to the intentions behind each, and with it being queasy about the separation of powers issues that would be involved in potentially taking open ended custodianship of immigration policy. I mean, I can also see thinking that this is what’s constitutionally required! But Kennedy’s basic claim in the excerpt that constitutionality is not equivalent to justicability doesn’t strike me as ridiculous.

    In any case, I haven’t read the opinions yet. Maybe I’ll have a more informed opinion later.

    There was no justification for the ban on a national security basis and almost every word out of the mans mouth for years was evidence of intent for the ban to be discriminatory in purpose. I want to know what "evidence" the court was given to show that there was a basis for this in the realm of national security, because apparently the government can just lie to the supreme court and five idiots will take everything said at face value without question.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    HakkekageAistanOrcaDarkPrimusMegaMekFencingsaxMrVyngaardElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    cursedking wrote: »
    The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.

    We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.

    Mitch McConnell has agency too, you know.

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    SleepJepheryHakkekageGnome-InterruptusmonikerHeirFencingsaxdispatch.oQanamilCommander ZoomElldrenH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.

    <3

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    JepheryHakkekageIlpalaViskodYamiB.Stabbity StyleForarZomroGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherOrcaMatevJaysonFourPolaritiespool32monikerOghulkFencingsaxnever dieMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenjdarksunabotkinHefflingH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Pack the court as soon as the GOP loses power.

    BigJoeMkedinikYamiB.shrykeAstaerethStabbity StyleskyknytHarry DresdenAistanDoctorArchYoutubeKraintMolotovCockatooMatevJaysonFourPolaritieGiggles_FunsworthMegaMekHacksawph blakeVeagleSlacker1913CantideN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Notably, the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant. Cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 18) (“The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to the affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what
    the Free Exercise Clause requires”). It should find the same here.
    The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.

    <3

    It's good to see someone pointing out how obviously full of shit this court is.

    JepheryIlpalaHakkekageGnome-InterruptusJaysonFourBullheadnever dieN1tSt4lkerjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.

    We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.

    All I can find is Samuel Chase, an impeachment from 1805, which ultimately failed. Being the minority party in congress isn't enough to accomplish this task even if they wanted to, this is why it's important for Dems to get more seats in the mid-terms. It's not spineless when they'd be wasting time not only getting a vote which wouldn't go through, but with a GOP in position to block something like that being allowed to be voted on in the first place.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    cursedking wrote: »
    The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.

    We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.

    Mitch McConnell has agency too, you know.

    the gop is the institution that pulled the trigger, but them being evil is a given. The Democrat's only job is to stop this from happening, and they had tools in their toolbelt to do it. but they were convinced Trump wouldn't win and just didn't give enough of a fuck in their hubris to do anything about it. It makes me incredibly angry.

    YamiB.Giggles_FunsworthMrVyngaard
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.

    We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.

    Ashamed of what? They basically had no moves. Other then some sort of "Fuck you, I'm appointing him anyway" move by Obama. There's no lever to use to force their hands.

    The Democrats main failing is in being cowards about talking about the issue. They've been dead fucking silent for no good reason. Even though when you actually look at what happened, we see that Mitch McConnell instituted a constitutional crisis to prevent the sitting president from being able to nominate people to the SCOTUS and hold the seat open for the winner of the upcoming election while he was also knowingly covering up that his own party was conspiring with a hostile foreign government to steal that very election.

    SleepHarry DresdenGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsJepheryIncenjucarLovelyFencingsaxSpoitBullheadQanamilN1tSt4lkerGimH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Put simply, Congress has already erected a statutory scheme that fulfills the putative national-security inter­ests the Government now puts forth to justify the Procla­mation. Tellingly, the Government remains wholly unable to articulate any credible national-security interest that would go unaddressed by the current statutory scheme absent the Proclamation. The Government also offers no evidence that this current vetting scheme, which involves a highly searching consideration of individuals required to obtain visas for entry into the United States and a highly searching consideration of which countries are eligible for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program, is inadequate to achieve the Proclamation’s proclaimed objectives of “pre­venting entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their [vet­ting and information-sharing] practices.” Ante, at 34.

    So then she's like "also, the national security argument itself is ridiculous on its face."

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    HakkekageshrykeGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsJepheryMartini_PhilosopherMatevArbitraryDescriptormonikerFencingsaxN1tSt4lkerElldrenjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.

    <3

    Exactly.

    This term has been about nothing but trying to find any excuse to keep from doing their actual fucking job.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    HakkekageSleepOrcaH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The majority distinguished the Crisis Pregnancy Center from the previous case where the SCOTUS said doctors could be forced to talk about alternatives to abortions by claiming the disclosure required by the CA law is unrelated to a medical procedure.

    That is so obviously pulled out of their rear after searching for any distinction at all.

    Abortion is safer than childbirth.

    Edith UpwardsGnome-InterruptusYamiB.MatevDarkPrimusLovelyMegaMekElldren
This discussion has been closed.