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

194959799100

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    She goes back to Masterpiece near her conclusion. The hypocrisy really pissed her off.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citing Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laud­able and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discrimi­natory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.
    Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to ac­count when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.

    The end. Whenever the court gets around to deciding this was ridiculous, that dissent is going to be cited like Jackson's to Korematsu.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    HakkekageDuke 2.0shrykeJepheryGnome-InterruptusKetBrasanstodoYamiB.YoutubeMartini_PhilosopherOrcaMatevAresProphetSummaryJudgmentspool32Rawkking GoodguyFencingsaxSpoitBullheadnever dieMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Democracy functions just fine and Gorsuch is a capable, qualified Justice. With limited political capital, what's needed is a permanent remedy for the next time somebody tries that shit.

    Spend your energy on the Amendment.

    The court is our 3rd assembly, and the most powerful one if it is biased.
    Viskod wrote: »
    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.

    Eh, they are doing their job, just very cautiously. It's just that their job is to cement us as a Republican run autocracy, and they are a little bit worried about demographic trends and voter age distributions leading to them spending their final years broke and accursed rather than on the court.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    YoutubeFrankiedarlingMan in the Mists
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    cursedking wrote: »
    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.

    Not exactly, everyone thought Trump would lose - including Trump! There were bigger reasons why they didn't act on the outside vectors, which is off-topic.

    You should be angry, but aim the anger at the right people. Hindsight is 202/20 and all that. Elections have consequences, this one of them. The bigger question is - what's going on with the current judges that they're ok with the status quo?

    Harry Dresden on
    Gnome-InterruptusMan in the Mists
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry, all of this is getting lost in me panicking about the Muslim Ban, whats going on with abortions?

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    Credentials fraud and fake clinics that lie to people seeking healthcare with literal fake doctors are legal now, but only if you want to Save The Babies.

    Phoenix-DJragghenYoutubeStabbity StyleMatevArbitraryDescriptorDarkPrimusBlackDragon480Giggles_FunsworthMegaMekdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerMan in the Mists
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177. To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.

    Korematsu had a Kennedy too!

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    HakkekageFencingsaxSpoitElldren
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177. To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.

    Korematsu had a Kennedy too!

    But remember, this is completely different because this court found the moral clarity to condemn rounding up us citizens during a war 70 years ago. Next up, they will demonstrate more great leadership by condemning the tax policies of George the 5th

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    OrcaBlackDragon480
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Basically the message I get from this court is that infringements upon Christianity, particularly the evangelical protestant brand of Christianity, are unconstitutional; however, infringements upon other faiths are not. Which is a violation of the bloody establishment clause in and of itself.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    JepheryZomroOrcaHakkekagedestroyah87Edith UpwardsGnome-InterruptusSo It GoesMatevJaysonFourPolaritieMartini_PhilosopherKnight_DarkPrimusiTunesIsEvilmonikerAstaerethKetBraBlackDragon480DoctorArchKraintLovelycursedkingOghulkGiggles_FunsworthshrykeMegaMekhippofantFencingsaxHacksawSpoitnever diedispatch.oMrVyngaardCptKemzikGnizmomrondeauN1tSt4lkerNo-QuarterElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinBandableH3Knuckles
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered 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.

    Terrorism isn't actually the stated objection. Nobody in the thread has mentioned what these countries failed in that justified the ban (at least according to Roberts.)

    Until I read the opening I don't think I'd seen it mentioned in any form either.

    But it's totally a rational basis.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Again, all you need is Sotomayors dissent. There was no basis for this in the realm of national security.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    Phoenix-DEdith UpwardsStabbity StyleGnome-InterruptusJepheryOrcaMartini_PhilosopherfightinfilipinoHakkekageZomroYoutubeBlackDragon480OghulkshrykeMegaMekdispatch.onever dieMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    The travel ban ruling reads almost exactly like Korematsu with the nouns changed.

    Edith UpwardsenlightenedbumGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherKnight_HakkekagePantsBshrykeMegaMekFencingsaxMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomMan in the Mistsjdarksun
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    What the Supreme Court decision means with respect to the travel ban is that the president can rant and rail about the evils of certain ethnic and religious groups and if his goons follow up with a policy and couch it in neutral legalese then it’s fine.

    This decision is wrong on all counts. The legal analysis conveniently ignores everything the architect of this policy, the President of the United States, has said about the policy. The immortality of this decision is... staggering..

    I had hoped that maybe, MAYBE, Gorsuch might be a principled jurist, concerned with the law and trying to adhere to the principles this county was founded on, even when we have failed to practice them so many times. He has proven time and again that he is not, and today is no different. He is another of Trumps goons, except we’ll be dealing with him long after Trump is gone.

    Roberts is no better. He is a callous and cruel politician like no other. He once said during his confirmation hearings that judges should just be calling balls and strikes. Well today the pitcher flipped off the batter, threw the ball at his fucking face, and the umpire called a strikeout.

    Alito is a zealot. Thomas is a sociopath. I don’t know what the fuck Kennedy is thinking.

    I do not know how they could read this twitter thread and feel anything but shame over what they did. But they would not, and they do not.



    Feeling profoundly lost and let down today. This is worse than November 2016 because it validates so much of Trump’s behavior.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
    OrcaJepheryMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusKnight_JaysonFourDarkPrimusfightinfilipinomonikerHakkekageIncenjucarZomroYoutubeBlackDragon480LovelyGiggles_FunsworthMegaMekHeirFencingsaxSpoitdispatch.onever dieboogedybooN1tSt4lkerMan in the MistsabotkinH3Knuckles
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    Sleep
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I don't think picketing SCOTUS is particularly useful, but you could stand outside the building and yell I guess. I wouldn't fault anyone for it.

    Harry DresdenPolaritieGnome-InterruptusKnight_GoodKingJayIIIKetBraJaysonFourmonikerHakkekageIncenjucarStabbity StyleBlackDragon480BlankzillashrykeMegaMekHeirFencingsaxHacksawdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardboogedybooN1tSt4lkersanstodoElldrenH3Knuckles
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?

    People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    I mean, I guess I had more in mind a mass march, but I also understand that ultimately the SCOTUS is designed to exist apart from public opinion.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    ArbitraryDescriptorspool32
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered 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.

    "This isn't unconstitutional but trust us we'd strike it down if we thought it was. Also it's not always our place to act as a check on the executive"

    Historically, these cessations of authority to fascist rulers happen fairly far apart and not together in the same fucking court decision

    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    GoodKingJayIIIPolaritieEdith UpwardsJepheryKnight_HakkekageZomroYoutubeGiggles_FunsworthshrykeMegaMekFencingsaxMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oMrVyngaardOrcaElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Well, there's a mass immigration protest on Saturday. Dunno if we add this to that.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.

    IncenjucarPhoenix-DGoodKingJayIIIJepheryYoutubeEdith UpwardsOghulkGiggles_FunsworthtzeentchlingMegaMekAimHacksawSpoitMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oN1tSt4lkerElldrenMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.

    I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Well, there's a mass immigration protest on Saturday. Dunno if we add this to that.

    Clearly we do. I will.

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.

    I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.

    I don't have it on hand but as I was reading it earlier they get around that by claiming the CA law had nothing to do with health care

    Yeah

    Edith UpwardsFencingsax
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?

    People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.

    Honestly the only outside influence I would expect to have any impact on them, and I'm not really sure it would do anything, would be if the Pope instructed they were no longer to receive communion.

    Which would be a whole other big pile of horribleness for other reasons but would be glorious schadenfreude.

  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.

    It is just as horrifying for different reasons. These “clinics” can now perpetrate fraud and literally endanger the lives of both mother and fetus because they find abortion icky.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
    SleepPhoenix-DHakkekageBlackDragon480DarkPrimusEdith UpwardsLovelyBrodyStabbity StyleGiggles_FunsworthshrykeFencingsaxAimHacksawMartini_Philosophernever dieCantideMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.

    I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.

    I don't have it on hand but as I was reading it earlier they get around that by claiming the CA law had nothing to do with health care

    Yeah

    Law professor:

    It is pretty much a meaningless distinction.

    Styrofoam Sammich
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    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.
    It'd be almost as politically costly as holding a SCOTUS seat hostage by refusing a nominee a hearing. Violations of political norms have been so incredibly costly electorally in the last decade that Donald Trump is President and the Republican party holds both Houses.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    enlightenedbumSleepAstaerethCouscousStyrofoam SammichJepherykedinikHarry DresdenYamiB.monikerBlackDragon480YoutubeiTunesIsEvilRiemannLivesEdith UpwardsRedTideShadowhopeStabbity StyleshrykeGnome-InterruptusForarMegaMekFencingsaxAimHacksawAistanBullheadMartini_Philosopherdispatch.onever dieCantideMorganVMrVyngaardboogedybooOrcaElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinYoshisummonsHefflingH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    By Roberts’s logic, cornerstones of Jim Crow law, the grandfather clause, and the literacy test would be entirely constitutional. Grandfather clauses barred people from voting if they could not vote prior to emancipation, but there were free black Americans prior to the abolition of slavery, and there were blacks capable of passing literacy tests in states where those tests were not deliberately impossible to pass. These laws did not affect all black voters, and neither did they explicitly mention race—so, to apply the tests Roberts has proposed, these devices, meant to secure white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction, were not discriminatory.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    fightinfilipinoGoodKingJayIIIiTunesIsEvilEdith UpwardsBrodyStabbity StyleIlpalashrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekFencingsaxHacksawSpoitMartini_Philosophernever dieCantideMrVyngaardCommander ZoomsanstodoElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?

    People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.

    Honestly the only outside influence I would expect to have any impact on them, and I'm not really sure it would do anything, would be if the Pope instructed they were no longer to receive communion.

    Which would be a whole other big pile of horribleness for other reasons but would be glorious schadenfreude.

    Treating them as terrible people everywhere they go could help.

    Styrofoam SammichYoutubeHarry DresdenEdith UpwardsshrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekBullheadMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    Well, the immigration ban sticking is terrifying. I guarantee this is now the groundwork for limiting it from South America and Mexico.

    "I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge."
    X-Box Tag: PrettyGoodCake
    PSN: LLatikuf
    SleepYoutubeLovelyH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

    Youtubesilence1186Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthskyknytH3Knuckles
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

    If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey

    Styrofoam SammichSleepHarry DresdenHakkekageBlackDragon480MrMistermonikerDoodmannGoodKingJayIIIBrodyStabbity StyleGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusMegaMekQuidFencingsaxHacksawMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oPolaritienever dieMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Can someone explain this to me like a five year old who stayed up all night?

    SC reversed the TRO [on the ban] and remanded it back to the lower court "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate"

    Do we get another bite at this or not? My understanding of a TRO was that it was a "stop doing this shit while we sort it out" vs "keep doing this shit while we sort it out"

    Are we now in the latter scenario, or is there no further appropriate proceeding?

    If it's dead: What's the legal reason to only do a rational basis review if this was the main event?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    So the only way this case remotely squares with Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (and the baker case) is that's okay for the executive to spout racist dipshittery as long as the resulting policy is neutral on its face, but not for anyone else to have any opinion whatsoever on any issue because that will poison any neutral policy.

    Wonderful distinction. Just wonderful.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    HakkekageSleepBlackDragon480Phoenix-DEdith UpwardsZomroBrodyFryGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxdispatch.onever dieElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

    If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey

    The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.

    If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    YamiB.Harry DresdenEdith UpwardsKraintYoutubeLovelyKnight_shrykeMegaMekSpoitMan in the Mistsjdarksun
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

    If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey

    The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.

    If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.

    Nah. I think there are definitely places Congress could act to fix laws or pass new ones that would solve the problems SCOTUS has identified with the law.

    I can think of one big law, to start with....

    SleepMrMisterdispatch.oMrVyngaardN1tSt4lkerskyknyt
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    "Congress should fix this" doesn't make sense when they just gave a win to gerrymandering that makes it harder for people to fix anything.

    DarkPrimusSleepHakkekagetzeentchlingshrykeGiggles_FunsworthMegaMekHacksawSpoitBullheadnever dieRozOrcaMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

    If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey

    The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.

    If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.

    Nah. I think there are definitely places Congress could act to fix laws or pass new ones that would solve the problems SCOTUS has identified with the law.

    I can think of one big law, to start with....

    But the big counter example is the VRA, which was re-upped by Congress only a few years before John Roberts deemed it no longer necessary.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    Phoenix-DYamiB.Knight_So It GoesHakkekageshrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekFencingsaxHacksawMrMisterdispatch.onever dieMrVyngaardElldrenMan in the Mistsjdarksunabotkin
This discussion has been closed.