You probably don’t want to pack all at once without solving for lifetime appointments, preferably with some mechanism to make the appointment of replacement justices predictable
Imagine if Trump was able to pick 9 justices this presidential term
There's not a lot you can do without an amendment. A law at best just requires control of Congress and the Presidency as it can then be overridden.
But then we'll be just as bad as them, and both sides really will be the same! *wrings hands*
So we can't ever kill the Joker, just keep bringing him in so he can inevitably escape and kill more people.
(I realize this is a really messed-up metaphor, and yet... it's pretty much where we're at?)
Is it a metaphor? The media was literally blaming Obama and the Democrats for kavenaugh and the other court packing schemes
The Supreme Court has ruled that Florida can enforce a law barring ex-felons from voting if they still owe court fines or fees that they are unable to pay associated with their convictions
It is important to note that the amendment in question did not include any clause empowering the legislature with regards to its implementation. It simply stated their right to vote was restored after completing their sentence (including parole/probation periods). IANAL, but that seems to me like it's automatic. The moment the amendment came into effect their voting rights were restored - which means the actual effect of the law passed in Florida is to take away a group's existing right to vote by decree. The case should have been open and shut on that fact alone.
It is important to note that the amendment in question did not include any clause empowering the legislature with regards to its implementation. It simply stated their right to vote was restored after completing their sentence (including parole/probation periods). IANAL, but that seems to me like it's automatic. The moment the amendment came into effect their voting rights were restored - which means the actual effect of the law passed in Florida is to take away a group's existing right to vote by decree. The case should have been open and shut on that fact alone.
Sure, if you actually read the things in question.
The law is "clarifying" that the fines and fees are part of your sentence, and therefore requiring them to be repaid as part of your restitution is allowed. There's a good in there in that court fines and fees can now be reviewed under cruel and unusual, etc.
This is how it works in virtually every state that removes voting access for felons and the best response is not "fuck that" it's to realize the problem is with the fines/fees themselves, not the consequences of not paying. Similarly, the problem is with removing voting rights, not the loopholes they use to not restore them
It is important to note that the amendment in question did not include any clause empowering the legislature with regards to its implementation. It simply stated their right to vote was restored after completing their sentence (including parole/probation periods). IANAL, but that seems to me like it's automatic. The moment the amendment came into effect their voting rights were restored - which means the actual effect of the law passed in Florida is to take away a group's existing right to vote by decree. The case should have been open and shut on that fact alone.
The 11th circuit agreed it was probably unconstitutional when they overruled the lower court's restraining order against enforcing it, and SCOTUS offered no opinion at all on why they upheld that stay apart from a dissent pointing this out.
If I engage maximum devil's advocacy here, I can gin up a good faith reason to hesitate in terms of irrevocable harm.
Leaving the lower court's RO in place allows people to register in violation of the law in question. If, for some reason, every judge in this chain, currently nodding in agreement on the plaintiff's merits, is wrong, and they lose this case at trial, then every former felon who the courts sanctioned to go register to vote will suddenly have done so illegally, and will be committing a felony if they try to vote.
If that's a plausible scenario, it seems like a genuinely worse outcome than potentially preventing them from registering in time to vote this year.
But, if that was actually their reasoning, wouldn't they have said something to that effect and/or couldn't they have included instructions to the lower courts to expedite this matter?
Is there any estimate of how much the ex-felons collectively owe?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
And that was part of the 11th circuit's ruling! They were like "you can't say people can't vote until they fulfill a requirement and then not be able to provide them with the information to fulfill that requirement."
They would not have done so illegally so that's not really a concern.
Oh, perhaps not! Took a peek at the statutes and they wouldn't have
104.011 - willfully affirmed falsely their eligibility to vote
104.041 - committed fraud, or
104.15 - been "knowingly unqualified" if their registration was retroactively voided. [Seems like it would be on the state to contact them or clean up the voting rolls in that scenario]
Well then I've got nothing, sorry Devil.
If either decision presents the possibility of improperly altering the election results by the same amount, then hedging in favor of the outcome you claim is less likely is logically bankrupt.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Is there any estimate of how much the ex-felons collectively owe?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
And that was part of the 11th circuit's ruling! They were like "you can't say people can't vote until they fulfill a requirement and then not be able to provide them with the information to fulfill that requirement."
I thought we weren't sure how much was owed across the state, as like, an overarching value. I didn't realize that individuals were having a hard time finding how much they owed.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The law is "clarifying" that the fines and fees are part of your sentence, and therefore requiring them to be repaid as part of your restitution is allowed. There's a good in there in that court fines and fees can now be reviewed under cruel and unusual, etc.
This is how it works in virtually every state that removes voting access for felons and the best response is not "fuck that" it's to realize the problem is with the fines/fees themselves, not the consequences of not paying. Similarly, the problem is with removing voting rights, not the loopholes they use to not restore them
Citation needed. In Illinois you can walk from the prison to a voter registration drive. Felon disenfranchisement ends with their imprisonment.
Is there any estimate of how much the ex-felons collectively owe?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
And that was part of the 11th circuit's ruling! They were like "you can't say people can't vote until they fulfill a requirement and then not be able to provide them with the information to fulfill that requirement."
I thought we weren't sure how much was owed across the state, as like, an overarching value. I didn't realize that individuals were having a hard time finding how much they owed.
A group of well-trained, highly educated individuals—a professor specializing in this field with a team of doctoral candidates from a major research university—made diligent efforts over a long period to obtain [court debt] information on 153 randomly selected felons. They found that information was often unavailable over the internet or by telephone and that, remarkably, there were inconsistencies in the available information for all but 3 of the 153 individuals.
Is there any estimate of how much the ex-felons collectively owe?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
The other part of that massive fucking problem, is that some courts were just throwing out wild numbers during sentencing, because fuck it, it's not like the convicted were going to be able to pay anyway. And if they won the lottery after release, or something similar, hey, windfall.
When this first came to light, I saw some people who had relatively minor offenses, and the financial costs were in the low to mid six figure range.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Is there any estimate of how much the ex-felons collectively owe?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
And that was part of the 11th circuit's ruling! They were like "you can't say people can't vote until they fulfill a requirement and then not be able to provide them with the information to fulfill that requirement."
I thought we weren't sure how much was owed across the state, as like, an overarching value. I didn't realize that individuals were having a hard time finding how much they owed.
A group of well-trained, highly educated individuals—a professor specializing in this field with a team of doctoral candidates from a major research university—made diligent efforts over a long period to obtain [court debt] information on 153 randomly selected felons. They found that information was often unavailable over the internet or by telephone and that, remarkably, there were inconsistencies in the available information for all but 3 of the 153 individuals.
I'm thinking that something is criminal here, and it's not the former felons.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The law is "clarifying" that the fines and fees are part of your sentence, and therefore requiring them to be repaid as part of your restitution is allowed. There's a good in there in that court fines and fees can now be reviewed under cruel and unusual, etc.
This is how it works in virtually every state that removes voting access for felons and the best response is not "fuck that" it's to realize the problem is with the fines/fees themselves, not the consequences of not paying. Similarly, the problem is with removing voting rights, not the loopholes they use to not restore them
Citation needed. In Illinois you can walk from the prison to a voter registration drive. Felon disenfranchisement ends with their imprisonment.
(Mint) - Everyone has the right to vote. (2 states, not relevant to conversation)
(Red) - All people with felony convictions are permanently disenfranchised. (3 states, not relevant to conversation)
(Blue/Green) - People in prison and on parole cannot vote. All other people with criminal convictions, including people on probation, can vote. (3 states, functionally the same as your example)
(Orange/Yellow) - Some people with felony convictions cannot vote. (6 states, including Florida)
(Orange) - People with felony convictions can vote upon completion of sentence. (19 states, what I incorrectly claimed was "virtually every" example)
(Blue) - People in prison cannot vote. Everyone else can vote. (17 states, your counter-example)
Looking at the Orange/Yellow, it basically means some folks, once convicted, never get to vote again, but others can regain the right to vote once they've completed their sentence. Between those and the regular Orange categories, that's 25 out of the 45 states that take away voting rights and then restore them. 20 states only remove the right to vote while imprisoned, plus or minus parole.
So I did overspeak, but my underlying point was that what Florida is doing is consistent with the majority. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it commonplace.
I guess the 'good' news is that they found about it in May, and began chemotherapy then, with getting a good prognosis last week that the lesions were lessened and no new disease. Still...
My wife is an oncologist and has been saying for awhile now that Ginsburg is probably not going to survive much longer. She assumed that her cancer would resurface or another one would form based off what information she could gather from various press sectors and publicly available information. Hopefully she can make it through this election cycle but my wife does not think she can make it 4 more after that if the current regiment is put back into the White House.
A lot has to do with how early it's caught and if / how far it's spread.
I think both are in high single / low double digits for 5 year survival.
Fortunately, she's probably receiving some of the best medical attention possible and this was caught as early as feasible. On the other hand, she's old and has lots of underlying issues.
God this whole situation makes me feel like a ghoul. But at the same time countless thousands of lives rely on her not getting replaced by another Kavanaugh-level shithead that will help the GOP take away healthcare, lock people in cages, and let employers work them to death without recourse among other things.
As long as the democratic establishment refuses to recognize that the GOP is already packing the courts and has no intention of ever acting in good faith...
I’m going to end up voting for Cthulhu in November. Not because LOL Biden sucks, but because Cthulhu will actually have risen from the sea and his name will be on the ballot.
Just six more months RBG, you can do it!
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I'll be real, unless we get the senate, if Mitch is still SML, he will just never schedule a vote on any replacement.
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
If we win the presidency, and after say, a year of Mitch not scheduling a vote, I'd be writing angry letters every day to have the VP schedule a vote.
I think he'll schedule the votes. Garland was a special case, normally votes against our violent, anarchist judges should have been a feather in the caps of his members.
I'll be real, unless we get the senate, if Mitch is still SML, he will just never schedule a vote on any replacement.
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
Biden will hopefully do what Obama should have done in the first place when McConnell refuses to hold a vote - declare Congress has abdicated their responsibility and claim to vote on Supreme Court nominees and tell nominee to report on Monday.
I'll be real, unless we get the senate, if Mitch is still SML, he will just never schedule a vote on any replacement.
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
Biden will hopefully do what Obama should have done in the first place when McConnell refuses to hold a vote - declare Congress has abdicated their responsibility and claim to vote on Supreme Court nominees and tell nominee to report on Monday.
Or we could win the Senate. It's not at all a ridiculous scenario. I broke it down in the OP of the election thread we can have now.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'll be real, unless we get the senate, if Mitch is still SML, he will just never schedule a vote on any replacement.
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
Biden will hopefully do what Obama should have done in the first place when McConnell refuses to hold a vote - declare Congress has abdicated their responsibility and claim to vote on Supreme Court nominees and tell nominee to report on Monday.
Narrator: He will not.
(IMO, Biden is far too committed to the futile hope of cooperation and letting the GOP have every chance to inevitably betray.)
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'll be real, unless we get the senate, if Mitch is still SML, he will just never schedule a vote on any replacement.
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
Biden will hopefully do what Obama should have done in the first place when McConnell refuses to hold a vote - declare Congress has abdicated their responsibility and claim to vote on Supreme Court nominees and tell nominee to report on Monday.
Narrator: He will not.
(IMO, Biden is far too committed to the futile hope of cooperation and letting the GOP have every chance to inevitably betray.)
Recent comments have been inching away from that, but who knows by how much he is actually changing on it.
Posts
There's not a lot you can do without an amendment. A law at best just requires control of Congress and the Presidency as it can then be overridden.
Is it a metaphor? The media was literally blaming Obama and the Democrats for kavenaugh and the other court packing schemes
Twitter is CNN.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Sure, if you actually read the things in question.
This is how it works in virtually every state that removes voting access for felons and the best response is not "fuck that" it's to realize the problem is with the fines/fees themselves, not the consequences of not paying. Similarly, the problem is with removing voting rights, not the loopholes they use to not restore them
The 11th circuit agreed it was probably unconstitutional when they overruled the lower court's restraining order against enforcing it, and SCOTUS offered no opinion at all on why they upheld that stay apart from a dissent pointing this out.
If I engage maximum devil's advocacy here, I can gin up a good faith reason to hesitate in terms of irrevocable harm.
Leaving the lower court's RO in place allows people to register in violation of the law in question. If, for some reason, every judge in this chain, currently nodding in agreement on the plaintiff's merits, is wrong, and they lose this case at trial, then every former felon who the courts sanctioned to go register to vote will suddenly have done so illegally, and will be committing a felony if they try to vote.
If that's a plausible scenario, it seems like a genuinely worse outcome than potentially preventing them from registering in time to vote this year.
But, if that was actually their reasoning, wouldn't they have said something to that effect and/or couldn't they have included instructions to the lower courts to expedite this matter?
Part of the massive MAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIVE fucking problem is that even Florida doesn't have that information or any real idea what it is.
And that was part of the 11th circuit's ruling! They were like "you can't say people can't vote until they fulfill a requirement and then not be able to provide them with the information to fulfill that requirement."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
104.011 - willfully affirmed falsely their eligibility to vote
104.041 - committed fraud, or
104.15 - been "knowingly unqualified" if their registration was retroactively voided. [Seems like it would be on the state to contact them or clean up the voting rolls in that scenario]
Well then I've got nothing, sorry Devil.
If either decision presents the possibility of improperly altering the election results by the same amount, then hedging in favor of the outcome you claim is less likely is logically bankrupt.
I thought we weren't sure how much was owed across the state, as like, an overarching value. I didn't realize that individuals were having a hard time finding how much they owed.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Citation needed. In Illinois you can walk from the prison to a voter registration drive. Felon disenfranchisement ends with their imprisonment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/supreme-court-florida-felons-poll-tax.html
The other part of that massive fucking problem, is that some courts were just throwing out wild numbers during sentencing, because fuck it, it's not like the convicted were going to be able to pay anyway. And if they won the lottery after release, or something similar, hey, windfall.
When this first came to light, I saw some people who had relatively minor offenses, and the financial costs were in the low to mid six figure range.
I'm thinking that something is criminal here, and it's not the former felons.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
https://aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map
Spoiler'ing the map because big
Looking at the Orange/Yellow, it basically means some folks, once convicted, never get to vote again, but others can regain the right to vote once they've completed their sentence. Between those and the regular Orange categories, that's 25 out of the 45 states that take away voting rights and then restore them. 20 states only remove the right to vote while imprisoned, plus or minus parole.
So I did overspeak, but my underlying point was that what Florida is doing is consistent with the majority. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it commonplace.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53451208
Fuck.
Considering the current state of the pandemic, now is a really awful time to become immunocompromised.
I mean, cancer waits for no one, so I understand the urgency. But even so, this does NOT bode well.
This one is liver.
Both are pretty bad.
A lot has to do with how early it's caught and if / how far it's spread.
I think both are in high single / low double digits for 5 year survival.
Fortunately, she's probably receiving some of the best medical attention possible and this was caught as early as feasible. On the other hand, she's old and has lots of underlying issues.
God this whole situation makes me feel like a ghoul. But at the same time countless thousands of lives rely on her not getting replaced by another Kavanaugh-level shithead that will help the GOP take away healthcare, lock people in cages, and let employers work them to death without recourse among other things.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yeah, I'm saying she's tough as hell and gets great medical treatment. Needs to make it to the end of December if we can take the Senate.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
But she should have retired in 2013.
I’m going to end up voting for Cthulhu in November. Not because LOL Biden sucks, but because Cthulhu will actually have risen from the sea and his name will be on the ballot.
Just six more months RBG, you can do it!
I really like the thought that we all heard her listening to arguments from her toilet
Kickass tough as hell justices! They’re just like us!
It'll be galling, but America has had four years of getting used to galling overreach.
I mean shit, we gave him a pass on stealing the last one.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
If we win the presidency, and after say, a year of Mitch not scheduling a vote, I'd be writing angry letters every day to have the VP schedule a vote.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I think he'll schedule the votes. Garland was a special case, normally votes against our violent, anarchist judges should have been a feather in the caps of his members.
I'm not going to wait a year. I'd barely be ok with waiting a week.
Biden will hopefully do what Obama should have done in the first place when McConnell refuses to hold a vote - declare Congress has abdicated their responsibility and claim to vote on Supreme Court nominees and tell nominee to report on Monday.
Or we could win the Senate. It's not at all a ridiculous scenario. I broke it down in the OP of the election thread we can have now.
Narrator: He will not.
(IMO, Biden is far too committed to the futile hope of cooperation and letting the GOP have every chance to inevitably betray.)
Recent comments have been inching away from that, but who knows by how much he is actually changing on it.