[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

1515253545557»

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 10
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    No you pass a law, like the Voting Rights Act, which SCOTUS keeps chipping away at.

    Except the states have specific powers delegated to them and now you can't challenge a lot of those laws on the grounds of constitutional rights. Think of all those "no gay marriage" laws and amendments passed in 2004. What forces those to no longer exist?

    You can't just "pass a law". Congress does not have supremacy even without the judiciary.

    shryke on
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

    Other countries have other voters, and different government structure from the ground up. You also might not be surprised to learn a lot of them aren't any better on the issues I present. You will also have to forgive me for not trusting either political party at this point. Obama began the process of allowing transgender troops to serve openly in the military around the middle of 2016. There has been continued pressure to drop trans rights from equality bills to get them passed because that would be easier.

    I also don't see how the Supreme Court reversing itself is inherently worse than the federal or state government. At least with the Supreme Court it is a lot less volatile so each victory is guaranteed to last longer. Title VII protections aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as an example. Much better that then hoping the electorate continues to be willing and able to vote to keep me from being unemployed and homeless. To say nothing of saving me the pain and humiliation of having to constantly publicly campaign to be treated like a person.

    The reason the Supreme Court is worse is because in one year from now, we're dealing with a repealed or effectively so Roe, ACA, overturn of Obergfell, enhanced gutting of the VRA and whatever, what is our recourse? Waiting for some people to die so we can replace them? I highly doubt packing the court will be the moment where we dust off our hands and say "Well, that's the end of that!" Republicans will be in power again, and they'll strike back. We will be fighting this fight continually just the same. Your civil rights should not hinge on an 80 year old woman succumbing to pancreatic cancer at the same time some asshole who lost the popular vote just happens to also have the Senate under his control. Each victory lasts longer, and so too do the losses.

    I'd rather have a government responsible to the people than one that is insulated from them. Arguing to pack the court, in my opinion, just eventually gets us to the same place that I'm talking about, so I guess I'm doubly for that. Every institution the founders installed to remove the power from voters and put it in the hands of insulated elites (electors, SCOTUS, the senate) has basically bitten progressive politics in the ass for the entire period of the country except for basically a decent stretch in the 60s until 2000.

    Orca
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The problem ultimately is that this court has usurped the powers of the legislature (Shelby is such a comically bad ruling) and McConnell in particular has abandoned every power of the Senate except confirmations.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    FencingsaxmonikerChaosHatAistanTuminPhoenix-Ddurandal4532ArdolNetscapesilence1186emp123jdarksunElvenshaeBlackDragon480shrykeDoctorArchMrVyngaardDoodmannMartini_PhilosopherFeloniousmozMvrck
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited October 10
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    No you pass a law, like the Voting Rights Act, which SCOTUS keeps chipping away at.

    Except the states have specific powers delegated to them and now you can't challenge a lot of those laws on the grounds of constitutional rights. Think of all those "no gay marriage" laws and amendments passed in 2004. What forces those to no longer exist?

    You can't just "pass a law". Congress does not have supremacy even without the judiciary.

    I don't understand how this doesn't apply to basically anything. How do any laws work? In an alternate universe, what prevents Congress from establishing that separate but equal is not equal and the President federalizing the National Guard to integrate the schools? Nothing? This is how all of the court decisions work anyways. What prevents the "no gay marriage" laws from existing is the executive branch enforcing the judicial decision the same as it could enforce a legislative decision.
    The problem ultimately is that this court has usurped the powers of the legislature (Shelby is such a comically bad ruling) and McConnell in particular has abandoned every power of the Senate except confirmations.

    This is, exactly the point. Republicans can do everything they want from the bench, they just want to tear everything down and prevent anything good from happening. Even if we control the courts, we can't make Medicare for all happen from the bench. The best the courts can do is not say no. It's an extra unfair veto point and it's not one that has to exist.

    I would be open to reducing SCOTUS's jurisdiction, but then I think again, all roads lead to an irrelevant court. Either we say "courts can't rule on x, y, and z" and each side keeps adding letters until the court doesn't matter, or somehow everything just happens to become about x, y, or z, and then we say "nah fuck it you have no power for real now."

    ChaosHat on
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

    Other countries have other voters, and different government structure from the ground up. You also might not be surprised to learn a lot of them aren't any better on the issues I present. You will also have to forgive me for not trusting either political party at this point. Obama began the process of allowing transgender troops to serve openly in the military around the middle of 2016. There has been continued pressure to drop trans rights from equality bills to get them passed because that would be easier.

    I also don't see how the Supreme Court reversing itself is inherently worse than the federal or state government. At least with the Supreme Court it is a lot less volatile so each victory is guaranteed to last longer. Title VII protections aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as an example. Much better that then hoping the electorate continues to be willing and able to vote to keep me from being unemployed and homeless. To say nothing of saving me the pain and humiliation of having to constantly publicly campaign to be treated like a person.

    The reason the Supreme Court is worse is because in one year from now, we're dealing with a repealed or effectively so Roe, ACA, overturn of Obergfell, enhanced gutting of the VRA and whatever, what is our recourse? Waiting for some people to die so we can replace them? I highly doubt packing the court will be the moment where we dust off our hands and say "Well, that's the end of that!" Republicans will be in power again, and they'll strike back. We will be fighting this fight continually just the same. Your civil rights should not hinge on an 80 year old woman succumbing to pancreatic cancer at the same time some asshole who lost the popular vote just happens to also have the Senate under his control. Each victory lasts longer, and so too do the losses.

    I'd rather have a government responsible to the people than one that is insulated from them. Arguing to pack the court, in my opinion, just eventually gets us to the same place that I'm talking about, so I guess I'm doubly for that. Every institution the founders installed to remove the power from voters and put it in the hands of insulated elites (electors, SCOTUS, the senate) has basically bitten progressive politics in the ass for the entire period of the country except for basically a decent stretch in the 60s until 2000.

    So instead we have repealed Roe across the nation as is, Obergefell never happening, and literacy tests to vote instead. Yes I would absolutely prefer a government that actively works to protect its citizens. That isn't really on the table at the moment. I am trying to not go too far off-topic, but for fairly good reasons I still side eye the Democratic party with their talk of inclusion. Proposition 8 was entirely democratic though, and I think you can guess how I feel about that.

    We don't have any good options. The least bad one that I have lived with so far is the Supreme Court being able to shut shit down. I don't have the luxury of dreaming of the ideal world and struggling through the middle parts. Survival today is worth a lot. The Supreme Court has been the only consistent ally towards that end.

    monikershryke
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

    Other countries have other voters, and different government structure from the ground up. You also might not be surprised to learn a lot of them aren't any better on the issues I present. You will also have to forgive me for not trusting either political party at this point. Obama began the process of allowing transgender troops to serve openly in the military around the middle of 2016. There has been continued pressure to drop trans rights from equality bills to get them passed because that would be easier.

    I also don't see how the Supreme Court reversing itself is inherently worse than the federal or state government. At least with the Supreme Court it is a lot less volatile so each victory is guaranteed to last longer. Title VII protections aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as an example. Much better that then hoping the electorate continues to be willing and able to vote to keep me from being unemployed and homeless. To say nothing of saving me the pain and humiliation of having to constantly publicly campaign to be treated like a person.

    The reason the Supreme Court is worse is because in one year from now, we're dealing with a repealed or effectively so Roe, ACA, overturn of Obergfell, enhanced gutting of the VRA and whatever, what is our recourse? Waiting for some people to die so we can replace them? I highly doubt packing the court will be the moment where we dust off our hands and say "Well, that's the end of that!" Republicans will be in power again, and they'll strike back. We will be fighting this fight continually just the same. Your civil rights should not hinge on an 80 year old woman succumbing to pancreatic cancer at the same time some asshole who lost the popular vote just happens to also have the Senate under his control. Each victory lasts longer, and so too do the losses.

    I'd rather have a government responsible to the people than one that is insulated from them. Arguing to pack the court, in my opinion, just eventually gets us to the same place that I'm talking about, so I guess I'm doubly for that. Every institution the founders installed to remove the power from voters and put it in the hands of insulated elites (electors, SCOTUS, the senate) has basically bitten progressive politics in the ass for the entire period of the country except for basically a decent stretch in the 60s until 2000.

    So instead we have repealed Roe across the nation as is, Obergefell never happening, and literacy tests to vote instead. Yes I would absolutely prefer a government that actively works to protect its citizens. That isn't really on the table at the moment. I am trying to not go too far off-topic, but for fairly good reasons I still side eye the Democratic party with their talk of inclusion. Proposition 8 was entirely democratic though, and I think you can guess how I feel about that.

    We don't have any good options. The least bad one that I have lived with so far is the Supreme Court being able to shut shit down. I don't have the luxury of dreaming of the ideal world and struggling through the middle parts. Survival today is worth a lot. The Supreme Court has been the only consistent ally towards that end.

    And I understand the point you're bringing up, but mine is that it can change on a dime, that change could actually come very soon, and then you're relying on the Democrats, who have historically been overly trusting and have bungled their power, to play hardball to re-even the scales again. Also, for most of the history of the court, they would have been on the opposite side of progressive civil rights. We could have affirmative laws for all of those things, which are more enduring. The ACA survived a Republican trifecta. It probably won't survive a Republican SCOTUS majority. Roe polls extremely popular, there's no way a bill would pass the house and senate, and even if it did, you could fight that fight again in two years. You can't fight an unequal court until you can win the Presidency and the Senate.

    Last, what other recourse is there? The status quo is obviously unacceptable. Pete's stupid idea isn't happening without an amendment (even if it would work which it may not). Term limits aren't happening without an amendment. The only move available is to reduce the power of the courts. Otherwise we'll get to see the EPA gutted, coverage for pre-existing conditions gutted, protection for voting rights, abortion, all that, because a minority of the country grabbed power at the exact right time.

    Feloniousmoz
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    we can debate the semantics of "cult" all day but i'm pretty sure "cryptic subset of religious organization that emphasizes subservience of women to men" fits the description

    America is a cult?!?!

    i mean

    incontrovertibly

    Of course. Mine was a jerktorical question.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238
    Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
    Playing: Persona 5 Royal (PS4), Animal Crossing (SW), FF7remake (PS4)
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular

    The Trump administration can end counting for the 2020 census after the Supreme Court approved a request for now to suspend a lower court order that extended the count's schedule.

    The high court's ruling, following an emergency request the Justice Department made last week, is the latest turn in a roller coaster of a legal fight over the timeline for the count.

    NPR is National Public Radio

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Netscape
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    John Roberts is never more excited than when he can remove the political power of minorities.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ChanusTuminElvenshaeJragghenPreacherIncenjucarJaysonFourBigJoeMSleepmonikerTetraNitroCubaneArdolshrykeBlackDragon480autono-wally, erotibot300KraintStabbity Styleemp123HacksawBrodyFencingsaxAistanShadowfirenever dietzeentchlingZonugalExtreaminatusN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchVishNubToxMvrckMillNetscape
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    How is not having a stay in this situation in any way appropriate?

    (I know the real answer which is lol fuck you)

    JragghenJaysonFourmonikerChanusArdolDark_SideStabbity Styleemp123BrodyShadowfireN1tSt4lker
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »

    The Trump administration can end counting for the 2020 census after the Supreme Court approved a request for now to suspend a lower court order that extended the count's schedule.

    The high court's ruling, following an emergency request the Justice Department made last week, is the latest turn in a roller coaster of a legal fight over the timeline for the count.

    NPR is National Public Radio

    Can we just do another census next year? Isn't it a 'at least every ten years' thing?

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    DoodmannChanusBrodyShadowfireOrcaCouscous
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    Yes.

    Add it to the list of things to be done.




    KraintBrodyElvenshaeZonugalExtreaminatusN1tSt4lkerMvrckNetscape
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    Yes.

    Add it to the list of things to be done.




    That is something that Biden should just come straight out and say then, "Due to the pandemic, we will repeat the census next year with new results available to reaportion house seats and funding before the end of 2021. A Biden Administration will rely exclusively on forecasted data from the states themselves to estimate their populations and those who require services early next year as Trumps meddling has made the current census irrelevant"

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    BigJoeMChanusCommander ZoomBlackDragon480HacksawMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeShadowfireJaysonFourOrcaMorganVVeagleRhesus PositiveBullheadNetscape
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    yeah, i mean, conducting another census in a year isn't a trivial matter by any means but there's nothing in the rule book that says a dog you can't do it

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Fencingsax
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 13
    Chanus wrote: »
    yeah, i mean, conducting another census in a year isn't a trivial matter by any means but there's nothing in the rule book that says a dog you can't do it

    Nor is conducting a Census during a Pandemic with active presidential hostility and corruption to the task at hand. I feel confident we can do a better job.

    Edit - And honestly, thats my standpoint right now. If the thing is fair and right, and there is nothing saying you CANT do it, then we should do it. And we should do it quickly enough that noone can STOP us doing it.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    DoodmannDarkPrimusElvenshaetzeentchlingOrcaFeloniousmozVeagleRhesus PositiveN1tSt4lkerAlphaRomero
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    John Roberts is never more excited than when he can remove the political power of minorities.

    He's going to undo Reynolds v Sims by the end of all this.

    HacksawBrodyJaysonFour
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Yeah, the Census should have been kicked to next year even without executive fuckery.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    OrcaExtreaminatus
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Yeah, the Census should have been kicked to next year even without executive fuckery.

    well the other side of the coin is we didn't have a choice not to do one this year

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    PreachermonikerDarkPrimusStabbity Styleemp123FencingsaxElvenshaeShadowfireJaysonFourtzeentchlingOrcaRhesus PositiveArdol
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Yeah, the Census should have been kicked to next year even without executive fuckery.

    well the other side of the coin is we didn't have a choice not to do one this year

    Yes, we'd have needed an amendment to the constitution to not do the census this year. But the census from this year is clearly going to be shit, and good census data is important, so we actually NEED to do it again properly once we have a functioning society again.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    ChanusSleepmonikerBlackDragon480ElvenshaeAistanOrcaoverride367ZonugalArdol
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    A census would be the perfect ribbon to cut to celebrate when the plague is under control. I can't see it being viable until 2022.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    A census would be the perfect ribbon to cut to celebrate when the plague is under control. I can't see it being viable until 2022.

    Problem with 2022 is that then it's too late to prevent the 2020 fake census from controlling the district boundaries. Population of California = 25 people and 2 goats.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    BlackDragon480ElvenshaeShadowfireIncenjucarOrcaoverride367Netscape
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    ... also running a census is a nice job stimulus

    Incenjucaroverride367OrcaZonugalFencingsaxAimHappylilElfJaysonFourVeaglemonikerExtreaminatusN1tSt4lkerGONG-00tzeentchlingMartini_PhilosophershrykeStabbity StyleElvenshaeDarkPrimusBrodyMunkus BeaverArdolMvrckHacksawdurandal4532MillNetscape
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    ... also running a census is a nice job stimulus

    Yeah I'd actually be really down with a law passing that basically said "The Census is now an ongoing project that will be prepared and organized starting any year ending in a 4 or 9, conducted during any year ending in a 5 or 0, properly checked and analyzed during any year ending in 6 or 1, and finally redistricting must then be finalized prior to the end of any year ending in a 7 or 2."

  • AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    ... also running a census is a nice job stimulus

    Yeah I'd actually be really down with a law passing that basically said "The Census is now an ongoing project that will be prepared and organized starting any year ending in a 4 or 9, conducted during any year ending in a 5 or 0, properly checked and analyzed during any year ending in 6 or 1, and finally redistricting must then be finalized prior to the end of any year ending in a 7 or 2."

    You didn't make sure those were consecutive years. Guess we can sit on these results for five more years.

    You got to think like a weasel when writing laws. Not doing so gives you the Choose Your Own Interpretation of the constitution.

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited October 17


    Supreme Court is taking up the case re: immigrants being persons.

    Tweeter is an NPR correspondent.

    Jragghen on
    Martini_PhilosopherIncenjucar
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Looking forward to an originalist decision where they count as 3/5 of a person

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    zagdrobOrcaSleepJragghenmonikerStabbity Styleemp123CouscousCommander ZoomFencingsaxKoopahTroopahExtreaminatusShadowfireHacksawBlackDragon480N1tSt4lkerDark Raven XZonugalNetscapeMrVyngaardTetraRayApogeeDoctorArch
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited October 17
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Looking forward to an originalist decision where they count as 3/5 of a person

    I think that’s the plan, actually.

    Either that or just say they aren’t “Persons” at all so they don’t count for the census and literally have no rights at all.

    Taramoor on
    nUzGRMY.gif
    twitch.tv/Taramoor
    @TaramoorPlays
    OrcaNetscapeMrVyngaard
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I see no good faith argument for it being constitutional to exclude noncitizens for apportionment purposes.

    So probably say it is fine because hacks

    PreachermonikerJragghenPhoenix-Demp123BrodyArdolOrcaShadowfirePolaritie
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    The census is literally about counting every person who resides in the area. It very purposefully does not say anything about whether or not they are a legal citizen!

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    ElvenshaeFencingsaxOrcaStarZapperBlackDragon480monikerN1tSt4lkerMunkus BeaverPolaritieMvrckNetscapeMrVyngaard
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    The "3/5s of a person" thing has been a joke all my life, and yet, I can imagine at least one justice on this court (not yet seated, but almost certain to be) who's dumb and literal and "original" enough to try to make it an actual thing again.

    20 fuckin' 20, y'all.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    JaysonFourNetscape
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    “Free persons” seems like it could do a lot of heavy lifting for the Federalist society.

    Is any man truly free who is not white and male?

    Taramoor on
    nUzGRMY.gif
    twitch.tv/Taramoor
    @TaramoorPlays
    shrykeChanussilence1186autono-wally, erotibot300NetscapeMrVyngaard
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    “Free persons” seems like it could do a lot of heavy lifting for the Federalist society.

    Is any man truly free who is not white and male?

    And a landowner?

    autono-wally, erotibot300Incenjucar
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    Corporations are people now, right?

    How many new representatives does Delaware get?

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    BlackDragon480N1tSt4lkerFencingsaxemp123Rhesus PositiveNetscapeMrVyngaardzagdrobBullhead
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    Even taking an extreme originalist approach, "three fifths of all other persons" could at most be interpreted as counting people who are imprisoned and therefore not "free persons" as 3/5ths. Who knows what legal mumbo jumbo they're using to justify removing non citizens though.

    I think the census could end up being fine tbh, I listened to the director of the census explain why they didn't need the extra time, and it actually was a pretty sound arguement. Even though he's a Trump appointee it seems he's a career public servant and capable at the job. We'll see how it turns out, but it's not the end of the world.

    Same thing with the Supreme court, it's entirely plausible that in the next 8 years 2 conservative judges could pass or retire. Nothing is set in stone, regardless. The courts power only exists as far as people are willing to enforce and execute it; Roberts knows this which is why he's been desperately trying to make the court seem apolitical. The court may weigh in on a case, and the rest of the government could simply refuse to follow it's orders. Hell, the Trump administration has done that already numerous times in the past few years! The supreme court is extremely important, don't get me wrong, but it's not the most powerful branch at all.

    StarZapper on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    You're forgetting something, originalism is magical thinking bullshit

    The real thing that's happening is that they have a conclusion, and search for any way to somehow justify it with the text. And that is actually not that hard, if the people you have to "convince" have been installed by your party.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    AistanIncenjucarmonikerGoumindongDarkPrimusPolaritieFencingsaxemp123ZonugalSleepshrykeNetscapeBlackDragon480MrVyngaardBigJoeMExtreaminatusMartini_PhilosopherArdolHacksawpainfulPleasanceDoctorArchQanamil
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    No you pass a law, like the Voting Rights Act, which SCOTUS keeps chipping away at.

    Except the states have specific powers delegated to them and now you can't challenge a lot of those laws on the grounds of constitutional rights. Think of all those "no gay marriage" laws and amendments passed in 2004. What forces those to no longer exist?

    You can't just "pass a law". Congress does not have supremacy even without the judiciary.

    I don't understand how this doesn't apply to basically anything. How do any laws work? In an alternate universe, what prevents Congress from establishing that separate but equal is not equal and the President federalizing the National Guard to integrate the schools? Nothing? This is how all of the court decisions work anyways. What prevents the "no gay marriage" laws from existing is the executive branch enforcing the judicial decision the same as it could enforce a legislative decision.
    The problem ultimately is that this court has usurped the powers of the legislature (Shelby is such a comically bad ruling) and McConnell in particular has abandoned every power of the Senate except confirmations.

    This is, exactly the point. Republicans can do everything they want from the bench, they just want to tear everything down and prevent anything good from happening. Even if we control the courts, we can't make Medicare for all happen from the bench. The best the courts can do is not say no. It's an extra unfair veto point and it's not one that has to exist.

    I would be open to reducing SCOTUS's jurisdiction, but then I think again, all roads lead to an irrelevant court. Either we say "courts can't rule on x, y, and z" and each side keeps adding letters until the court doesn't matter, or somehow everything just happens to become about x, y, or z, and then we say "nah fuck it you have no power for real now."

    undoing Marbury v Madison would be an especially bad idea.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    spool32 wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    No you pass a law, like the Voting Rights Act, which SCOTUS keeps chipping away at.

    Except the states have specific powers delegated to them and now you can't challenge a lot of those laws on the grounds of constitutional rights. Think of all those "no gay marriage" laws and amendments passed in 2004. What forces those to no longer exist?

    You can't just "pass a law". Congress does not have supremacy even without the judiciary.

    I don't understand how this doesn't apply to basically anything. How do any laws work? In an alternate universe, what prevents Congress from establishing that separate but equal is not equal and the President federalizing the National Guard to integrate the schools? Nothing? This is how all of the court decisions work anyways. What prevents the "no gay marriage" laws from existing is the executive branch enforcing the judicial decision the same as it could enforce a legislative decision.
    The problem ultimately is that this court has usurped the powers of the legislature (Shelby is such a comically bad ruling) and McConnell in particular has abandoned every power of the Senate except confirmations.

    This is, exactly the point. Republicans can do everything they want from the bench, they just want to tear everything down and prevent anything good from happening. Even if we control the courts, we can't make Medicare for all happen from the bench. The best the courts can do is not say no. It's an extra unfair veto point and it's not one that has to exist.

    I would be open to reducing SCOTUS's jurisdiction, but then I think again, all roads lead to an irrelevant court. Either we say "courts can't rule on x, y, and z" and each side keeps adding letters until the court doesn't matter, or somehow everything just happens to become about x, y, or z, and then we say "nah fuck it you have no power for real now."

    undoing Marbury v Madison would be an especially bad idea.

    So's the court saying "this class doesn't have rights anymore" and everyone shrugging: "well, the court said so, guess we got to do what they say, we can't go against the court."

    A court that upholds the No Brown People Act of 2023 as totes constitutional and just what the Founders would have intended either gets ignored, or it breaks the republic.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    spool32StarZapperFencingsaxOrcaElvenshaeBigJoeMCouscouspainfulPleasance
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    You can't undo Marbury v. Madison. If that case hadn't rung that bell another would have in short order.

    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
    MvrckFencingsax
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    You can't undo Marbury v. Madison. If that case hadn't rung that bell another would have in short order.

    I'm not sure anymore. The gop would consider this a pro gamer move

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    MrVyngaardAistan
Sign In or Register to comment.