SCOTUS mostly upheld Texas's gerrymander in 5-4 decision with the usual suspects being in the majority. They only accepted the challenge for one state House district.
I really wish Gorsuch never got to be a justice.
Well, you can impeach him. Or you can just let the Republican party profit from their crimes of conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in US elections.
I really wish you wouldn't do that thing where you identify that "you" can impeach Gorsuch / Trump / whoever, instead of saying that "a post-election US government", or "the American government", or simply "the US" can do so
you're referring to something that is a national problem that individual people have no direct agency over, nor are the people here of the persuasion to pull a lever to make that happen if there was one, nor is there a a readily-available remedy for the problem
Yes, by accident of fate or access to immigration, you're Canadian, we get it
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
You try it and you lose the electorate. Not even FDR had the juice to get it done. It's a fools errand, a progressive fantasy. You have a better chance of passing an amendment or, even better, winning some state legislatures.
This is why the GOP stacking the court in their favor damaged the court from this point on. The Dems gave to react in proportion or they don’t get opportunities where they can sway the court logically RE: elected seats. Even when they have presidents. Of course the Dems are going to react thinking about counter measures when they think the SCOTUS is captured by their political rivals. They have no reason not to, and you know as well as I do this wasn’t going to stay a one time option for the Republicans.
Its more difficult to do as you suggest when the GOP are excellent with gerrymandering and have a court that is ok with th doing that and getting rid of minority protection laws like the VRA.
The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.
The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.
The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.
Win the presidency AND the senate. If you don't win the senate but do win the presidency then there will be no replacements for justices that retire or pass on.
On the positive side 2020 is a really good year in theory for democrats to pick up seats in the senate. 2018 is a really hard map but that table flips in 2020.
Looks like Thomas drew the California abortion disclaimer case so I'm reading that is bad news.
Edit: Hmm...a point that the first amendment theory saying the government can't force doctors to say certain things actual torpedoes a number of anti-abortion laws in southern states.
Edit2: Apparently the court is getting in shape for their own Korematsu with the travel ban case.
Looks like Thomas drew the California abortion disclaimer case so I'm reading that is bad news.
Edit: Hmm...a point that the first amendment theory saying the government can't force doctors to say certain things actual torpedoes a number of anti-abortion laws in southern states.
How does he square that with Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
At the conference of the Justices two days after oral argument, Justice Souter defied expectations, joining Justices O'Connor, Stevens, and Blackmun, who had likewise refused to do so three years earlier in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. This resulted in a precarious five Justice majority consisting of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas that favored upholding all five contested abortion restrictions. However, Justice Kennedy changed his mind shortly thereafter and joined with fellow Reagan-Bush justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter to write a plurality opinion that would reaffirm Roe.[8]
Rehnquist and Scalia each joined the plurality in upholding the parental consent, informed consent, and waiting period laws. However, they dissented from the plurality's decision to uphold Roe v. Wade and strike down the spousal notification law, contending that Roe was incorrectly decided. In his opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned the fundamental right to an abortion, the "right to privacy," and the strict scrutiny application in Roe.[34] He also questioned the new "undue burden" analysis under the plurality opinion, instead deciding that the proper analysis for the regulation of abortions was rational-basis.[35]
In his opinion, Justice Scalia also argued for a rational-basis approach, finding that the Pennsylvania statute in its entirety was constitutional.[36] He argued that abortion was not a "protected" liberty, and as such, the abortion liberty could be intruded upon by the State.[37] To this end, Justice Scalia concluded this was so because an abortion right was not in the Constitution, and "longstanding traditions of American society" have allowed abortion to be legally proscribed.[38] Rehnquist and Scalia joined each other's concurrence/dissents. White and Thomas, who did not write their own opinions, joined in both.
Just started reading this but basically they're saying that because Trump had some State department flunkies come up with an excuse that didn't mention religion we can totally ignore all his public statements about it being totally about religion.
Also I sincerely doubt anybody who hasn't read the decision would have any chance at naming the reason given justifying the ban.
Just started reading this but basically they're saying that because Trump had some State department flunkies come up with an excuse that didn't mention religion we can totally ignore all his public statements about it being totally about religion.
Also I sincerely doubt anybody who hasn't read the decision would have any chance at naming the reason given justifying the ban.
The majority used the rational basis standard, standard so easily passed that it is amazingly hard to craft a law that violates the standard without practically trying to do so.
Also this demonstrates the hilarious bullshit that was Masterpiece Cakeshop. The president's statements are irrelevant, but some civil rights commissioner's are so vital we have to let the bigots win.
Maybe you just like bigots.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Annnnnd, they ruled the travel-ban is legit because they tried really hard to ignore Trump's tweets.
Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."
From Roberts' reading:
Court says Proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA."
Addresses the issue of the president's statements on excluding Muslims from the US. Says "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility."
Court says that it will look beyond the face of the Proclamation to consider the plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence about the president's motivations, "but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
Says the proclamation is based on legitimate purposes, without saying anything about religion. Proclamation is result of a "world wide review process" by multiple cabinet agencies. Notes taht it doesn't apply to Iraq, "one of the largest predominately Muslim countries in the region."
"under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today tat plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim."
Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."
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).
Also this demonstrates the hilarious bullshit that was Masterpiece Cakeshop. The president's statements are irrelevant, but some civil rights commissioners are so vital we have to let the bigots win.
Maybe you just like bigots.
Consequences for thee but not for me.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
To be clear, they revoked the preliminary injunction against the ban because they say that the plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. There will be a round two in like a few years if they go through the normal appeals process on this.
This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.
About that:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
So I guess that's nice.
So they would be fine with forcible relocation of US citizens to concentration camps as long as it isn't explicitly and solely on the basis of race and they could come up with some half assed justification for it.
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.
About that:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
So I guess that's nice.
The bolded worries me for when Kiddie Korematsu makes it to SCOTUS.
ah yes. "They're not citizens, so fuck 'em."
Mind you, at this rate we might well be putting actual citizens in camps (again) by the time it gets there...
Commander Zoom on
+4
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited June 2018
This bullshit about the ban being facially neutral, and the administrations paper thin national security interest surviving rational basis review because any statements made by those officials regarding their true motivations outside of that unsubstatiated interest is outside the scope of review, is so infuriating I think I’ve lost a kidney
Plaintiffs sure are unlikely to win on the merits of their case because you’ve told the courts to discard any evidence related to the merits of the case
I’m fucking seething even though I knew this was coming because fuck this timeline
Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address. It's subtext is pretty close to the surface, and seems designed to chastise the Executive while agreeing with the majority that there was not anything the Court could do about it.
What a fucking useless asshole.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What the fuck, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide whether or not things are unconstitutional!
+35
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive
Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant
Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive
Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant
Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.
I have a hard time seeing the judicial overreach of saying that if the President of the United states openly targets Muslims and says he wants to ban them, his law being facially neutral and someone can pulled a neutral argument for it out of their ass won't prevent it from being unconstitutional.
The President in 2020 will probably replace RBG and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer. The Court will be different by 2024, it's not a question. Win the Presidency and change it - the next change will result in a stable Court that lasts 15-20 years.
Win the presidency AND the senate. If you don't win the senate but do win the presidency then there will be no replacements for justices that retire or pass on.
Recess appointments of like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Noam Chomsky to get them to accept Deval Patrick and Lawerence Tribe
With apologies to ACA and what not, Sotomayor might be the best thing Obama ever did:
Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.
Don't often see direct condemnation of fellow justices like that. She'll probably be decried as being horribly uncivil.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I don't understand how requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to have a "we are charlatans" sign is different from requiring cigarette packages to bear a Surgeon General's Warning.
Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.
Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive
Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant
Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.
Reminds one of Rome's transition from a republic in reality to an republic in name only - the Senate granting all its authority to the Imperator until it was functionally powerless.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
With apologies to ACA and what not, Sotomayor might be the best thing Obama ever did:
Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.
Don't often see direct condemnation of fellow justices like that. She'll probably be decried as being horribly uncivil.
A lot of jerkoffs in bowties clucking about how this is what happens when you let those people on the bench for sure.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Posts
I really wish you wouldn't do that thing where you identify that "you" can impeach Gorsuch / Trump / whoever, instead of saying that "a post-election US government", or "the American government", or simply "the US" can do so
you're referring to something that is a national problem that individual people have no direct agency over, nor are the people here of the persuasion to pull a lever to make that happen if there was one, nor is there a a readily-available remedy for the problem
Yes, by accident of fate or access to immigration, you're Canadian, we get it
This is why the GOP stacking the court in their favor damaged the court from this point on. The Dems gave to react in proportion or they don’t get opportunities where they can sway the court logically RE: elected seats. Even when they have presidents. Of course the Dems are going to react thinking about counter measures when they think the SCOTUS is captured by their political rivals. They have no reason not to, and you know as well as I do this wasn’t going to stay a one time option for the Republicans.
Its more difficult to do as you suggest when the GOP are excellent with gerrymandering and have a court that is ok with th doing that and getting rid of minority protection laws like the VRA.
We tried that bit but it didn't work out.
Win the presidency AND the senate. If you don't win the senate but do win the presidency then there will be no replacements for justices that retire or pass on.
Edit: Hmm...a point that the first amendment theory saying the government can't force doctors to say certain things actual torpedoes a number of anti-abortion laws in southern states.
Edit2: Apparently the court is getting in shape for their own Korematsu with the travel ban case.
How does he square that with Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
Also I sincerely doubt anybody who hasn't read the decision would have any chance at naming the reason given justifying the ban.
WaPo: https://wapo.st/2yGqO36
The majority used the rational basis standard, standard so easily passed that it is amazingly hard to craft a law that violates the standard without practically trying to do so.
Maybe you just like bigots.
From Roberts' reading:
[ed] Quotes are from SCOTUSblog's livestream.
oh for fuck's sake
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
About that:
So I guess that's nice.
Consequences for thee but not for me.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
To be clear, they revoked the preliminary injunction against the ban because they say that the plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. There will be a round two in like a few years if they go through the normal appeals process on this.
So they would be fine with forcible relocation of US citizens to concentration camps as long as it isn't explicitly and solely on the basis of race and they could come up with some half assed justification for it.
The bolded worries me for when Kiddie Korematsu makes it to SCOTUS.
ah yes. "They're not citizens, so fuck 'em."
Mind you, at this rate we might well be putting actual citizens in camps (again) by the time it gets there...
Plaintiffs sure are unlikely to win on the merits of their case because you’ve told the courts to discard any evidence related to the merits of the case
I’m fucking seething even though I knew this was coming because fuck this timeline
NNID: Hakkekage
What a fucking useless asshole.
Well, silver lining, at least they're not being thrown in to concentration camps.
Yay...
Steam: pazython
Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant
NNID: Hakkekage
Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.
Recess appointments of like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Noam Chomsky to get them to accept Deval Patrick and Lawerence Tribe
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Don't often see direct condemnation of fellow justices like that. She'll probably be decried as being horribly uncivil.
God damn it.
Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.
Reminds one of Rome's transition from a republic in reality to an republic in name only - the Senate granting all its authority to the Imperator until it was functionally powerless.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
A lot of jerkoffs in bowties clucking about how this is what happens when you let those people on the bench for sure.
Come Overwatch with meeeee