I don't understand how requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to have a "we are charlatans" sign is different from requiring cigarette packages to bear a Surgeon General's Warning.
Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.
The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.
0
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
When the Muslim ban first happened I was melting down and beast was getting into a Facebook fight with his mother who, I very distinctly remember, said none of this would affect me and also not to get hysterical because “checks and balances”
Checks and balance requires equal branches to provide the check and the balance. Kennedy in his argument is essentially taking a hedge trimmer to the judicial branch and claiming it can’t possibly be expected to comment on the improper exercise of the presidents constitutional authority when he SAYS it’s constitutional, and also he really wants to do it!
Maybe the judiciary politely recognizing the constitutional boundaries of its check on the executive wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the legislature hadn’t also abandoned its duties to check the executive
Essentially there are no pathways for interpreting the constitution in a manner beyond the patently bad faith, on paper reasons provided post fact by clever attorneys working for stupid men, and any capabilities the Supreme Court may have to appreciate context is conveniently irrelevant
Yeah, the problem here (once SCOTUS decided to ignore the President's public statements) comes from Congress giving the Executive absurdly broad authority to deal with immigration issues. Congress could fix all of this if they wanted to, but they don't.
Reminds one of Rome's transition from a republic in reality to an republic in name only - the Senate granting all its authority to the Imperator until it was functionally powerless.
You don't have to go back that far. Every nation that directly adopted the American system (mostly Latin American examples) fell into dictatorship. It's why when we were rebuilding Japan and Germany, we explicitly and purposefully made sure to choose different models.
I don't understand how requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to have a "we are charlatans" sign is different from requiring cigarette packages to bear a Surgeon General's Warning.
Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.
The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.
Why do you think Thomas and other SCOTUS justices wouldn't find a way to thread that needle and say those are OK?
I don't understand how requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to have a "we are charlatans" sign is different from requiring cigarette packages to bear a Surgeon General's Warning.
Unless it's not different and we're about to see an uptick in smoking.
The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.
Why do you think Thomas and other SCOTUS justices wouldn't find a way to thread that needle and say those are OK?
The question mainly depends on how long it takes for a case on that basis to filter up to SCOTUS. Check back after the 2020 election :P
SCOTUS mostly upheld Texas's gerrymander in 5-4 decision with the usual suspects being in the majority. They only accepted the challenge for one state House district.
I really wish Gorsuch never got to be a justice.
Well, you can impeach him. Or you can just let the Republican party profit from their crimes of conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in US elections.
I really wish you wouldn't do that thing where you identify that "you" can impeach Gorsuch / Trump / whoever, instead of saying that "a post-election US government", or "the American government", or simply "the US" can do so
you're referring to something that is a national problem that individual people have no direct agency over, nor are the people here of the persuasion to pull a lever to make that happen if there was one, nor is there a a readily-available remedy for the problem
Yes, by accident of fate or access to immigration, you're Canadian, we get it
What are you even talking about dude? Should I use y'all instead for it's clear americanesss or something? I guess I'm sorry the english language dropped it's second-person plural pronoun awhile back? I didn't think the point was unclear in the slightest there.
Gorsuch is up there making sure the voting system is rigged in hugely racist ways and if y'all leave him there it will confirm that one is allowed to profit from illegally conspiring to influence the election. It's like letting a bank robber pay his legal bills with the money he stole or something. Though as Ebum points out, the chances of that actually happening are basically zero so packing the courts is probably the better option.
How does Justice Kennedy think this is supposed to work? Just saying Congress/the people should do it doesn't make sense because Congress can represent a minority of the USA due to how both Houses work even before getting into things like voting laws.
I think one of the few things keeping liberals trust in our institutions has been SCOTUS, and I think it's safe to say there's little reason for the liberal coalition to continue trusting it.
Like, Sotomayors dissent is pretty strong and brings up a recurring theme: how do we continue if our institutions willfully ignore truth and fact?
I hate to demand civility when right now that's being used as a way of shutting down reasonable protest, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows this forum isn't a democracy. Disagree politely, or take a break from the thread.
This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.
Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.
I guess we know why Masterpiece was supposedly "narrow." Because they would contradict it what, two weeks later?
Shelby County was supposed to be "narrow" too until they blew that all up with Abbott. Round and round we go.
The roberts court is firmly planted in bottom 3 courts of all time, and the only reason they don't get to be number 1 or 2 just yet is because they haven't had their dred scott or korematsu yet. Though this case, when it eventually ends up back at scotus for real, will probably be up there.
Kennedy thinks adhering to the Constitution is important, but they just aren't going to do anything to ensure that happens.
Seriously though, who is to say what is or is not Constitutional if the SCOTUS refuses to do so?
The voters who elected the president are going to say whatever he does is constitutional, the opposition is going to say its unconstitutional. So Constitutionality is now a popularity contest instead of reasoned argument and precedent.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Wait so did SCOTUS rule on the ban, or just lifted/denied the TRO?
That SCOTUSBlog post seemed sounded like the latter, and, if so, I remain optimistic. Moreso than when I last posted about it.
V.3 concerned me, because it had the fig leaf of removing two muslim countries, adding two non, and adding waivers for "anyone."
Again, unless I misunderstand, I get their position here claiming it's not an obvious slam dunk because of these fig leaves. But it's been leaking out that the waiver process is implemented in incredibly bad faith, and that seems like the sort of thing that could reveal the country sub for what it is, and probably came out too late to affect their decision.
I'm reading through Sotomayr's dissent and I'll be posting excerpts:
To determine whether plaintiffs have proved an Establishment Clause violation, the Court asks whether a reasonable observer would view the government action as enacted for the purpose of disfavoring a religion. See id., at 862, 866; accord, Town of Greece v.
Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 19).In answering that question, this Court has generally
considered the text of the government policy, its operation, and any available evidence regarding “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy inquestion, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by” the decisionmaker.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.
Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.
The rational basis does not need to be real. The law doesn't need to actually further a legitimate end of government to meet the standard.
You can see why almost no laws fail to meet the rational basis standard.
Couscous on
+5
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.
Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.
Rational basis is the least rigorous standard of review, by which the majority of the court evidently means to say “no standard of review” based on how many times they claim that everything is facially neutral and on the up and up and there’s no need or reason to investigate further (nay, in fact, they are forbidden to!)
Here she directly refutes the Korematsu part of the majority, by bringing up that it was in fact Trump who made the comparison:
On December 8, 2015, Trump justified his proposal during a television interview by noting that President Franklin D. Roosevelt “did the same thing” with respect to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
This is part of a long passage where she documents all the times he said he wanted to ban all Muslims, including a statement that was on his campaign website until May 2017.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+10
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are limits on the justicability of the ban, given assumed facial neutrality and assumed executive authority in the area. I can imagine the court not wanting to be in the position of ruling on and endless series of bans, with respect to the intentions behind each, and with it being queasy about the separation of powers issues that would be involved in potentially taking open ended custodianship of immigration policy. I mean, I can also see thinking that this is what’s constitutionally required! But Kennedy’s basic claim in the excerpt that constitutionality is not equivalent to justicability doesn’t strike me as ridiculous.
In any case, I haven’t read the opinions yet. Maybe I’ll have a more informed opinion later.
That same day, President Trump explained to the media that, under EO–1, Christians would be given priority for entry as refugees into the United States. In particular, he bemoaned the fact that in the past, “If you were a Muslim [refugee from Syria] you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” Id., at 125. Considering that past policy “very unfair,” President Trump explained that EO–1 was designed “to help” the Christians in Syria. Ibid. The following day, one of President Trump’s key advisers candidly drew the connection between EO–1 and the “Muslim ban” that the President had pledged to implement if elected.
Ibid. According to that adviser, “[W]hen [Donald Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put
commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” Ibid.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
Notably, the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant. Cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 18) (“The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to the affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what
the Free Exercise Clause requires”). It should find the same here.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are limits on the justicability of the ban, given assumed facial neutrality and assumed executive authority in the area. I can imagine the court not wanting to be in the position of ruling on and endless series of bans, with respect to the intentions behind each, and with it being queasy about the separation of powers issues that would be involved in potentially taking open ended custodianship of immigration policy. I mean, I can also see thinking that this is what’s constitutionally required! But Kennedy’s basic claim in the excerpt that constitutionality is not equivalent to justicability doesn’t strike me as ridiculous.
In any case, I haven’t read the opinions yet. Maybe I’ll have a more informed opinion later.
There was no justification for the ban on a national security basis and almost every word out of the mans mouth for years was evidence of intent for the ban to be discriminatory in purpose. I want to know what "evidence" the court was given to show that there was a basis for this in the realm of national security, because apparently the government can just lie to the supreme court and five idiots will take everything said at face value without question.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Notably, the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant. Cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 18) (“The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to the affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what
the Free Exercise Clause requires”). It should find the same here.
The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.
It's good to see someone pointing out how obviously full of shit this court is.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
All I can find is Samuel Chase, an impeachment from 1805, which ultimately failed. Being the minority party in congress isn't enough to accomplish this task even if they wanted to, this is why it's important for Dems to get more seats in the mid-terms. It's not spineless when they'd be wasting time not only getting a vote which wouldn't go through, but with a GOP in position to block something like that being allowed to be voted on in the first place.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
Mitch McConnell has agency too, you know.
the gop is the institution that pulled the trigger, but them being evil is a given. The Democrat's only job is to stop this from happening, and they had tools in their toolbelt to do it. but they were convinced Trump wouldn't win and just didn't give enough of a fuck in their hubris to do anything about it. It makes me incredibly angry.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
Ashamed of what? They basically had no moves. Other then some sort of "Fuck you, I'm appointing him anyway" move by Obama. There's no lever to use to force their hands.
The Democrats main failing is in being cowards about talking about the issue. They've been dead fucking silent for no good reason. Even though when you actually look at what happened, we see that Mitch McConnell instituted a constitutional crisis to prevent the sitting president from being able to nominate people to the SCOTUS and hold the seat open for the winner of the upcoming election while he was also knowingly covering up that his own party was conspiring with a hostile foreign government to steal that very election.
Put simply, Congress has already erected a statutory scheme that fulfills the putative national-security interests the Government now puts forth to justify the Proclamation. Tellingly, the Government remains wholly unable to articulate any credible national-security interest that would go unaddressed by the current statutory scheme absent the Proclamation. The Government also offers no evidence that this current vetting scheme, which involves a highly searching consideration of individuals required to obtain visas for entry into the United States and a highly searching consideration of which countries are eligible for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program, is inadequate to achieve the Proclamation’s proclaimed objectives of “preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their [vetting and information-sharing] practices.” Ante, at 34.
So then she's like "also, the national security argument itself is ridiculous on its face."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.
Exactly.
This term has been about nothing but trying to find any excuse to keep from doing their actual fucking job.
The majority distinguished the Crisis Pregnancy Center from the previous case where the SCOTUS said doctors could be forced to talk about alternatives to abortions by claiming the disclosure required by the CA law is unrelated to a medical procedure.
That is so obviously pulled out of their rear after searching for any distinction at all.
Posts
The immediate flip side is that it overrides a bunch of laws in red states that require clinics to display pro-life material as well. The exact case isn't ideal, but I think it ends up pretty neutral in the long run.
Checks and balance requires equal branches to provide the check and the balance. Kennedy in his argument is essentially taking a hedge trimmer to the judicial branch and claiming it can’t possibly be expected to comment on the improper exercise of the presidents constitutional authority when he SAYS it’s constitutional, and also he really wants to do it!
NNID: Hakkekage
Kennedy thinks adhering to the Constitution is important, but they just aren't going to do anything to ensure that happens.
You don't have to go back that far. Every nation that directly adopted the American system (mostly Latin American examples) fell into dictatorship. It's why when we were rebuilding Japan and Germany, we explicitly and purposefully made sure to choose different models.
Why do you think Thomas and other SCOTUS justices wouldn't find a way to thread that needle and say those are OK?
If the Rule of Law is voluntary it is not Rule of Law.
The question mainly depends on how long it takes for a case on that basis to filter up to SCOTUS. Check back after the 2020 election :P
What are you even talking about dude? Should I use y'all instead for it's clear americanesss or something? I guess I'm sorry the english language dropped it's second-person plural pronoun awhile back? I didn't think the point was unclear in the slightest there.
Gorsuch is up there making sure the voting system is rigged in hugely racist ways and if y'all leave him there it will confirm that one is allowed to profit from illegally conspiring to influence the election. It's like letting a bank robber pay his legal bills with the money he stole or something. Though as Ebum points out, the chances of that actually happening are basically zero so packing the courts is probably the better option.
How does Justice Kennedy think this is supposed to work? Just saying Congress/the people should do it doesn't make sense because Congress can represent a minority of the USA due to how both Houses work even before getting into things like voting laws.
Like, Sotomayors dissent is pretty strong and brings up a recurring theme: how do we continue if our institutions willfully ignore truth and fact?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.
Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.
Real shining legacy you're going to have, Roberts.
Shelby County was supposed to be "narrow" too until they blew that all up with Abbott. Round and round we go.
The roberts court is firmly planted in bottom 3 courts of all time, and the only reason they don't get to be number 1 or 2 just yet is because they haven't had their dred scott or korematsu yet. Though this case, when it eventually ends up back at scotus for real, will probably be up there.
Seriously though, who is to say what is or is not Constitutional if the SCOTUS refuses to do so?
The voters who elected the president are going to say whatever he does is constitutional, the opposition is going to say its unconstitutional. So Constitutionality is now a popularity contest instead of reasoned argument and precedent.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That SCOTUSBlog post seemed sounded like the latter, and, if so, I remain optimistic. Moreso than when I last posted about it.
V.3 concerned me, because it had the fig leaf of removing two muslim countries, adding two non, and adding waivers for "anyone."
Again, unless I misunderstand, I get their position here claiming it's not an obvious slam dunk because of these fig leaves. But it's been leaking out that the waiver process is implemented in incredibly bad faith, and that seems like the sort of thing that could reveal the country sub for what it is, and probably came out too late to affect their decision.
The rational basis does not need to be real. The law doesn't need to actually further a legitimate end of government to meet the standard.
You can see why almost no laws fail to meet the rational basis standard.
Rational basis is the least rigorous standard of review, by which the majority of the court evidently means to say “no standard of review” based on how many times they claim that everything is facially neutral and on the up and up and there’s no need or reason to investigate further (nay, in fact, they are forbidden to!)
NNID: Hakkekage
This is part of a long passage where she documents all the times he said he wanted to ban all Muslims, including a statement that was on his campaign website until May 2017.
In any case, I haven’t read the opinions yet. Maybe I’ll have a more informed opinion later.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Explicitly bigoted arguments for the travel ban?
MEH
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
There was no justification for the ban on a national security basis and almost every word out of the mans mouth for years was evidence of intent for the ban to be discriminatory in purpose. I want to know what "evidence" the court was given to show that there was a basis for this in the realm of national security, because apparently the government can just lie to the supreme court and five idiots will take everything said at face value without question.
Mitch McConnell has agency too, you know.
It's good to see someone pointing out how obviously full of shit this court is.
All I can find is Samuel Chase, an impeachment from 1805, which ultimately failed. Being the minority party in congress isn't enough to accomplish this task even if they wanted to, this is why it's important for Dems to get more seats in the mid-terms. It's not spineless when they'd be wasting time not only getting a vote which wouldn't go through, but with a GOP in position to block something like that being allowed to be voted on in the first place.
the gop is the institution that pulled the trigger, but them being evil is a given. The Democrat's only job is to stop this from happening, and they had tools in their toolbelt to do it. but they were convinced Trump wouldn't win and just didn't give enough of a fuck in their hubris to do anything about it. It makes me incredibly angry.
Ashamed of what? They basically had no moves. Other then some sort of "Fuck you, I'm appointing him anyway" move by Obama. There's no lever to use to force their hands.
The Democrats main failing is in being cowards about talking about the issue. They've been dead fucking silent for no good reason. Even though when you actually look at what happened, we see that Mitch McConnell instituted a constitutional crisis to prevent the sitting president from being able to nominate people to the SCOTUS and hold the seat open for the winner of the upcoming election while he was also knowingly covering up that his own party was conspiring with a hostile foreign government to steal that very election.
So then she's like "also, the national security argument itself is ridiculous on its face."
Exactly.
This term has been about nothing but trying to find any excuse to keep from doing their actual fucking job.
That is so obviously pulled out of their rear after searching for any distinction at all.
Abortion is safer than childbirth.