Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] : Back in black robes - new judicial session has begun

194959698100

Posts

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    YamiB.Feral
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I'm only really sympathetic to "Congress can/should fix this" when the Court makes their Decision in such a way to expand protections rather than vacate protections and go LOL, not my problem. Shelby County could have expanded prophylactic voting protections to all States while Congress makes a new rule. Instead they just fucked over everybody and told Congress to fix this new mess.

    CouscousDoctorArchYamiB.HakkekageshrykeBullheadMartini_PhilosopherOrcaMan in the MistsjdarksunmiscellaneousinsanityH3Knuckles
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    Like they won't already. Trump spends half has time trying to dismantle the rule of law.

    Harry DresdenSpoitMrVyngaardYoutubeMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    They'd already be doing it now if they didn't have the majority on the court. Or impeaching justices.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    mrondeauskyknytYoutubeH3Knuckles
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    Like they won't already. Trump spends half has time trying to dismantle the rule of law.

    I know Mitch McConnell doesn't hold to norms, but I am curious as to why he hasn't floated the idea of court packing while Trump remains in office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or anti-corruption laws before the majority of the SCOTUS decided bribery was pretty much legal.

    Harry DresdenDoctorArchGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherYoutubeMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    Like they won't already. Trump spends half has time trying to dismantle the rule of law.

    I know Mitch McConnell doesn't hold to norms, but I am curious as to why he hasn't floated the idea of court packing while Trump remains in office.

    Because he doesn't need to after violating the Constitution a couple years ago.

    Edith UpwardsHarry DresdenDoctorArchSleepKetBraSo It GoesHakkekageshrykeForarMegaMekFencingsaxDunderHacksawFeralMartini_PhilosophermrondeauOrcaN1tSt4lkerYoutubeElldrenMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I'm personally a fan of packing the court, but I have no idea how to stop the Republicans from doing the same once the country suffers another concussion and votes them into power again.

    Like they won't already. Trump spends half has time trying to dismantle the rule of law.

    I know Mitch McConnell doesn't hold to norms, but I am curious as to why he hasn't floated the idea of court packing while Trump remains in office.

    Prioritization

  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    Well my family won't be leaving the country for a while.

    I am in the business of saving lives.
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah, the conservative Justices have become extraordinarily comfortable with ignoring clear factual records

    Harry DresdenSleepYamiB.DoctorArchEdith UpwardsPhoenix-DSo It GoesDarkPrimusHakkekageZomroshrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekFencingsaxHacksawMrMisterFeralMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oCantideMrVyngaardmrondeauN1tSt4lkerYoutubeJaysonFourElldrenGimMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

    I do not believe that the court is arguing in good faith when they describe 'problems' with the wording of the law in regards to democratic priorities. I believe they are presenting the argument which is most palpable to their chums on the liberal wing. If the Democrats changed the law to get around their rulings, or began to undermine Republican priorities, then their laws would be found unconstitutional regardless of the wording, and power would be sent to wherever Republican control remained.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Edith UpwardsPhoenix-DhippofantmrondeauYoutubeMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    If the Supreme Court is just going to be a partisan mouthpiece for the party in power, we might as well make it so that it can swing back and forth based on elections and not on a mixture of luck and the medium lifespan. The great principle behind lifetime appointments was that it turned ideologues into thoughtful philosophers based on their removal from the need to bend to partisan pressures.

    Now that we have several decades showing this is ridiculous bullshit, might as well turn the top court into a flunky of the executive and legislative branches. It would at least be more democratic and stop the decades-long hangover of bad ideas that has marked the Supreme Court for most of its existence.

    Phillishere on
    AstaerethshrykeGnome-InterruptusAistanSpoitFeralCantideCptKemzikmrondeauMayabird
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    kedinik wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah, the conservative Justices have become extraordinarily comfortable with ignoring clear factual records

    Thomas is especially aggravating here. He barely ever does or says anything during the actual proceedings and then writes a bunch of batshit stuff afterwards but can't get called out on it or be argued against because no lawyer can say "ok so you haven't asked but I know you're thinking this dumb fuck thing".

    The hearings themselves are all just preamble to his legally binding op-ed

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    kedinikHakkekageGnome-InterruptusFeralMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah, the conservative Justices have become extraordinarily comfortable with ignoring clear factual records

    The mark of a dedicated textualist. Who needs to ever look outside of the document? You say this document only affects Muslims? Well, that doesn't matter when this law doesn't have any instance of the word "Muslims" or even "Muslim" in it.

    Textualism is an intellectually bankrupt legal tradition that runs contrary to the principles of common law and common sense.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    kedinikDarkPrimusHakkekagetzeentchlingFencingsaxSpoitFeralMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkerJaysonFourElldrenMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    If the Supreme Court is just going to be a partisan mouthpiece for the party in power, we might as well make it so that it can swing back and forth based on elections and not on a mixture of luck and the medium lifespan. The great principle behind lifetime appointments was that it turned ideologues into thoughtful philosophers based on their removal from the need to bend to partisan pressures.

    Now that we have several decades showing this is ridiculous bullshit, might as well turn the top court into a flunky of the executive and legislative branches.

    That was never the intended use for SCOTUS for obvious reasons. Nor do the elements in control wish to make such a naked power grab, as superficial as they are right now. This type of thing works as a first come, first serve scenario - what only matters is the first one to do it and that was the conservatives and since they have it they are not going to let their political opponents have an opportunity to have the same advantage in the future. They do not play fair, and are only interested in being the player with the winning hand.

  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    southpaw is a law professor that tweets a lot





    Democrats and progressives have no reason to have trust in the SCOTUS as an institution.

    raoADVy.png
    Styrofoam SammichmonikerDoodmannDoctorArchKnight_SleepStabbity StyledoomybearKetBraGoodKingJayIIIDarkPrimusRedTideHakkekageBigJoeMAstaerethZomroshrykeForarGnome-InterruptusTomantadurandal4532MegaMekFencingsaxiTunesIsEvilMaclayHacksawEncFeralCalicaMartini_PhilosopherNiryaCantideKraintMorganVMrVyngaardBlackDragon480seabassVeagleFeloniousmozmrondeauPolaritieOrcaN1tSt4lkerRickRudeYoutubeNo-QuartersanstodoJaysonFourElldrenGimboogedybooMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinHefflingmiscellaneousinsanityH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    southpaw is a law professor that tweets a lot





    Democrats and progressives have no reason to have trust in the SCOTUS as an institution.

    Just a regular lawyer last time I checked, but otherwise yes.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    KetBradispatch.oJaysonFour
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    So considering the scotus is just totally bullshitting at this point to justify their partisan rulings, Directly contradicting themselves and their former rulings of a week ago...that's like all 3 branches non functional at this point then...

    WACriminalBrodyGnome-InterruptusFeralBullheadMartini_PhilosopherCantideOrcaN1tSt4lkerYoutubeMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    "Congress should fix this" doesn't make sense when they just gave a win to gerrymandering that makes it harder for people to fix anything.

    Oh I know. My statement assumes a properly elected Congress that actually represents the will of the electorate and does it's actual job checking and balancing the other branches.

    Pipe dream, I know.

    Sleepa5ehrenHakkekageBrodyHarry DresdenQuidQanamilsanstodoJaysonFourMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

    This assumes the conservative majority is willing to be bound by precedence over partisanship. See: ACA

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    YamiB.Harry DresdenshrykemonikerSpoitMartini_PhilosopherYoutubeMayabirdH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah, the conservative Justices have become extraordinarily comfortable with ignoring clear factual records

    Thomas is especially aggravating here. He barely ever does or says anything during the actual proceedings and then writes a bunch of batshit stuff afterwards but can't get called out on it or be argued against because no lawyer can say "ok so you haven't asked but I know you're thinking this dumb fuck thing".

    The hearings themselves are all just preamble to his legally binding op-ed

    Well Thomas should also be impeached because he is clearly corrupt.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Styrofoam SammichZomroshrykeMegaMekHacksawAistanFencingsaxMartini_PhilosopherAresProphetMrVyngaardYoutubeJaysonFourElldrenMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    The California regulation case is one of those cases where I would love to see California flip it's nose at SCOTUS. I hate saying that, but if a state government can't require pretend doctors to affirmatively state that they are pretend and not real doctors in an attempt to protect the health of the populace then what's the freaking point of having a regulatory apparatus at all?

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    SleepDoodmannYamiB.DarkPrimusOghulkBrodySo It GoesDiplominatorGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthFryHacksawFencingsaxFeralCalicaBullheadMartini_PhilosopherNiryadispatch.onever dieRozCantideMrVyngaardBlackDragon480Stabbity StyleYoutubeJaysonFourElldrenGimboogedybooMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinmiscellaneousinsanityH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    what's the freaking point of having a regulatory apparatus at all?

    Don't give them any ideas

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    DoctorArchHakkekageBrodyMartini_PhilosopherMrVyngaardStabbity StyleOrcaH3Knuckles
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    So considering the scotus is just totally bullshitting at this point to justify their partisan rulings, Directly contradicting themselves and their former rulings of a week ago...that's like all 3 branches non functional at this point then...

    Oh, it’s functioning perfectly for those that wanted it this way.

    "I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge."
    X-Box Tag: PrettyGoodCake
    PSN: LLatikuf
    FencingsaxYoutube
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Well a nakedly partisan Court is better than one that pretends otherwise I guess. Silver linings wooo

    skyknyt
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited June 2018
    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/563756/?utm_source=twb&__twitter_impression=true
    By Roberts’s logic, cornerstones of Jim Crow law, the grandfather clause, and the literacy test would be entirely constitutional. Grandfather clauses barred people from voting if they could not vote prior to emancipation, but there were free black Americans prior to the abolition of slavery, and there were blacks capable of passing literacy tests in states where those tests were not deliberately impossible to pass. These laws did not affect all black voters, and neither did they explicitly mention race—so, to apply the tests Roberts has proposed, these devices, meant to secure white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction, were not discriminatory.

    This is the part of the opinion that really scares me for its future implication. The government can explicitly implement policy intended to discriminate, but as long as it launders its intent through tissue thin “facially neutral” aims and doesn’t get *all* of its targets in its sights, their bigoted intent is not relevant

    No word from Roberts on the aggregate effect of multiple policies that do, in summary, target majorities of the intended groups by their combined effort, and whether that exceeds any facially neutral assumption. I have faith that should the issue ever come before his bench, he will rise to the occasion of setting a legacy as despicable as Plessy v Ferguson

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    IlpalaDevoutlyApatheticmonikerDarkPrimusOghulkGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxKruiteMartini_PhilosopherMrVyngaardNecosanstodoElldrenMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • FairchildFairchild Rabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?" Registered User regular
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    Lol they rewrote Korematsu to defend the ban.

    Phoenix-DHakkekageDarkPrimusSleepCouscousYamiB.IlpalashrykemonikerOghulkSo It GoesMegaMekGnome-InterruptusKetBraHacksawFencingsaxDacSpoitFeralBullheadMartini_PhilosopherNiryaMrVyngaardBlackDragon480seabassStabbity StylemrondeauOrcaN1tSt4lkerskyknytJaysonFourElldrenboogedybooMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I guess we know why Masterpiece was supposedly "narrow." Because they would contradict it what, two weeks later?

    Has to be. There is no way they can square “we have to use the arbiters statements of bias to dismiss” and “we cannot use the executives statement of intent to dismiss”

    But then again. We knew they were partisan hypocrites when we started this game

    I also like the “this is totally different because there are no concentration camps” coming out like, literally a week after we find out there are concentration camps
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    So the only way this case remotely squares with Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (and the baker case) is that's okay for the executive to spout racist dipshittery as long as the resulting policy is neutral on its face, but not for anyone else to have any opinion whatsoever on any issue because that will poison any neutral policy.

    Wonderful distinction. Just wonderful.

    No. Since there are easy examples of bias in non-executive positions.

    The thing you should take away from it is “Republicans can do whatever they want; because we say so”.

    wbBv3fj.png
    shrykeYoutubeMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    I still don't get this reasoning. Things that are normally completely within some official's powers can be unconstitutional when done for unconstitutional reasons.

    Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce. That does not mean they can pass interstate commerce laws with racially discriminatory intent that would be constitutional.

    And calling a judge a doofus when it was only iverruled in a 5-4 decision is absurd. It aas literally only one vote from coming out differently!

    Couscous on
    KetBramonikerHakkekageForarMegaMekGnome-InterruptusCantideQanamilN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    Lol they rewrote Korematsu to defend the ban.

    They even ignore how the executive order in that case was facially neutral.

    GoodKingJayIIIGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxSpoitN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Well a nakedly partisan Court is better than one that pretends otherwise I guess. Silver linings wooo

    The problem is almost everyone will still keep trying to act like everything is fine and the SCOTUS isn't just a hackish partisan secondary legislature with lifetime appointments and permanent Republican control.

    Harry Dresdendurandal4532MegaMekmonikerYamiB.Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxSpoitRozMrVyngaardCptKemzikmrondeauYoutubeMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/563756/?utm_source=twb&__twitter_impression=true
    By Roberts’s logic, cornerstones of Jim Crow law, the grandfather clause, and the literacy test would be entirely constitutional. Grandfather clauses barred people from voting if they could not vote prior to emancipation, but there were free black Americans prior to the abolition of slavery, and there were blacks capable of passing literacy tests in states where those tests were not deliberately impossible to pass. These laws did not affect all black voters, and neither did they explicitly mention race—so, to apply the tests Roberts has proposed, these devices, meant to secure white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction, were not discriminatory.

    This is the part of the opinion that really scares me for its future implication. The government can explicitly implement policy intended to discriminate, but as long as it launders its intent through tissue thin “facially neutral” aims and doesn’t get *all* of its targets in its sights, their bigoted intent is not relevant

    No word from Roberts on the aggregate effect of multiple policies that do, in summary, target majorities of the intended groups by their combined effort, and whether that exceeds any facially neutral assumption. I have faith that should the issue ever come before his bench, he will rise to the occasion of setting a legacy as despicable as Plessy v Ferguson

    It's Roberts. One assumes making Jim Crow legal again is the goal. His entire job since the 80s has been to stop the blacks from voting or having rights.

    enlightenedbumHakkekagemonikerYamiB.Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthMartini_PhilosopherRedTideMrVyngaardCptKemzikmrondeauYoutubeMayabirdMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    The Supreme Court overturned Korematsu in the event the very specific circumstances that being in a declared war with a foreign nation justifies the capricious internment of former nationals or ethnic descendants of that foreign nation on American soil, while writing an opinion justifying the capricious banning of both immigration and visitation of nationals of foreign nations in circumstances of no war or basically demonstrated national security need

    It’s not the moral victory you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to claim it is

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    durandal4532Gnome-InterruptusFencingsaxMrVyngaardOrcaN1tSt4lkerElldrenMan in the MistsabotkinH3Knuckles
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The California ruling is five men saying carrying a child to term does not involve a medical procedure.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykeHakkekagedurandal4532Phoenix-DMegaMekmonikerYamiB.Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthDoctorArchSleepHacksawFencingsaxMartini_PhilosopherKnight_CantideMrVyngaardBlackDragon480Stabbity StyleCptKemzikCaptain InertiaBlankzillaN1tSt4lkerYoutubeCommander ZoomJaysonFourElldrenGimMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinHefflingH3Knuckles
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    Lol they rewrote Korematsu to defend the ban.

    They even ignore how the executive order in that case was facially neutral.

    And how it was done in the interest of national security.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    HakkekageBrodyFencingsaxN1tSt4lkerH3Knuckles
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    Fairchild wrote: »
    The entire travel ban kerfuffle was a giant waste of time, given that the ability to unilaterally restrict immigration is well within the Executive's Constitutional authority, no matter what some doofus federal judge in Hawaii felt about it. If you want to view it in political horse race terms, all that the Ninth Circuit Court did was que up an inevitable win for President Trump and Republicans just four months before mid-term elections.

    Nice to see the Supreme Court overturn Korematsu, too, one of the Supreme Court's all-time worst decisions.

    The Supreme Court overturned Korematsu in the event the very specific circumstances that being in a declared war with a foreign nation justifies the capricious internment of former nationals or ethnic descendants of that foreign nation on American soil, while writing an opinion justifying the capricious banning of both immigration and visitation of nationals of foreign nations in circumstances of no war or basically demonstrated national security need

    It’s not the moral victory you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to claim it is

    Isn't the Korematsu stuff dicta?

    Couscous
  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Doctor of Rocks San DiegoRegistered User regular
    To me one of the biggest jaw-droppers of the cases released today was Alito's assertion that we have to assume that the legislation/state always acts in good faith when making laws/voting districts, seemingly regardless of the circumstances. In an age of lobbyists, a weakened Voting Rights Act, and Citizens United, this seems at best helplessly naive, and at worst literally enshrining conservatism and discrimination into law. This is Alito, so I'm not terribly surprised, but I honestly can't imagine a better recent instance to show how unfit he is to be on the Supreme Court.

    MegaMekGiggles_FunsworthSleepJepheryFeralDarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusCantideMrVyngaardStabbity StyledescOrcaYoutubeCommander ZoomJaysonFourElldrenGimMan in the MistsjdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
This discussion has been closed.