Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
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.

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

19495969799

Posts

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Christ all fucking mighty. We get decades more of this.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    Harry DresdenCantideOrcaJaysonFourmysticjuicerjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered 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?

    Yes because it is not overturning the substantive principle beneath Korematsu, which is that the government’s authority to arrest or limit the movement of specified groups based on a national security pretext is effectively boundless and is not judicially reviewable

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    So It GoesmonikerElldrenH3Knuckles
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Christ all fucking mighty. We get decades more of this.

    I feel bad for Clinton voters but not anyone else, really.

    shrykeSleepEncBullheadGnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleLeeksProhassYoutubedispatch.oMayabirdMan in the Mistsjdarksun
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The majority in the Korematsu ruling:
    It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for *224 action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

    Styrofoam SammichHakkekageFencingsaxDarkPrimusElldrenMan in the Mistsjdarksun
  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    f06siepzprre.jpg

    What a fucking gut punch of a reminder, Facebook.

    I took this photo 3 years ago today, as my girlfriend and I ran from our apartment to the Supreme Court to celebrate and cheer and laugh. There was a man with a sign that said "free hugs". It was so joyous.

    It was THREE YEARS ago. It feels like thirty.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
    ForarJaysonFourMayabirdmysticjuicerMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I remember free hugs guy!

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    SleepAistanMegaMekBrodyGnome-InterruptusSpoitFencingsaxJepheryForarNecoMrVyngaardmonikerHakkekageStabbity StyleCptKemzikHacksawmrondeauQuidDuke 2.0YoutubeNo-QuarterMillBlackDragon480Elldrendispatch.oJaysonFourGimMan in the MistsBullheadYamiB.jdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    Increase the court to 18 legislatively, name 9 additional Justices, then shrink the court back to 9. Then Constitutional Amendment that sets it at 9 and gives a limited time to advise and consent. What could go wrong?

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    ArbitraryDescriptordesc
  • KetarKetar Ready to feel better about your own miserable lives?Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    It may very well be. But I've hit the "fight fire with fire" point.

    override367BigJoeMYoutubeJaysonFourMayabirdmysticjuicerMan in the MistsYamiB.jdarksun
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Amendment or we pack the court is the kind of compromise I can get behind.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ExtreaminatusKetarBrodyFeralHakkekageHacksawNobodyQanamilQuidDuke 2.0skyknytNo-QuarterMillBlackDragon480Rawkking GoodguyElldrendispatch.oJaysonFourMan in the MistsYamiB.jdarksunH3Knuckles
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Ketar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    It may very well be. But I've hit the "fight fire with fire" point.

    As long as we can come to an agreement that we didn't start the fire

    steam_sig.png
    MayabirdH3Knuckles
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    I would favor phase-in court packing, eg, expand the court to (say) 15 or 19 total at a rate of two or so per term.

    The court should be bigger, so that individual appointments and accidents of fortune matter less. The amount they currently matter is a terrible strain and encourages destructive brinksmanship. And I’m fine, in light of Garland/Gorsuch, with Ds getting the first crack at extra vacancies. But I think it would be a lot better for the institution if the way it was done was at least notionally non-partisan in both goal and execution—like a gradual phase-in.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Ketar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    It may very well be. But I've hit the "fight fire with fire" point.

    As long as we can come to an agreement that we didn't start the fire

    it was always burning since the world's been turning


    ... damnit now that's in my head!


    But seriously, fight fire with fire is mostly not a viable solution and in this case will just burn down our institutions more rapidly. If you're concerned about delegitimization, making the court even less legitimate is not going to help

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    yea this lifetime appointment status quo is working great.

    eternal court packing back and forth by both parties at least leaves small windows of time where there are proper decisions instead of ass backwards calvinball at all times.

    edit: the court can't be any less legitimate. these totally farcical decisions over and over have accomplished that.

    Knight_ on
    aeNqQM9.jpg
    SleepshrykeAistanSpoitMegaMekQuidGnome-InterruptusDuke 2.0AiouaYoutubeMan in the MistsYamiB.jdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    spool32 wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Ketar wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral 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.

    Today's rulings demonstrate that the federal government's constitutional crisis is worsening; we can no longer trust SCOTUS to be even internally consistent, let alone politically impartial. And why should they? In the post Merrick Garland world, the SCOTUS is just a lifelong cabinet appointment for whichever party is in charge of the other two wings.

    If the Democrats are ever again in a position where court-packing threats are plausible, they should suggest a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken SCOTUS confirmation process, and use the threat of court-packing to speed it along.

    This I would probably go along with.

    Court-packing I will oppose with ever fiber. It's throwing gasoline on a fire.

    It may very well be. But I've hit the "fight fire with fire" point.

    As long as we can come to an agreement that we didn't start the fire

    it was always burning since the world's been turning


    ... damnit now that's in my head!


    But seriously, fight fire with fire is mostly not a viable solution and in this case will just burn down our institutions more rapidly. If you're concerned about delegitimization, making the court even less legitimate is not going to help

    Choices meaningfully boil down to either continuing being the only people around who pretend than norms and decorum are real or using power to break those who misuse power.

    Its a fucking fantasy to act like the GOP wouldn't be looking into packing and impeachment right now if liberals had the 5 votes to their 4 anyway.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    CantideMrVyngaardkedinikAistanHakkekageMegaMekVeagleHacksawmrondeaudescQuidcursedkingDarkPrimusDuke 2.0skyknytYoutubeMillJaysonFourFencingsaxmysticjuicerMan in the MistsYamiB.jdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Ultimately it takes two to tango. You can't force the other side to respect institutions. So you can fight handcuffed against a side that will destroy the institutions anyway, or you can fight according to the same or nearly the same rules and prevent the additional suffering and rewarding of escalated undermining of institutions. The only way to stop Republican officials from tearing down institutions is to take away their power to do so. The only way to do that is to eliminate their control of the 3 branches of government. The only way to do that for the judiciary with its lifetime appointments is to reform the judiciary branch.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Styrofoam SammichFeralAistanSpoitMegaMekQanamilMorganVcursedkingGoumindongDarkPrimusYoutubeboogedybooMan in the MistsjdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    like, there's a very large chance rbg dies and kennedy retires and trump gets to appoint 2 justices. that is a permanent 6 justice majority that is insane and has no desire or interest in proper jurisprudence except as a disguise to push their right wing priorities.

    the current court already overturned sections of the voting rights act, renewed by a republican congress and a republican president merely a decade early. what is the democratic endgame for a scotus with lifetime appointments that has no desire to rule based on fact or laws but on partisanship if not radical action?

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    SleepAistanHakkekageSpoitNecomrondeauOrcaBigJoeMGnome-InterruptusDarkPrimusDuke 2.0YoutubeJaysonFourFencingsaxMan in the MistsYamiB.H3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Larger goals aside, Thomas should absolutely be impeached for conduct outside the court.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ExtreaminatusDoodmannAistanKetBraFeralPantsBMartini_PhilosopherZomroMegaMekJepheryHacksawoverride367PreachercursedkingDarkPrimusDuke 2.0skyknytYoutubeKruiteJaysonFourMan in the MistsBullheadYamiB.jdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Larger goals aside, Thomas should absolutely be impeached for conduct outside the court.

    Goursuch has been shilling at Trump properties so definitely needs to be checked out as well

    Styrofoam SammichshrykeCptKemzikJepheryoverride367OrcaSleepDarkPrimusDuke 2.0YoutubeJaysonFourMayabirdMan in the Mistsdispatch.oBullheadYamiB.jdarksunH3Knuckles
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    There's no process for that, no

    HakkekageSo It GoesmonikerFencingsax
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/26/17507014/travel-ban-internment-camp-supreme-court-korematsu-muslim-history

    I don’t think it is an exaggeration to condemn this ruling as one of the worst in the Court’s history and this law professor from the University of Chicago explains why.

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    DoodmannMegaMekNecoFeralenlightenedbumSleepOrcashrykemonikerDarkPrimusDoctorArchMillJaysonFourMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxVeagleMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunabotkinH3Knuckles
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    Who reviews the reviewers?

    They're supposed to be the people that do that for everything else.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    Youtube
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/26/17507014/travel-ban-internment-camp-supreme-court-korematsu-muslim-history

    I don’t think it is an exaggeration to condemn this ruling as one of the worst in the Court’s history and this law professor from the University of Chicago explains why.

    They're probably up to like half of the top ten now?

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerMayabird
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    Who reviews the reviewers?

    They're supposed to be the people that do that for everything else.

    Congress is supposed to.

    The framers made so many bad assumptions.

    FeralSleepshrykeStyrofoam SammichNecoBrodyGnome-Interruptusdestroyah87PolaritieMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxboogedybooMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunH3Knuckles
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    There's no process for that, no

    That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    kedinik
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    like, there's a very large chance rbg dies and kennedy retires and trump gets to appoint 2 justices. that is a permanent 6 justice majority that is insane and has no desire or interest in proper jurisprudence except as a disguise to push their right wing priorities.

    the current court already overturned sections of the voting rights act, renewed by a republican congress and a republican president merely a decade early. what is the democratic endgame for a scotus with lifetime appointments that has no desire to rule based on fact or laws but on partisanship if not radical action?

    I don't think there's any coming back after this happens, I don't think America will ever recover, as a nation we're going to end up breaking apart

    BigJoeMYoutubeJaysonFourMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    There's no process for that, no

    Basically just like the electoral system there is no system in place to deal with "Oh wait, this entire process was illegitimate". Kind of a universal problem across most systems.

    OrcamonikerH3Knuckles
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    To me this always comes back to stupid or evil. Either Roberts knows what he's doing and he's evil or he's a professionally incurious dolt and has no idea whatsoever.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there any legal process for reviewing/revisiting the decisions of an impeached judge? Or do we have to wait until they're challenged again in lower courts?

    Who reviews the reviewers?

    They're supposed to be the people that do that for everything else.

    Congress is supposed to.

    The framers made so many bad assumptions.

    Only time it was ever used was by the guy who wrote it. Tells you everything.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    To me this always comes back to stupid or evil. Either Roberts knows what he's doing and he's evil or he's a professionally incurious dolt and has no idea whatsoever.
    It's evil. The Republicans, politicians and voters, lost the benefit of the doubt after Bush.

    enlightenedbumBigJoeMPhoenix-DshrykeAistanmonikeroverride367OrcaMegaMekHacksawYoutubeKetBraFencingsaxMayabirdMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunH3Knuckles
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    To me this always comes back to stupid or evil. Either Roberts knows what he's doing and he's evil or he's a professionally incurious dolt and has no idea whatsoever.
    It's evil. The Republicans, politicians and voters, lost the benefit of the doubt after Bush.

    Remember that Roberts has been at this professionally for decades now. Since at least the Reagan years as I remember. He's been trying to destroy minority rights and voting rights for longer then most of us have been alive.

    Knight_mrondeaumonikerPhoenix-DMegaMekHacksawYoutubeJaysonFourMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxMayabirdMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunH3Knuckles
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    It’s absolutely insane to ask the Democratic Party to act against its own interests with a party that consistently acts in bad faith. That is an impossible standard and will inevitably lead to the gop dominating permanently.

    mrondeauYoutubeH3Knuckles
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/26/17507014/travel-ban-internment-camp-supreme-court-korematsu-muslim-history

    I don’t think it is an exaggeration to condemn this ruling as one of the worst in the Court’s history and this law professor from the University of Chicago explains why.

    This is the part I'm still not clear on
    The Supreme Court framed its inquiry as an application of what is called “rational basis” review. But even when it uses a rational review lens, the Court has in the past been willing to see a discriminatory policy for what it truly is. Not so today.
    Why did they do that?

    Do they vote on how to review it beforehand, or is there some precedent based on the nature of the questions before them?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/26/17507014/travel-ban-internment-camp-supreme-court-korematsu-muslim-history

    I don’t think it is an exaggeration to condemn this ruling as one of the worst in the Court’s history and this law professor from the University of Chicago explains why.

    This is the part I'm still not clear on
    The Supreme Court framed its inquiry as an application of what is called “rational basis” review. But even when it uses a rational review lens, the Court has in the past been willing to see a discriminatory policy for what it truly is. Not so today.
    Why did they do that?

    Do they vote on how to review it beforehand, or is there some precedent based on the nature of the questions before them?

    You're trying to reason this out in the wrong direction. They started with the result they wanted and went backwards from there. They applied their review standards in the way that would allow them to endorse the GOP position.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    AistanWACriminalMorganVshrykePreacherMegaMekBigJoeMFeralYoutubeSleepskyknytZomroKetBraJaysonFourMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxMayabirdGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunH3Knuckles
  • skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Well a nakedly partisan Court is better than one that pretends otherwise I guess. Silver linings wooo

    It's weird because Bush v Gore was a transparently partisan decision and still we had 18 years of people fantasizing about the supreme court they saw on west wing. The Dem supermajority should have been trying to fix some of this shit in 2009, but...

    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
    Styrofoam SammichPhillishereMegaMekNobodyFeralYoutubeSpoitMayabirdGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsYamiB.Stabbity StylejdarksunH3Knuckles
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Well a nakedly partisan Court is better than one that pretends otherwise I guess. Silver linings wooo

    It's weird because Bush v Gore was a transparently partisan decision and still we had 18 years of people fantasizing about the supreme court they saw on west wing. The Dem supermajority should have been trying to fix some of this shit in 2009, but...

    Bush v Gore was obviously partisan bullshit that the Court had no business in in the first place and wildly overstepped its authority on, but the whole situation was also so weird and confusing and up in the air that the national reflex seemed more to just move on.

    Hopefully these partisan rulings, made devoid of any kind of real world issue, can at least result in some more open eyes.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    FeralskyknytshrykeDongs Galore
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/26/17507014/travel-ban-internment-camp-supreme-court-korematsu-muslim-history

    I don’t think it is an exaggeration to condemn this ruling as one of the worst in the Court’s history and this law professor from the University of Chicago explains why.

    This is the part I'm still not clear on
    The Supreme Court framed its inquiry as an application of what is called “rational basis” review. But even when it uses a rational review lens, the Court has in the past been willing to see a discriminatory policy for what it truly is. Not so today.
    Why did they do that?

    Do they vote on how to review it beforehand, or is there some precedent based on the nature of the questions before them?

    You're trying to reason this out in the wrong direction. They started with the result they wanted and went backwards from there. They applied their review standards in the way that would allow them to endorse the GOP position.

    Call it a technical curiosity, I guess? I genuinely have no idea why or how a particular review standard is applied to a case.

    I'm also still baffled as to what the remand entails here, and why they couched so much in "not likely to succeed" as though they were not actually making a judgement on the case itself.

    I saw some chatter suggesting Hawaii et al declined to wait on the injunction until they had more solid standing from a plaintiff who was denied a waiver; so is it remanded and mooted?

    But don't they usually say that? All of the question marks.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    They remanded because they're acting as an appeals court and don't want to find on the facts. "You misapplied the law now go find again". If they do this they don't have to actually say that it had nothing to do with race just that they couldn't use all the things that said it was in order to make the determination.

    Aside: Given the state we're in I hope the lower court decides to rule in the same way in had and simply write around the ruling just as this SCOTUS has written around the law.

    wbBv3fj.png
    BigJoeMmonikerPolaritieKetBraGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsH3Knuckles
This discussion has been closed.