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
+4
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
+2
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
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.
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
+2
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
+4
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Posts
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
NNID: Hakkekage
I feel bad for Clinton voters but not anyone else, really.
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
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
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.
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
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.
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.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
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?
Goursuch has been shilling at Trump properties so definitely needs to be checked out as well
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There's no process for that, no
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.
NNID: Hakkekage
Who reviews the reviewers?
They're supposed to be the people that do that for everything else.
They're probably up to like half of the top ten now?
Congress is supposed to.
The framers made so many bad assumptions.
That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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
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.
Only time it was ever used was by the guy who wrote it. Tells you everything.
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.
This is the part I'm still not clear on 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.
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.
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.
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.