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
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.
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
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?
Warren 2020
Congress is supposed to.
The framers made so many bad assumptions.
That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.
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.