|
evilweasel posted:no it can't, it can only tie 4-4 and affirm the 5th circuit I mean when President Trump appoints William "gas the gays" Pryor.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:no it can't, it can only tie 4-4 and affirm the 5th circuit Tie goes to the runner? Or to the ruling of the court the next step down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I found the opinion: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV3.pdf Also, the 5th Circuit is heavily conservative so if they ruled en banc (every judge gets a vote so you can't get lucky and draw two Obama appointees) that Texas is a racist shithole, that really means something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I found the opinion: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV3.pdf Not really since the official position of the conservative half of the SCOTUS is that racism hasn't existed since 1964.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
They really overplayed their hand if they got slapped by the 5th, drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I honestly don't know if Texas appeals right now. If they do right away, they're getting a 4-4 at best because How long can they wait until they appeal? Is there some sort of time limit or could you appeal a case from years back if you wanted to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
at merrick getting confirmed before next session begins. If that happens, they're absolutely hosed and stuck with their circuit ruling and no recourse.
|
uugh the more i read the 5th decision the less i like it they struck down important parts of the district court opinion, like that 'sure, you can travel four hours to get a free birth certificate' is still a poll tax, and remanded for further inquiry on 'is texas a racist shithole' (though making it clear that it was a potentially legitimate holding that texas is a racist shithole, a required finding to place them under preclearance again) they do find it has a discriminatory effect so that's a plus, but the removal of the "racist shithole" finding means they remand for a narrower ban on enforcement than just whacking the whole thing, they basically say the district court should try to respect texas's bullshit voter fraud concerns while fixing the discriminatory effect issues 5th circuit: still bad, just not as horrible as it could be
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
John Dough posted:How long can they wait until they appeal? Is there some sort of time limit or could you appeal a case from years back if you wanted to? There is a time limit to file an appeal. Don't recall what it is off the top of my head but its either weeks or a very small amount of months
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:uugh the more i read the 5th decision the less i like it Another thing I noticed in the opinion is that it is specifically aimed at people who really don't have ID. They went out of their way to say that if you do own a valid ID and the state somehow knows you own a valid ID, then you have to show it. So, if you are a 75-year old grandma with a long-expired license you'll probably be fine. If you left your wallet with your DL at home and they know you have an unexpired DL, you can't vote, gotta go back and get your ID.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
the one good thing is that because the district court is to wait to re-decide if texas is a racist shithole (yes, it is), if the district court then reaffirms it is then the supreme court probably has 9 justices again and a chance to undo some of the damage to the VRA if the 5th circuit tries to gut that holding
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the one good thing is that because the district court is to wait to re-decide if texas is a racist shithole (yes, it is), if the district court then reaffirms it is then the supreme court probably has 9 justices again and a chance to undo some of the damage to the VRA if the 5th circuit tries to gut that holding Imagining the sour look on John Roberts' face makes it worth the wait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
The prospect of Roberts and Alito spending the remainder of their careers trapped in a sorcerous cage of progressivism, guarded by the eternal spirit of RBG and her 5-7 priests upon the Earth, fills me with both deep contentment, and the desire to play Dungeons & Dragons while listening to Blue Oyster Cult.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Another thing I noticed in the opinion is that it is specifically aimed at people who really don't have ID. They went out of their way to say that if you do own a valid ID and the state somehow knows you own a valid ID, then you have to show it. That makes… not a lot of sense. What does that do, keep me from impersonating my neighbor Bob at the polls, because he has a valid ID? But I can still impersonate Craig, because I know he doesn’t. That gives me an idea: is there any possibility that that could be found to violate the equal protection clause?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:The prospect of Roberts and Alito spending the remainder of their careers trapped in a sorcerous cage of progressivism, guarded by the eternal spirit of RBG and her 5-7 priests upon the Earth, fills me with both deep contentment, and the desire to play Dungeons & Dragons while listening to Blue Oyster Cult. you see me now a veteran, of a thousand culture wars
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
The Fourth Circuit just ruled that North Carolina intentionally discriminated by race in their recent voting restrictions: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/north-carolina-voting-law-fourth-circuit-rulingquote:After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.  as a reminder I believe this lets the DOJ place them back under preclearance
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Well I believe that rises to the level of "egregious". Also "ballsy" and "stupid". Did they think no one would notice the data they requested, or that no one would care?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well I believe that rises to the level of "egregious". Also "ballsy" and "stupid". Did they think no one would notice the data they requested, or that no one would care? The district court, somehow, did not notice that. The decision by the 4th Circuit is overturning the district court decision and holding their factual determinations were clearly erroneous, and reading through this decision boy were they ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
quote:Some of the statements by those supporting the legislation included a Republican precinct chairman who testified before the House Rules Committee that the photo ID requirement would “disenfranchise some of [Democrats’] special voting blocks [sic],” and that “that within itself is the reason for the photo voter ID, period, end of discussion.” See J.A. 1313-14; Yelton testimony, Transcript of Public Hearing of the North Carolina General Assembly, House Elections Committee (Apr. 10, 2013) at 51. Responding to the outcry over the law after its enactment, the same witness later said publicly: “If [SL 2013-381] hurts the whites so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.” See J.A. 1313-14; Joe Coscarelli, Don Yelton, GOP Precinct Chair, Delivers Most Baldly Racist Daily Show Interview of All Time, New York Magazine, Oct. 24, 2013. These statements do not prove that any member of the General Assembly necessarily acted with discriminatory intent. But the sheer outrageousness of these public statements by a party leader does provide some evidence of the racial and partisan political environment in which the General Assembly enacted the law. lawl i love NY Magazine and I'm glad they got this callout evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The district court, somehow, did not notice that. The decision by the 4th Circuit is overturning the district court decision and holding their factual determinations were clearly erroneous, and reading through this decision boy were they ever. I'm slowly getting this picture of federal district courts as not really all that good at their jobs. Maybe this is confirmation bias based on reading about the appeals at circuit and supreme level, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
good job Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm slowly getting this picture of federal district courts as not really all that good at their jobs. Maybe this is confirmation bias based on reading about the appeals at circuit and supreme level, though. District courts also follow the lead of higher courts, and when you've got the Supreme Court basically saying "discrimination is legal again" in Shelby County, lower courts are gonna follow suit. Then Scalia's death is letting Circuit Courts say "gently caress it, we're not gonna get reversed"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
gently caress, they declined to place NC back under preclearance, which is obviously the wrong move:quote:As to the other requested relief, we decline to impose any of the discretionary additional relief available under § 3 of the Voting Rights Act, including imposing poll observers during elections and subjecting North Carolina to ongoing preclearance requirements. See 52 U.S.C. § 10302(a), (c) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a). Such remedies “[are] rarely used” and are not necessary here in light of our injunction. Conway Sch. Dist. v. Wilhoit, 854 F. Supp. 1430, 1442 (E.D. Ark. 1994). that's bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Fourth Circuit just ruled that North Carolina intentionally discriminated by race in their recent voting restrictions: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/north-carolina-voting-law-fourth-circuit-ruling I wonder if they'll even bother appealing to the SCOTUS. At best they'd get a 4-4 ruling and if they're unlucky someone like Kennedy could agree that their actions were intentionally discriminatory since holy poo poo they didn't really try to hide it at all did they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Can we change the title of the thread to something like "SCOTUS Thread 2015: The title is affirmed by an equally divided moderator team"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I wonder if they'll even bother appealing to the SCOTUS. At best they'd get a 4-4 ruling and if they're unlucky someone like Kennedy could agree that their actions were intentionally discriminatory since holy poo poo they didn't really try to hide it at all did they? Yeah, going on TV and talking about it was a pretty big clue. Also the fact that anyone with the barest historical/contextual knowledge took one look at that law and said, "Jesus Christ, that's pretty racist".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
As a non-American I'll just take a moment to make it clear how mind-blowing it is that there's a country with ostensibly free elections, and parties that loudly and endlessly say how democracy is awesome, but one of those parties is actively trying to make it harder to vote.  And not just harder in general, but to make it harder for certain demographics. That's some Belorussia poo poo right there. I mean this is not new to me, but I just want to step back and verbalize how thoroughly hosed up it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I wonder if they'll even bother appealing to the SCOTUS. At best they'd get a 4-4 ruling and if they're unlucky someone like Kennedy could agree that their actions were intentionally discriminatory since holy poo poo they didn't really try to hide it at all did they? If I were them I wouldn't appeal to the Supreme Court (or even en banc review) because the 4th is heavily Democratic appointees and I could see the Supreme Court or the en banc review putting them under preclearance. It's bullshit that they'd decline to put a state back under preclearance if they found the state intentionally discriminated based on race and I could easily see the Supreme Court having a majority to say "yes, if you find intentional racial discrimination, you should put states back under preclearance". Also, I got to the end - there is a partial dissent but only on a technical matter (the legislature amended the photo id law, the dissenter wants to remand for a determination on if that amendment fixed it, the majority says that the law was enacted with racial discriminatory intent so it's gone, period). There is no dissent to the finding that North Carolina Republicans Are Racist As All Hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah, the arrogance from being first usually keeps you from being the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I'm curious, can the district court judge (who was clearly fine with racist disenfranchisement) now drag his feet enough to allow these provisions to remain active for the 2016 general election?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
saintonan posted:I'm curious, can the district court judge (who was clearly fine with racist disenfranchisement) now drag his feet enough to allow these provisions to remain active for the 2016 general election? Nope. Plus they're already stayed so if he does nothing they stay unenforced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Then... what now? Use old districts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Then... what now? Use old districts? This one isn't about district boundaries, it's about whether you forbid early voting, forbid extended poll opening hours, and require a limited kind of ID.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Npr reporting them "almost certain" to appeal it. And "almost certain" is in quotes in the article, so it looks like quoting someone
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Let them. With luck, Hillary will already be president-elect and they'll be facing an even more hostile environment at SCOTUS. Edit: Gettin' hype at the idea of John Roberts presiding over a court that affirms the VRA. That old gently caress has spent his whole career trying to unravel laws protecting minority voting rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm slowly getting this picture of federal district courts as not really all that good at their jobs. Maybe this is confirmation bias based on reading about the appeals at circuit and supreme level, though. There's certainly some confirmation bias there. Good decisions are harder to appeal and the boring ones don't make the headlines. I've seen a lot of good work at the district level. A lot of lovely work, but it's usually pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Let them. With luck, Hillary will already be president-elect and they'll be facing an even more hostile environment at SCOTUS. Legit excited at even the possibility of "Roberts Court" eventually having the same rhetorical valence as "Warren Court". rip in piss nino
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Npr reporting them "almost certain" to appeal it. And "almost certain" is in quotes in the article, so it looks like quoting someone Please proceed, Governor. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Unrelated: do we have a Bundy trial thread to discuss the mad sovcit bullshit they're spewing at the courts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Unrelated: do we have a Bundy trial thread to discuss the mad sovcit bullshit they're spewing at the courts? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3761854
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Bad signal to noise there but it's a fine dog pile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:19
|
|