|
Radish posted:How bad would a Supreme Court decision need to be for it to be ignored reverse Andrew Jackson style or result in some some of their removal? They would have to defang the 13th Amendment
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:They would have to defang the 13th Amendment Or somehow strike the 21st amendment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Radish posted:How bad would a Supreme Court decision need to be for it to be ignored reverse Andrew Jackson style or result in some some of their removal? William O Douglas had a major stroke, after which he stayed on the court for almost a full year while the other justices were actively colluding to postpone any decision where his vote would make a difference. He eventually retired, but attempted to still work on cases (this is possible in lower courts). People tried to impeach him twice, and both of those were before the stroke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:How bad would a Supreme Court decision need to be for it to be ignored reverse Andrew Jackson style or result in some some of their removal? Nothing the SCOTUS can do will ever get Obama to move against them. They could decide the VRA in its entirety is unconstitutional and he'd just sit there and take it. Judges in general can get away with tons of poo poo and even if a conservative justice was caught killing someone in cold blood you'd have the Republicans fighting against their removal by any and all means (until they control the senate and white house). e: vvvv You should just drink now because it's about 90% certain the conservatives are going to throw out all that precedent and 100% certain the Democrats will in no way attempt to fight back beyond the usual hot air and empty complaints. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
As I mentioned in the October USPOL thread, SCOTUS has agreed to take a case this term which will decide if independent nonpartisan redistricting commissions are unconstitutional, potentially overturning a century-worth of precedent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As I mentioned in the October USPOL thread, SCOTUS has agreed to take a case this term which will decide if independent nonpartisan redistricting commissions are unconstitutional, potentially overturning a century-worth of precedent. Well, there goes any chance of taking the house back ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
The Arizona constitution gives people legislative authority though referenda/ballot initiatives/whatever, so surely the commission is just the 'legislature' deciding how the redistricting is to be done. If they weren't the legislature they couldn't make laws? Also many of the big states that allow ballot initiatives on laws and constitutional amendments are democratic strongholds so it doesn't really seem like this is good for republicans outside of Arizona
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Or somehow strike the 21st amendment. Rygar201 posted:They would have to defang the 13th Amendment So the Civil Rights Act would be fair game? Since that seems to be the ultimate target of the social side of the right wing .
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
There isn't a direct way for Democrats or other groups to directly "fight back" against SC decisions, especially in this sort of area. This really isn't an impeachment sort of scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:So, is it possible to actually recover from the rulings of this SCOTUS in my lifetime? No. The last time the court could potentially switch hands from 5 conservative judges to 5 non-conservative judges, we got Bush v Gore (and the Florida voting roll purges, etc). Control of the SC is basically the bedrock of conservative power for the last decade and change (and longer), and allows the continuing swing right in the country, and apparently can prevent any progress back towards even sane policy (CRA/VRA/etc) in the other direction. Even against things that would be utterly indefensible to push by mainstream Republican politicians are fair game, saving the party from the backlash. If it looks like the next President might not be Republican, I think you'll see crazy things like "legislature now allocates electoral votes in swing states" and other stuff start to gain massive traction, regardless of the fact that it means effectively admitting that our democratic process is (now) a sham. Even if we don't get to that I think the crazy voting wait times that Miami saw in the recent election will become the norm for "urban" voters in swing states, along with efforts to prevent Federal Judges from forcing them to stay open later. Maybe 14 years ago it wouldn't have happened, but not now, and certainly not in the fate of the SC is at stake. The other alternative is that SCOTUS is doing all these rulings trying to push things as far as they can since they think later down the line that demographics will actually swing things the other way, I dunno. I just think all the talk about demographics leading to long-term Democratic control of the presidency and whatnot is predicated on the election being somewhat like 2008 or 2012 from a legal perspective, when in reality losing the SC for an unknown period of time is a vastly bigger deal than a temporary loss of the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are the "plausible deniability" wing of the GOP - why risk electoral backlash by passing lovely laws when you can fund some puppet lawsuit's appeals, hand off to your homeboys in the robes there, and let the lifetime appointees do the dirty work. The SCOTUS is totes apolitical, how dare you insinuate those august justices are biased. All you have to do at that point is filibuster any work towards legislative remedy. Thomas and Kennedy might not always go along in every case, but you can't fundraise without a raw nerve every now and again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013 In which a sitting supreme court justice unironically says "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:Our currency literally says "In God We Trust" on it, I don't see how this is controversial. Segregated schools used to be the standard too, that doesn't mean they were't controversial or that they didn't conflict with the 14th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Our currency literally says "In God We Trust" on it, I don't see how this is controversial. Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents? e: vvvv It'd also be easier to pass a new law that allows for more justices to be appointed to the court, turning the lovely majority in to an irrelevant minority. If the Democrats somehow manage to take both chambers and the white house in the next decade they need to do exactly that (they won't). Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There isn't a direct way for Democrats or other groups to directly "fight back" against SC decisions, especially in this sort of area. This really isn't an impeachment sort of scenario. Theoretically they could pass an amendment that contradicted the SC but you're right that in practice that's not feasible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents? Everyone look at this fool who hasn't read the Constitution The Consitution posted:...in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution...
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013 I don't even have to click that link to know which one said it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Everyone look at this fool who hasn't read the Constitution I know that the bolded part you added is  and all but it's still a dumb joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I know that the bolded part you added is I didn't add a thing bro, if we can mention God in the Constitution, we can sure do it on money. At least, I assume that's the Constitution twodot is using to defend the federal government favoring religion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't add a thing bro, if we can mention God in the Constitution, we can sure do it on money. You bastard. I didn't even notice the 'Federal Government' part at first, or that you deliberately didn't say US Constitution otherwise I'd have caught on quicker.  e:He's quoting the Confederacy's Constitution Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
That part of the Constitution isn't considered legally binding.  (Yes, I know, just playing along)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That part of the Constitution isn't considered legally binding. True, but it's some pretty strong precedent that shows the founders of our republic didn't see any issue with the federal government invoking God's blessing in official documents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:True, but it's some pretty strong precedent that shows the founders of our republic didn't see any issue with the federal government invoking God's blessing in official documents. Technically, the preamble isn't precedent, it can only be suggestive of their intent when read alongside other parts of the document.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:e: vvvv It'd also be easier to pass a new law that allows for more justices to be appointed to the court, turning the lovely majority in to an irrelevant minority. If the Democrats somehow manage to take both chambers and the white house in the next decade they need to do exactly that (they won't). At least we wouldn't have more of those IN A 5-4 headlines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Seems like this would be the best fix. Make the court 10 bodies (or 8, once Thomas has a stroke) and make it equally balanced lib/con. Most of the 5-4 decisions the court reaches are not the same 5-4 judges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Just a reminder that next week, SCOTUS is holding oral arguments as to whether or not temp workers like those in Amazon warehouses can be unpaid for the 30+ minute security checks they undergo after work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Seems like this would be the best fix. Make the court 10 bodies (or 8, once Thomas has a stroke) and make it equally balanced lib/con. So literally "I want the Supreme Court to act exactly how Congress today does".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Everyone look at this fool who hasn't read the Constitution Holy poo poo. This loving guy. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So literally "I want the Supreme Court to act exactly how Congress today does". Gridlock is healthy! Or, one would hope that people would work across ideology if... bwahaha who am i kidding
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents? Uh, the use "In God We Trust" on currency predates the Red Scare by like a century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Uh, the use "In God We Trust" on currency predates the Red Scare by like a century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:He was probably thinking of the part added to the Pledge. Apparently it's been on coins longer, while it didn't appear on paper currency until 1957 and was made the (new) motto in 1956. Its push in the 1950s was directly due to Godless Commies and the Red Scare. Either way there's a grand total of zero mentions of God in the US Constitution and was responding to twodot's post about a known, vocal, and proud theocratic justice. I'm curious what his thoughts on are on why Article 6 specific prohibits any sort of religious test being a part of qualifying for office if he believes there's no freedom from religion inherent in the founding documents. The only other mention of religion is in the First Amendment. Scaila doesn't care though because he's a racist theocrat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
The "Welfare gets a callout while God doesn't" really is the best thing to point out to the slobbering trash that bring up the concept of the US being founded as some shape of plebe-hating theocracy. I mean the government still hates it some plebs but the whole idea of the government trying to assert some form of religious agency was anathema to the framers. The "general welfare" bit is just a time-release burn for later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm curious what his thoughts on are on why Article 6 specific prohibits any sort of religious test being a part of qualifying for office if he believes there's no freedom from religion inherent in the founding documents. Scalia posted:in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Just for novelty's sake, next time Democrats win Congress they should changes all references to God in the Pledge and in our public ceremonies to "Hail Satan". There's no right not to hear the Lord of Darkness' name, and since it's just a meaningless civic phrase and not any kind of government endorsement of this or that religion, I'm sure nobody will mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just for novelty's sake, next time Democrats win Congress they should changes all references to God in the Pledge and in our public ceremonies to "Hail Satan". There's no right not to hear the Lord of Darkness' name, and since it's just a meaningless civic phrase and not any kind of government endorsement of this or that religion, I'm sure nobody will mind. I wouldn't mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
I feel like it would be insufficiently smug and annoying to use Satan- too obviously unserious for Republicans, and it won't send enough of them into a frothing rage. "Hail Obama"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
In God We Trust, and Mohammed is His Prophet
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:35
|
|