VitalSigns posted:Right, but the Supreme Court has in the past interpreted "Legislature" to mean the full legislating power of the state. The article I posted cites cases in which the court rejected challenges by state legislatures to a governor's veto or a referendum overseeing the districting. VitalSigns posted:And the legislature should be excluded from the process of influencing the election of their own political party. If we're worried about corruption in democracy, a process that allows a party to pass legislation to skew elections its way is a pretty big one. Are you actually hoping the supreme court will overturn precedent and interpret the word "Legislature" narrowly here? How narrow are you willing to go? Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction over redistricting, or was Baker v Carr wrongly decided because after all, the Supreme Court isn't part of the Legislature so going by that one sentence in isolation it seems like they should have no say in districting requirements. Oh come on, false dichotomy much? This case doesn't overturn freaking Baker. Have you read the scotusblog account of the questions asked? If you think the legislature should be excluded from redistricting, then you want a federal constitutional amendment. That's the way it was designed to be. If you think influence of faction is a problem when mediated through democratic elections and a legislature, how would putting it to a majority vote be better? The entire purpose of representative government is to prevent that state of affairs. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you think the legislature should be excluded from redistricting, then you want a federal constitutional amendment. That's the way it was designed to be. If you think influence of faction is a problem when mediated through democratic elections and a legislature, how would putting it to a majority vote be better? The entire purpose of representative government is to prevent that state of affairs. Redistricting isn't up to majority vote in Arizona. It's done by an independent nonpartisan districting commission. E: Also I'm reading the oral arguments, and the plaintiff is disagreeing with you. His complaint is that the commission is too undemocratic because it's unelected and unaccountable to the people 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:49
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Redistricting isn't up to majority vote in Arizona. It's done by an independent nonpartisan districting commission. You've got to be being willfully dense now. How was that commission created? How are its members established? What is preventing me from spending $20 million to make it the Vox-dependent nonpartisan districting poster with a good ad campaign? Read this again. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You've got to be being willfully dense now. How was that commission created? How are its members established? It was established by the referendum, but it's pretty ridiculous to say well WHAT IF the people passed a referendum to redistrict by direct vote. They didn't. If referenda are so bad, the Arizona constitution has a provision to amend it. Let's not pretend that this case has anything to do with a principled opposition to direct democracy instead of partisan advantage, especially since the plaintiff's actual complaint is the independent commission isn't democratic enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
The Arizona constitution isn't the controlling law. The federal Constitution is. I don't give a poo poo if the plaintiff's motive is to eat puppies, they're arguing from the actually relevant law, and so far it looks like SCOTUS is going to decide in their favor. You're not reasoning from what the law is, you're reasoning from what outcome you want.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're not reasoning from what the law is, you're reasoning from what outcome you want. So are you. You're bringing an irrelevant objection to direct democracy into this, when the case really turns on what the federal constitution means, and not on the merits of direct democracy. Discendo Vox posted:The Arizona constitution isn't the controlling law. The federal Constitution is. I don't give a poo poo if the plaintiff's motive is to eat puppies, they're arguing from the actually relevant law, and so far it looks like SCOTUS is going to decide in their favor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:02
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So are you. You're bringing an irrelevant objection to direct democracy into this, when the case really turns on what the federal constitution means, and not on the merits of direct democracy. I'm citing to loving Fed 10 here! What more could you possibly need in terms of constitutional interpretation!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Have any of our prosecutors read the briefs or transcript in davis v ayala? Interested in how you defend an ex parte batson challenge. I mean, maybe excluding the defendant, but to have the challenge heard in camera, no record, with the defense attorneys excluded in a capital case? That smells fishy. Skimmed a summary. I don't do federal habeas but my initial thoughts are: 1. Seriously? WTF? First off, the fact they excluded ALL black and latino jurors in and of itself is o_O. Just when I think we've reached a point in history where we can get rid of the Batson doctrine because prosecutors no longer believe they need to boot minorities for juries we get poo poo like this. For what it's worth, I actually prefer working class minority jurors with no criminal records. Now college students on the other hand? gently caress 'em. drat kids get off my jury. 2. Why the hell would the trial court do this in camera? That's...no. What possible non discriminatory reason could you have to strike a juror that has to be super secret? Given the huge amount of deference you get if you can articulate something reasonable, odds are you will prevail so just put it all on the record. done and done. 3. The issues are interesting. I am not as well-versed in federal habeas as I want to be, but Batson issues are extremely difficult to win on appeal, and even harder on collateral challenge. (Usually due to lack of record) I suspect the harmless error analysis is correct here (unless they want to say it's structural error...but that seems unlikely) But violation and prejudice are two separate questions, so 9th circuit seems to have really screwed the pooch in saying proving harmlessness proves no constitutional violation. They are two separate questions. I deal with this type of analysis a lot in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel 6th amendment claims and while since you need to prove both deficient performance AND prejudice a court can find the petitioner failed to prove one and punt the other, but I've never seen a habeas court claim they are the same question. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Thank you AR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm citing to loving Fed 10 here! What more could you possibly need in terms of constitutional interpretation! I don't know if you're being willfully dense or are a bonafide moron, but the advocates of independent redistricting commissions are not calling for the replacement of the American system of governance with something resembling Athenian democracy. Which makes your claim that your position is backed up by Madison absurd. The question is whether "legislature" will continue to be construed to mean legislative authority or if it will be redefined on a temporary and ad hoc basis in order to create a rationale to allow Republicans to engage in cynical anti-democratic maneuvering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:27
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I don't know if you're being willfully dense or are a bonafide moron, but the advocates of independent redistricting commissions are not calling for the replacement of the American system of governance with something resembling Athenian democracy. Which makes your claim that your position is backed up by Madison absurd. The question is whether "legislature" will continue to be construed to mean legislative authority or if it will be redefined on a temporary and ad hoc basis in order to create a rationale to allow Republicans to engage in cynical anti-democratic maneuvering. The regime at issue completely circumvents the legislative authority. That's the point- and that's what distinguishes it from other cases involving regulation or devolution of redistricting authority. The commission was created outside of the legislature, which is not the public of the state at large. Scalia may be justly hated, but he has a point when he says that "legislature" has never meant what Waxman is trying to say it means. Again, the fact that you think the "maneuvering" is anti-democratic doesn't matter, if that's the law. The solution countenanced by the creators of that law is to elect a different legislature- or demonstrate that the "maneuvering" is otherwise illegal, as per Baker. If you don't like that law, the solution is to amend the Constitution. edit: Clement makes the antidemocratic argument (and hey! cites #10!) starting at page 31. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
The Arizona constitution is kinda interesting: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/4/1.p1.htmquote:Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature. I wonder if they would have written that differently if the magic word was "legislature" not "legislating authority"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I'm just busy watching a state court override a federal court over in Alabama. This should get interesting, though it probably won't reach the Supremes. Would it? Seriously, let's assume the entire State Supreme is nucking futs, what happens next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I'm just busy watching a state court override a federal court over in Alabama. This should get interesting, though it probably won't reach the Supremes. Would it? Depends. what's the issue?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Depends. what's the issue? Gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Depends. what's the issue? Bama's elected Supreme Court headed by Roy "fired once already for defying federal order" Moore is fighting tooth and nail against marriage equality. First he personally ordered private judges to not issue licenses to avoid "confusion." After that hit shut down by a federal judge again, they've now issued another order to the probate judges saying again to disobey the federal order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Bama Supremes know they will get slapped for it, but it'll give them martyr cred for their next election so they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Yup. Here's the order https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=642402&event=4AN12324A
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
that King isn't going to be laughed out of court is just ridiculous gently caress 'em
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that King isn't going to be laughed out of court is just ridiculous I actually skimmed most of that 130 pages of primarily footnotes looking to see if there was a dissent and I can appreciate what he has to say. He doesn't want marriage equality either, but at least has the sack to call out the other judges and the people that filed this action stating that the SCoA has no jurisdiction, the parties that brought the case cannot pursue the action on behalf of the state, they have no standing, their request was insufficient, and the other justices are addressing questions not addressed in the request for relief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that King isn't going to be laughed out of court is just ridiculous there is always the chance that they took it just to laugh it out of court because scalia has some integritahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha it's going to be 5-4 with at least four justices deliberately botching basic statutory interpretation
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that it's not at all a good thing that they are even taking this up. Clearly they want another crack at the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Oh come on, 5-4? We can get more creative than that. It's going to be another hydra of a decision. Three justices will concur with about 60% of one opinion, scalia will have one entirely by himself, and there will be three to five different dissents on each salient point. In the end it's going to do very little other than to make con law student struggle to figure out what the gently caress the court is trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think we can all agree that it's not at all a good thing that they are even taking this up. Clearly they want another crack at the ACA. in a reasonable world they would have taken it up purely because one of the lower courts deliberately misinterpreted it and they just wanted to smack this silliness down early that said, lawl
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
I'm still hoping that one day there will be a fully interpenetrated SCOTUS decision- each justice writing an opinion with no original content, but only sentences claiming affiliation with parts of the other justices' opinions. Example: Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Scalia: I agree fully with words 4-7 of the post below this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
RBG: I agree fully with words 2, 3 and 8 of the post above this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm still hoping that one day there will be a fully interpenetrated SCOTUS decision- each justice writing an opinion with no original content, but only sentences claiming affiliation with parts of the other justices' opinions. Clearly we need Walter Benjamin as first Judge Dredd for life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think we can all agree that it's not at all a good thing that they are even taking this up. Clearly they want another crack at the ACA. Didn't it also turn out that 2 of the people in the suit weren't even eligible for exchanges to begin with? What would it mean if they take away 10 million people's insurance based on political reasons? Clearly this case shouldn't have been heard and is completely political. Isn't that kind of action by the supreme court unprecedented and insane?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:47
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Didn't it also turn out that 2 of the people in the suit weren't even eligible for exchanges to begin with? No, this sort of thing is fairly routine- and specific standing of the original claimants isn't always as important as you'd think at the SCOTUS level. An important element here is that the administration isn't raising the standing issue-they want the case heard on the details/merits. Additionally, a part of the basis for hearing the case could easily be to slap it down as baseless.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, this sort of thing is fairly routine- and specific standing of the original claimants isn't always as important as you'd think at the SCOTUS level. An important element here is that the administration isn't raising the standing issue-they want the case heard on the details/merits. Additionally, a part of the basis for hearing the case could easily be to slap it down as baseless. Is there some sort of requirement to grant certiorari specifically in order to tell someone they never should have filed the suit? It just seems like that's a petty use of the court's time even if it's their call.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think we can all agree that it's not at all a good thing that they are even taking this up. Clearly they want another crack at the ACA. There's still an outside chance that Scalia, Thomas, and/or Alito wanted a chance to bloviate about the ACA in a dissent because they are still butthurt about NFIB v Sebelius, and Roberts gave them a 4th vote for cert as an indulgence. But yes it's more likely that we got to four from justices who convinced themselves that there was an interesting statutory interpretation question that just so happened to be buried in the ACA. There is not an interesting statutory interpretation question that just so happened to be buried in the ACA. This is the legal equivalence of biblical numerology
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:59
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is there some sort of requirement to grant certiorari specifically in order to tell someone they never should have filed the suit? It just seems like that's a petty use of the court's time even if it's their call. The idea would be to get people to stop filing these suits- which may be a good use of the court's time, given the amount of resources that are being consumed by every conservative group in the US trying to set up test case challenges. And they would have to grant cert for that to really stick- otherwise the response from the ACA challengers would be to go for a circuit split. vvvvv That's a good point, although it would be a weird argument for them to come down on. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
People forget that Kennedy was against the ACA. He Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have granted Cert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, this sort of thing is fairly routine- and specific standing of the original claimants isn't always as important as you'd think at the SCOTUS level. An important element here is that the administration isn't raising the standing issue-they want the case heard on the details/merits. Additionally, a part of the basis for hearing the case could easily be to slap it down as baseless. It's a matter of jurisdiction. If all four don't have standing (and there were allegations that none had standing but my recollection is it was weak for one of them) then the Supreme Court cannot hear the case because there is no case or controversy. It becomes a prohibited advisory opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:13
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a matter of jurisdiction. If all four don't have standing (and there were allegations that none had standing but my recollection is it was weak for one of them) then the Supreme Court cannot hear the case because there is no case or controversy. It becomes a prohibited advisory opinion. Right, but my understanding is the administration has left that completely out of their filings, putting it in a fun easy-to-overturn gray zone.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:People forget that Kennedy was against the ACA. He Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have granted Cert. I haven't forgotten. King just seems too dumb for Kennedy to grant a cert on the merits, and I say this having read every word of his hilarious DOMA decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, but my understanding is the administration has left that completely out of their filings, putting it in a fun easy-to-overturn gray zone. Why? Why would they have done that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, but my understanding is the administration has left that completely out of their filings, putting it in a fun easy-to-overturn gray zone. A court is required to inquire into the standing of the litigants before it if it has any doubts that they have standing, even if it's not raised by either party. That said, I doubt they'll do that as well as nobody's interested in prolonging this. mdemone posted:Why? Why would they have done that? They want a decision on the merits. Gives them certainty either way about what to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Forgive the possibly basic bitch question, but can the Court punt on standing if the issue is brought up in Amicus briefs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:38
|
|