|
evilweasel posted:Yes, actually; Has anything ever happened with that clause in case law or something?
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
Democrats are unconstitutional, says so right there
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Democrats are unconstitutional, says so right there 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
taiyoko posted:Lol good luck trying to get any other state to claim New Jersey. PA takes South Jersey, NY takes North Jersey and Middle Jersey becomes nuclear waste dump redraw state lines based on population
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Has anything ever happened with that clause in case law or something? I figure the SCOTUS case where they upheld banning the communist party might have since, iirc, one of the communists arguements was that the constitution doesnt say anything about what economic system has to be used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I figure the SCOTUS case where they upheld banning the communist party might have since, iirc, one of the communists arguements was that the constitution doesnt say anything about what economic system has to be used. There was no SCOTUS case on the constitutionality of banning the communist party at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Has anything ever happened with that clause in case law or something? According to Wikipedia, yes! quote:A political crisis in 1840s Rhode Island, the Dorr Rebellion, forced the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of this clause. At the time, the Rhode Island constitution was the old royal charter established in the 17th century. By the 1840s, only 40% of the state's free white males were enfranchised. An attempt to hold a popular convention to write a new constitution was declared insurrection by the charter government, and the convention leaders were arrested. One of them brought suit in federal court, arguing that Rhode Island's government was not "republican" in character, and that his arrest (along with all of the government's other acts) was invalid. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court held that the determination of whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a political question to be resolved by the Congress. In effect, the court held the clause to be non-justiciable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
UberJew posted:There was no SCOTUS case on the constitutionality of banning the communist party at all But there was a case somewhere in the states right, cause i definitely remeber reading it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:But there was a case somewhere in the states right, cause i definitely remeber reading it? There's a famous one about some communists circulating anti-draft leaflets. Is that what you're thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
I dont think so. It was a pre Cold War case specifically on the legality of the communist party where the ruling said something like by definition communists want to overthrow the government so its ok to ban them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
There were cases that upheld imprisoning lots of communists, pacifists and dissenters of all sorts (good reading to remind you that even today free speech ends the moment you're saying something the government doesn't like) but the 50s act that banned the party itself never got a scotus case because it wasn't really enforced
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I dont think so. It was a pre Cold War case specifically on the legality of the communist party where the ruling said something like by definition communists want to overthrow the government so its ok to ban them. Dennis v. United States, which upheld imprisoning a set of people (who were the leadership of CPUSA) on a 'clear and probable danger' test b/c of their speech But it didn't uphold banning the organization itself, it just said those individuals and what they were saying was
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Ah, yea I can see how would have gotten that confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Harik posted:People with great power and influence that retire don't tend to just do nothing afterwards. Even with a lifetime pension at 100% of their salary they'd go sit on boards or something just to keep the feeling of control. There's nothing stopping judges from doing that now. They're not forced to retire, but they can, and sometimes do. If there was a big corruption problem someone would've noticed by now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Dennis v. United States, which upheld imprisoning a set of people (who were the leadership of CPUSA) on a 'clear and probable danger' test b/c of their speech Also note this was before the Brandenburg test, which currently does protect advocacy of violence at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:01
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
evilweasel posted:According to Wikipedia, yes! So interesting. I always learn something from you guys. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/851456302433882112
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Donald Trump shouldn't get a supreme court pick in the last year of his presidency
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Scalia attempted to reincarnate on party's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Scalia attempted to reincarnate on party's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
esto es malo posted:Donald Trump shouldn't get a supreme court pick in the last year of his presidency We can only hope
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I'm seriously going to laugh my rear end off when Gorsuch turns out to be an honest-to-god moderate who values established law & not hurting people, rather than the five-mouthed lord of hell that the Republicans were promised Scalia's sacrifice would bring about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Niton posted:I'm seriously going to laugh my rear end off when Gorsuch turns out to be an honest-to-god moderate who values established law & not hurting people, rather than the five-mouthed lord of hell that the Republicans were promised Scalia's sacrifice would bring about. Might want to check the quote referenced there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Might want to check the quote referenced there. I did, it's going to make it even better. Even though he's putting forward quotes that sound like the Ur-Scalia, and his track record makes me think he's going to be frustrating in a lot of ways, I still expect surprises out of him that will piss off Republicans a hell of a lot more than myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Niton posted:I'm seriously going to laugh my rear end off when Gorsuch turns out to be an honest-to-god moderate who values established law & not hurting people, rather than the five-mouthed lord of hell that the Republicans were promised Scalia's sacrifice would bring about. You're going to be holding in that laugh for a very long time. He's not going to be anything like Kennedy and if he isn't consistently to the (far) right of Roberts on most things I'll be stunned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The regional governors will keep them in line. Fear will keep them in line. The regional governors will have direct control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Niton posted:I'm seriously going to laugh my rear end off when Gorsuch turns out to be an honest-to-god moderate who values established law & not hurting people, rather than the five-mouthed lord of hell that the Republicans were promised Scalia's sacrifice would bring about. I cannot believe, after the record available from Gorsuch's career and senatorial hearings, the sheer strength of your desire to go out of your way to hope things will turn out okay as a result of Gorsuch's ascension. Gorsuch is going to vote on Noth Carolina anti-black gerrymandering, whether Trump's executive order is fueled by religious animus, whether churches can receive state dollars for infrastructure upgrades, and whether a bakery in Colorado has the right to deny service to gays. Let's also not forget that Ted Cruz and a growing contingent of Republicans are supporting a bill permitting government employees to exercise their religious right to discriminate against gays. That's erosion of the establishment clause, legalization of institutional discrimination, destruction of equal protection of religious minorities, and a deep hit to voting rights and the capacity for the nation to recover from having our steering wheel locked to the right. Those aren't even topics upon which Gorsuch is a "maybe." Bring on "maybes" like Obergefell and Roe and we stand to lose an enormous volume of rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Kennedy's not going to side with the conservatives on the baker case. I just can't imagine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kennedy's not going to side with the conservatives on the baker case. I just can't imagine. Unless much like a cat on top of a refrigerator, Kennedy can be lured down off the court with kind words and ceremonies (and treats)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Niton posted:I'm seriously going to laugh my rear end off when Gorsuch turns out to be an honest-to-god moderate who values established law & not hurting people, rather than the five-mouthed lord of hell that the Republicans were promised Scalia's sacrifice would bring about. The right wing Judicial complex knows what they are doing. They are so much better at this than we are. Zero chance Gorsuch isn't basically a carbon copy Alito or Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Carbon copy Thomas wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
It wouldn't really be a good thing either though. Honestly I've just been telling myself he's replacing Scalia, so it's not like it's gonna be any worse than before*. *Please don't prove me wrong reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Scalia, but with no love for the fourth amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
But what about the third amendment? Assuming we ever get a third case before the Supreme Court again. They laughed that one a few years back out of the room, right? The SWAT sniper in NYC or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:But what about the third amendment? Assuming we ever get a third case before the Supreme Court again. They laughed that one a few years back out of the room, right? The SWAT sniper in NYC or whatever? Not to worry, we'll get one under Donald 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kennedy's not going to side with the conservatives on the baker case. I just can't imagine. He's also, in theory, a potential ruling against the Gerrymandering cases since the one involving Wisconsin specifically created and used a formula like he had previously said is needed to make such a determination. Whether he gives a gently caress about it or not is the only real question at this point. It's more likely than the Dems increasing the SCOTUS to 11 members if they took the WH and both chambers of Congress. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Oh good God you guys weren't being ironic, you sincerely want to pack the court. What the hell is wrong with you. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 07:53
|
|
Cat Army 
The Iron Rose posted:Oh good God you guys weren't being ironic, you sincerely want to pack the court. You're gonna have to articulate why you think packing the court is a bad idea.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
If the justices want to keep their number nine, they can get in line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 08:20
|
|