|
Kaal posted:Nope, there's plenty of federal judges who have limited tenures, they're just considered "Non-Article III judges". In addition to bankruptcy courts, there's also a variety of tax and claims courts, territorial courts, and military courts helmed by judges without lifetime appointments. And of course magistrate judges, if you want to consider them as well. Not to mention that judges can change Offices or be promoted out of them, despite the nominal "lifetime" duration. I understand that there's an orthodoxy here that considers lifetime appointments to be constitutionally based, but it really isn't. All it would take would be a determined congress to change it. It would go up to the SCOTUS for review of course, but so long as Congress made it clear that it was a political issue, then I think the Supreme Court have little choice but to acquiesce. The Supreme Court would never rule in favor of that because it would harm them personally. Separation of powers cuts both ways; they'd be totally free to rule that Congress was unconstitutionally interfering with the judiciary.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Goddammit they upheld the travel ban? What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:The language is vague. How do you prove you have ties to the US? Seems like it can be easily abused. And does just knowing someone count? I think it's safe to say that if you have a job in the US, or relatives, you're good. But until we get the results of the actual case in the fall, the decision will be made on an ad-hoc basis by customs officers at the borders, which is not good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I've been listening to Chapo Trap House lately Sadly single payer on the state level isn't very promising; its overwhelming failure at ballot in Colorado suggests it's a losing proposition most places. The way to go there is probably federal, after 2020, at earliest.  Also Chapo, while better than Young Turks, shares some of the same blind spots, so it's probably good to round out your listening diet with some more process-focused stuff as well, I'd say. The unanimous consent thing hasn't gotten much play but it was a big move. Quorum fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Statute, senate rule, DC needs an amendment to address the amendment that gave them electoral votes but PR could go through with Congress, statute or house rule, mixed member districts might require an amendment but you might get away with a statute as I don't recall whether the court or the congress banned it but the Congress definitely has the authority to dictate how states hold the elections for Congress, amendment probably since it's a state domain issue, amendment definitely. The constitutional basis for Congress to proscribe rules for congressional elections is very, very clear and it should permit any reasonable regulation, such as proportional representation, bans on gerrymandering, etc: quote:Section 4 It is abundantly clear that Congress has the power to make or alter any regulation the States can pass from that clause, and states obviously have the power to chose to have multimember districts, proportional representation, etc (except they are currently banned by congressional law). That said, conservatives on the Supreme Court are likely to latch uncritically onto whatever nonsense Republicans come up with to challenge it so you might find a 5-4 decision if the Gorusch theft is not reversed finding the constitution says whatever Republicans need it to say in that particular instance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:Travel ban reinstated by supreme court It's not really reinstated as much as they are taking it on are they not? I do not expect the travel ban to be upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure about the second point as I understand it it is simply about getting a playground paved is that right? The case really wasn't about seperation of power as stated in that dissent...but maybe I'm wrong? I never expected the later to never really pass in this current political climate. I guess LGBT couples who want to marry will have to find a caterer who approves. Not my biggest concern at this point in time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Sadly single payer on the state level isn't very promising; its overwhelming failure at ballot in Colorado suggests it's a losing proposition most places. The way to go there is probably federal, after 2020, at earliest. I just wish we could get rid of the people yelling for centrism is all, I'm not asking for a Democrat Politburo to be set up but we need more Sanderites to have power
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Wait, is the supreme court really going on a recess without actually hearing the travel ban case right after allowing it to stand between now and when they rule?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
It is difficult to make single-payer work at the state level because single-payer is expensive so you must raise taxes, and it's much easier for the rich and corporations to dodge state taxes than federal taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's not really reinstated as much as they are taking it on are they not? I do not expect the travel ban to be upheld by the Supreme Court. It is mostly reinstated, barring certain exceptions. Which doesn't bode well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/879332569203867650 Bad omen for who? It appears to me that the bigots only have three votes on the court as stands. The religious ruling is garbage as always (i.e. churches wanting all the favorable treatment of an organization with non of the stuff they don't want like taxes) but it starting to look like same-sex marriage and rights we normally see associated with it (like child rearing) aren't something that has judicial will or public opinion to challenge anymore. I don't know if that will translate into any other rights (spec. employment rights) but it sounds kind of promising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Wait, is the supreme court really going on a recess without actually hearing the travel ban case right after allowing it to stand between now and when they rule? Correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Goddammit they upheld the travel ban? What the gently caress? No, they removed the injuction and agreed to hear the case in the Fall session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Goddammit they upheld the travel ban? What the gently caress? They aren't hearing the case until later this year. They've allowed it to be somewhat implemented in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Wait, is the supreme court really going on a recess without actually hearing the travel ban case right after allowing it to stand between now and when they rule? Yup. And this was incredibly fast for a federal case. The other case they granted cert today, on the bakers and the gay cake? That started in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:No, they removed the injuction and agreed to hear the case in the Fall session. They partially removed the injuction, everyone's still trying to figure out who's blockable and who's not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I just wish we could get rid of the people yelling for centrism is all, I'm not asking for a Democrat Politburo to be set up but we need more Sanderites to have power I'm afraid you get to work with what you have, and frankly it looks like there are more voting Democrats who lean closer to the center than vice versa, especially in primaries. You saw this in VA-- while the two candidates were pretty close politically, their styles definitely appealed to different wings of the party. While polls had them close, the old style Southern drawl guy with ties to local and state Democratic parties won handily because the other guy relied heavily on infrequent voters. Leftism wins when it can turn out its people. e: to clarify cuz I was in a hurry and my tone probably sounds didactic (sorry), I'm pretty involved in this issue too and it's a frustration for me, albeit mostly locally Quorum fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I don't know how to read the Church ruling. People on this forum hate christianity more than anything so the sky is falling, etc, etc... Go look at the "does the left hate religion" thread. Absolute shithole. It's not that big of a deal. There are bigger fish to fry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Article I v Article III judges You might disagree with this perspective, but that certainly doesn't mean that you're correct about it. The idea that there is a bright line between different types of federal judges runs face-first into the blanket language of Article III, which clearly recognizes the inferior courts separately authorized, and includes them in the "Good Behavior" provision. Your perspective tries to make an argument that there is some sort of fundamental division of "inferior courts" into "Covered by Art. III" and "Not Covered by Art. III", but there just isn't any substantiation for it. Inferior courts have a wide variety of powers and jurisdiction, but they're clearly all being invoked in that line. There's a lot of clarity there. And beyond that, it's important to recognize that this perspective relies on a flexible interpretation of language on this line - and once accepted, that same flexibility could be applied in a different way, i.e. interpreting "Good Behavior" as being a limited term. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:People on this forum hate christianity more than anything so the sky is falling, etc, etc... Oxxidation posted:gently caress off, MIGF. Oxxidation posted:gently caress off, MIGF. Oxxidation posted:gently caress off, MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Yup. And this was incredibly fast for a federal case. Judicial activism? Or is it just because it was dealing with an injunction
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
You can always tell when evilweasel is upset because he finds some L2 to beat up on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Was wondering who made that parachute gimmick. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I'm afraid you get to work with what you have, and frankly it looks like there are more voting Democrats who lean closer to the center than vice versa, especially in primaries. You saw this in VA-- while the two candidates were pretty close politically, their styles definitely appealed to different wings of the party. While polls had them close, the old style Southern drawl guy with ties to local and state Democratic parties won handily because the other guy relied heavily on infrequent voters. Leftism wins when it can turn out its people. Ok, fine. So what incentives do Democrats have to push single payer now? They tried a lite version of it (because they got ratfucked to be fair) and got horribly, horribly burned. They probably have no stomach for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:You can always tell when evilweasel is upset because he finds some L2 to beat up on. I can't imagine an actual law student is making this argument about judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They partially removed the injuction, everyone's still trying to figure out who's blockable and who's not. I mean, they removed the injunction. Adding some caveats to it doesn't mean a god drat thing when our border patrol, ICE, and customs agents basically enforce poo poo seemingly as they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Judicial activism? Or is it just because it was dealing with an injunction Injunctions have been issued by several district courts and circuit courts very quickly, and that more or less needs to be addressed. Since this is a case that would end up in front of them regardless of how the lower courts rule, they may as well skip the middlemen and have the arguments now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Supreme Court would never rule in favor of that because it would harm them personally. Separation of powers cuts both ways; they'd be totally free to rule that Congress was unconstitutionally interfering with the judiciary. They're of course free to rule however they wish, but there is extensive precedent that Congress should hold sway over political matters, and that the judiciary has and should submit themselves to that authority in those instances. If Congress is changing up the Supreme Court for reasons of political balance - particularly if it was being done in an even-handed way like imposing uniform tenure limits - then precedent would suggest that Congress has the authority to do that. If the Supreme Court wanted to upend that precedent in a defense of their own personal power, and thereby start a fight with a clearly determined Congress, then that would be their choice. But it probably would not end there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You might disagree with this perspective, but that certainly doesn't mean that you're correct about it. The idea that there is a bright line between different types of federal judges runs face-first into the blanket language of Article III, which clearly recognizes the inferior courts separately authorized, and includes them in the "Good Behavior" provision. Your perspective tries to make an argument that there is some sort of fundamental division of "inferior courts" into "Covered by Art. III" and "Not Covered by Art. III", but there just isn't any substantiation for it. Inferior courts have a wide variety of powers and jurisdiction, but they're clearly all being invoked in that line. There's a lot of clarity there. And beyond that, it's important to recognize that this perspective relies on a flexible interpretation of language on this line - and once accepted, that same flexibility could be applied in a different way, i.e. interpreting "Good Behavior" as being a limited term. You can't have it both ways. No, I am absolutely correct about it, and like I said even if you accept your argument that all this Article I stuff is wrong you get only that we should strike down the Article I stuff. There is no basis in the constitution for "well, this stuff was in violation of the constitution, therefore we have to allow this other stuff in violation of the constitution." If you manage to get a court to accept that the Article I courts are really in violation of Article III, you get the Article I courts struck down - just like has already happened twice in history. And you definitely cannot extend it to the Supreme Court because the Constitution is specific that the Supreme Court is an Article III court and the judges on it have the protection of Article III. Like someone said this is gold fringe logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Judicial activism? Or is it just because it was dealing with an injunction It's not judicial activism, it's a god drat constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Ok, fine. So what incentives do Democrats have to push single payer now? They tried a lite version of it (because they got ratfucked to be fair) and got horribly, horribly burned. They probably have no stomach for it. Honestly if anything the blowback the GOP is getting for its hamhanded attack on ACA seems to be lending steel to calls for at the very least a public option. The gambit was to get something passed once the public option got shanked by Lieberman, and once it became unassailable, to build from there. While it may not have become unassailable, now that it's been around a while, it's become popular enough that destroying it will be very damaging to the GOP and that gives the dems room to work. Remember, that thing Pelosi said she got attacked for (that she probably wouldn't see single payer in her lifetime) also included her support for a public option, and she's known for putting it all on the line to pass a presidents agenda even if she's not on board politically, like with cap and tax. If a president can get elected on supporting single payer, with a democratic Congress, it's more likely than not to happen. And I'd be dead shocked if after the AHCA heathcare somehow became a dead issue on the campaign trail-- the attack ads have already been flying and that's just for special elections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Kaal posted:They're of course free to rule however they wish, but there is extensive precedent that Congress should hold sway over political matters, and that the judiciary has and should submit themselves to that authority in those instances. If Congress is changing up the Supreme Court for reasons of political balance - particularly if it was being done in an even-handed way like imposing uniform tenure limits - then precedent would suggest that Congress has the authority to do that. If the Supreme Court wanted to upend that precedent in a defense of their own personal power, and thereby start a fight with a clearly determined Congress, then that would be their choice. But it probably would not end there. This is also gold fringe logic about the "political question" doctrine and has no connection whatsoever to the actual political question doctrine. What the political question doctrine means is the Supreme Court will not interfere where the Constitution makes another part of government the appropriate part of government to make a decision on that question. It does not mean that if Congress decides something is a political matter the Supreme Court will step aside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:RBG has learned the ways of the Cheney. Spite shall keep her heart beating long past the mortal coil's wishes. I recall people on this forum saying this exact thing about Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It is mostly reinstated, barring certain exceptions. Which doesn't bode well. Yeah, it's not good. My guess is Roberts is angling for a 9-0 punt on standing grounds in the fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Honestly if anything the blowback the GOP is getting for its hamhanded attack on ACA seems to be lending steel to calls for at the very least a public option. The gambit was to get something passed once the public option got shanked by Lieberman, and once it became unassailable, to build from there. While it may not have become unassailable, now that it's been around a while, it's become popular enough that destroying it will be very damaging to the GOP and that gives the dems room to work. Remember, that thing Pelosi said she got attacked for (that she probably wouldn't see single payer in her lifetime) also included her support for a public option, and she's known for putting it all on the line to pass a presidents agenda even if she's not on board politically, like with cap and tax. If a president can get elected on supporting single payer, with a democratic Congress, it's more likely than not to happen. And I'd be dead shocked if after the AHCA heathcare somehow became a dead issue on the campaign trail-- the attack ads have already been flying and that's just for special elections. I'm guessing you regard the idea that the GOP are going nuts with Trumpcare because they know (not are convinced, which they always are) they will never lose again as political fan fiction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm guessing you regard the idea that the GOP are going nuts with Trumpcare because they know (not are convinced, which they always are) they will never lose again as political fan fiction? that is definitely political fan fiction
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I recall people on this forum saying this exact thing about Scalia. RBG doesn't eat a canoli every Tuesday and probably exercises to the degree she's able.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is difficult to make single-payer work at the state level because single-payer is expensive so you must raise taxes, and it's much easier for the rich and corporations to dodge state taxes than federal taxes. Agreed. If I was a resident of Colorado I would vote against it too. Because anytime anyone gets cancer in the U.S. they will just rent a small room in Colorado and get treatment for life on dime of taxpayers there? It should be at federal level for sure to make it work. Having a state/some states pay for healthcare of the rest of the country is dumb. Plus yeah the whole situation of living in one state, but working/paying taxes in another etc. Corporations will also all leave to a different state that doesn't have it to pay less. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm guessing you regard the idea that the GOP are going nuts with Trumpcare because they know (not are convinced, which they always are) they will never lose again as political fan fiction? There is no evidence to suggest this, not even to the degree of interfering with Mueller's investigation for what it might discover. They are just shameless ghouls who grab at anything they think they can snatch in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm guessing you regard the idea that the GOP are going nuts with Trumpcare because they know (not are convinced, which they always are) they will never lose again as political fan fiction? They are more likely to lose if they pass nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:26
|
|
