|
Rigel posted:Dems gerrymandered the gently caress out of the GOP in the few states that they had the opportunity. They tried to defeat the independent redistricting commission ballot measure in CA because they wanted to gently caress the GOP in CA too. To be fair, the effect of gerrymandering is a national problem. To unilaterally disarm the largest blue state would be to hand the congress to the Republicans.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:It appears he's not the only one. A bunch of Republican governors, representatives, and former representatives also signed amicus briefs calling for the court to strike down gerrymandering (including, oddly, some representatives in specifically gerrymandered for their benefit districts). Or maybe not. News&Observer posted:Two of the three North Carolina lawmakers who had joined with prominent national politicians to oppose gerrymandering have now backtracked, saying they didn’t mean to add their names on an anti-gerrymandering letter sent to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
If I had to guess why some Republicans are supporting anti-gerrymandering moves, it's because they reckon it's the easiest way to get rid of the crazies coming out of impenetrable red districts and that are making it impossible for the GOP coalition to govern. And they suspect a Democrat wave is incoming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:If I had to guess why some Republicans are supporting anti-gerrymandering moves, it's because they reckon it's the easiest way to get rid of the crazies coming out of impenetrable red districts and that are making it impossible for the GOP coalition to govern. And they suspect a Democrat wave is incoming. That's very smart. GOP gerrymandering allowed the party a vice grip on the House for a decade, but it also made their house conference unmanageable and insane in a way that has thwarted much of their agenda and provided leverage to the minority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised there's not more discussion about SCOTUS saying that Texas can keep their districts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I'm kind of surprised there's not more discussion about SCOTUS saying that Texas can keep their districts. Its just a temporary stay, thats not very difficult to get normally, though in this case it was close. There's also nothing to look at without a written opinion. Its plausible that we get arguments and a decision early next year where say "welp, turns out those districts are illegal after all and need to be redrawn. Whats that? Too late for 2018? drat, oh well, have them ready for 2020!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
To which states answer, "No."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:To which states answer, "No." They can't actually do that. At some point if they outright refuse then the federal court will shove Texas aside and draw the map themselves. If Texas wants to be poo poo for 2020, the more plausible path would be to redraw the map into something else terrible and illegal, then try to run the clock out again in court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They can't actually do that. At some point if they outright refuse then the federal court will shove Texas aside and draw the map themselves. If Texas wants to be poo poo for 2020, the more plausible path would be to redraw the map into something else terrible and illegal, then try to run the clock out again in court. i mean texas does that every single election its not like this is a fresh new case on their part
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They can't actually do that. At some point if they outright refuse then the federal court will shove Texas aside and draw the map themselves. If Texas wants to be poo poo for 2020, the more plausible path would be to redraw the map into something else terrible and illegal, then try to run the clock out again in court. Pretty sure Florida's GOP has done exactly this. Multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
The GOP does a very good job at exposing how toothless and worthless our justice system is in many respects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Dementia may be setting in with Posner. http://ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-you-might-want-it-anyway/
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Dementia may be setting in with Posner. Wow. That sounds like a trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
The Kindle version is only 99 cents, though, so I'm going to buy it and probably never read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:The Kindle version is only 99 cents, though, so I'm going to buy it and probably never read it. Included as part of Kindle Unlimited, even.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Could I get a law goon's take on this WaPo editorial about the Arpaio pardon? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.deb78a7fcaeb
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Could I get a law goon's take on this WaPo editorial about the Arpaio pardon? It's a decent argument but it probably won't fly in this instance because 1) Arpaio is no longer in office so the pardon doesn't allow any ongoing harm, and 2) this supreme court
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Could I get a law goon's take on this WaPo editorial about the Arpaio pardon? twodot fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's a decent argument but it probably won't fly in this instance because To add further, it's just as likely that any supreme court will punt this as a matter for congress. The proper remedy is impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:To add further, it's just as likely that any supreme court will punt this as a matter for congress. The proper remedy is impeachment. This is addressed in the article. The notion that an action could warranty removal from office and prosecution but be unjusticiable is worrisome in itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This is addressed in the article. The notion that an action could warranty removal from office and prosecution but be unjusticiable is worrisome in itself. Yeah but the counterargument is "the founders considered that and drafted it this way anyway."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah but the counterargument is "the founders considered that and drafted it this way anyway." They left in and out a lot of things that we have since read in, out, or written in, and out. Hell, they didn't expressly include Judicial Review in the text.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This is addressed in the article. The notion that an action could warranty removal from office and prosecution but be unjusticiable is worrisome in itself. I disagree. Most of the time the reason something is nonjusticable is precisely because the Constitution gives the power to deal with it to a different body than the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I disagree. Most of the time the reason something is nonjusticable is precisely because the Constitution gives the power to deal with it to a different body than the judiciary. The counterargument there is you're talking about two separate problems -- one is concept of having a president who would do such a thing (dealt with via impeachment), the other is the horrible thing he did (pardoning unconstitutional conduct). If I were deciding the case I'd probably be leaning towards "Pardons issued for criminal contempt orders, when said orders were punishment for explicitly unconstitutional conduct, create a chilling effect on constitutional rights, encourage unconstitutional further actions on the part of other officials, and violate separation of powers, and are thus invalid" but I'd have to think long and hard about it especially that last part. Basically imagine that there's a group of Arpaios out there and they're all doing poo poo like this, pardoning one of them sends a message to the others that such conduct will be allowed without punishment. Spoiler: there are absolutely other sheriffs out there like Arpaio But I'm not deciding this case, goresuch is Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This is addressed in the article. The notion that an action could warranty removal from office and prosecution but be unjusticiable is worrisome in itself. Not really. The mere existence of the pardon power implies that it's okay for something that warrants prosecution to not be justiceable, because that's the entire point of the pardon power. Remember, there's that whole "checks and balances" thing. If the courts could override a pardon, there wouldn't be much purpose in even having the pardon power. Like it or not, that's one instance in which the executive has the power to counteract the judiciary; if the president is using that power in an illegitimate or unjust fashion, it's up to the legislature to intervene against the executive in support of the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
This legal challenge will, at best, result in a SCOTUS ruling that entrenches pardons as unquestionable and unstoppable (except for impeachment matters). There is no loving way that Arpaio's pardon is going to get thrown out even though it absolutely should be and that loving fascist deserves to be executed for his crimes. If the country's government actually worked then Trump would be facing impeachment hearings over this because the pardon is a travesty but so are dozens of other things Trump has done and is going to do over the next 3-7 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
As a public sector employee I'm waiting for the inevitable destruction of public sector unions in the form of the Janus case. I mean I don't even know what to say...It's done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:As a public sector employee I'm waiting for the inevitable destruction of public sector unions in the form of the Janus case. I mean I don't even know what to say...It's done. The capitalist oligarchs have been working for decades to destroy Labor, and they won't stop. This is just another in a long line of successful campaigns to gut, smother, and wither unions to the grave. It's the other side of their equally successful PR campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The capitalist oligarchs have been working for decades to destroy Labor, and they won't stop. This is just another in a long line of successful campaigns to gut, smother, and wither unions to the grave. It's the other side of their equally successful PR campaign. Don't you know, though, that unions won! Workers have the best protections ever now, so unions are superfluous and a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
If Janus overrules Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and says that everyone doesn't have to pay union dues, does this mean that unions only have to represent dues-paying members? My understanding is that the reasoning in Abood was that since everyone benefits, everyone has to pay.
Ardlen fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:As a public sector employee I'm waiting for the inevitable destruction of public sector unions in the form of the Janus case. I mean I don't even know what to say...It's done. Good. Public sector unions are a parasite on the backs of taxpayers and are responsible for many, many problems in this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Ugh, it's troika
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
ugh its Troika posted:Good. Public sector unions are a parasite on the backs of taxpayers and are responsible for many, many problems in this country. I'm looking forward to the rationale of why police unions are allowed to continue to exist
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:If Janus overrules Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and says that everyone doesn't have to pay union dues, does this mean that unions only have to represent dues-paying members? My understanding is that the reasoning in Abood was that since everyone benefits, everyone has to pay. It probably doesn't matter, because every time union workers have been given the option to opt out of paying dues, almost all of them do, and the union collapses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah drat greedy teachers bankrupting us all!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I'm looking forward to the rationale of why unions are allowed to continue to exist Edit: oh, you probably meant a special carved out exemption at SCOTUS when they abolish union representation for all the other proles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Why should Captains of Industry waste money on Pinkertons when cops are so readily available? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Why should Captains of Industry waste money on Pinkertons when cops are so readily available? Don't want the cops getting too big for their britches and thinking they can breach corporate extraterritoriality with impunity. They're welcome to handle the commies on public property though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
ugh its Troika posted:a parasite on the backs of taxpayers and are responsible for many, many problems in this country. are you still a landlord
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Rodatose posted:are you still a landed gentleman
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 14:19
|
|
