|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What about a judicial injunction? Asking a court to issue an injunction compelling an executive to do X s not exactly new law. Standing might be complicated but a member of Congress could file. Even if the SCOTUS issues an injunction compelling action there is no one to actually compel the president to act. Historically presidents have followed the orders of the court, but Trump probably won't and there's no enforcement mechanism behind it besides impeachment.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Even if the SCOTUS issues an injunction compelling action there is no one to actually compel the president to act. Historically presidents have followed the orders of the court, but Trump probably won't and there's no enforcement mechanism behind it besides impeachment. Yeah, but that's a truism that is assuming total presidential abdication. Theoretically an injunction is an available remedy. If, for example, a president was reluctant but unwilling to outright disobey a court order, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Yeah but the President doesn't personally go around enforcing the sanctions, his officers in the executive branch do that and the court can fine/imprison them, so would Trump order the US marshals to defy the courts, if he did would they obey him, and would everyone involved want to risk that in 3-7 years there will be a new president who might not decide to continue protecting them from 3-7 years worth of fines stacking up for contempt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but the President doesn't personally go around enforcing the sanctions, his officers in the executive branch do that and the court can fine/imprison them, so would Trump order the US marshals to defy the courts, if he did would they obey him, and would everyone involved want to risk that in 3-7 years there will be a new president who might not decide to continue protecting them from 3-7 years worth of fines stacking up for contempt? The thing is, the white house has to give direction to the treasury for them to take action on sanctions. The white house is refusing to give said direction. Perhaps suing Mnuchin in his capacity would allow him to be targetable personally for contempt, but I'm not sure if said sanction legislation gives direction to the various departments to issue sanctions or if they just direct the president to do so. If the direction for the execution of the sanctions necessarily must come from the white house (which I believe they do) then it might not be possible to compel an executive agent to do something he hasn't been ordered to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html What a despicable hack piece of poo poo Alito is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So long as the US has a constitutionally mandated strong presidency its politics will be hosed. Anything that doesn't fix that will be failing to address the basic problem It’s not like Congress is any better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html Its not really on Alito. Either there are 5 justices to grant a stay, or there are not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html quote:As precedent, their lawyers cited the Bush vs. Gore ruling in 2000 Get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Get the gently caress out. Doesn't that ruling basically say, "This applies to this case only, don't use this as precedent"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
My previous question is mooted because the sanctions bill allowed for delay if there was substantial compliance by named entities. Now whether there actually has been or not is really a question I'd like to see answered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Doesn't that ruling basically say, "This applies to this case only, don't use this as precedent"? Bush v. Gore does say that yes but that sort of dicta is essentially ignored by courts and lawyers whenever it is convenient. "Unpublished" opinions are the same way -- they used to be a thing back in the days when court opinions weren't online, and only the "important" opinions were published in books, there was a meaningful distinction between "published" and "unpublished" opinions, but today, when all opinions are online and searchable, all a court designating an opinion as "published" means is "this is important, pay attention" vs "pay no attention to this! because it is either boring or embarrassing". And lawyers and judges cite to both published and unpublished opinions routinely as is convenient. The Supreme Court can't really get away with doing 'unpublished" opinions because theoretically everything they do is important enough to be published. So they tried to wave away Bush v. Gore by saying it didn't have precedential value. But, of course, that didn't work, because anyone whose interests can be served by citing to Bush v. Gore is gonna cite to it regardless, just like everyone cites unpublished opinions regardless. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html You all assured me something like this wouldn't happen because it wasn't even open for review.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You all assured me something like this wouldn't happen because it wasn't even open for review. A single justice can be on any bullshit they want, they still have to grant cert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
You guys didn't think the 5 GOP hacks on the SCOTUS wouldn't have a say about their baked in electoral majority, did you? It was never going to be that easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Alright hate to derail this stupid loving derail (and believe me I regret my participation in said moronic sidebar), but there's a more relevant current event to discuss. Impose sanctions on the State department. I'm serious. That's what the power of the purse is all about. Punishing the executive when it misbehaves. Yank funds for payroll for political appointees and their pet projects. Target their personal interests. Also, pass a law restructuring the State department and put that authority to a commissioner. Pick someone you want that the president tweeted something nice about. Say that counts as a nomination an then confirm. And I'm not even going into the more indirect ways. Congress has lots of ways to hold the executive accountable. They just never use them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Even if the SCOTUS issues an injunction compelling action there is no one to actually compel the president to act. Historically presidents have followed the orders of the court, but Trump probably won't and there's no enforcement mechanism behind it besides impeachment. Didn't this happen to Andrew Jackson and he just laughed and kept on doing whatever the gently caress he wanted?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
The LA Times article is wrong on one detail. You don't need five justices to grant cert, you just need four. But you need five for a stay and without a stay, the election is going forward under new maps. I also can't find a copy of that order anywhere or any other news reports on it. Assuming it's true, I am not sure what to make of Alito asking for responses. The only key thing to mention is he asked for responses by February 4th, while the challengers asked for a decision by tomorrow. But no other sites seem to think it's a big enough deal to write about it, so I am inclined to think that it's not a big deal and is just sort of routine in high-profile cases unless someone with experience (enough to know what the standard to grant cert is, at least  ) thinks it's a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The LA Times article is wrong on one detail. You don't need five justices to grant cert, you just need four. But you need five for a stay and without a stay, the election is going forward under new maps. I also can't find a copy of that order anywhere or any other news reports on it. The Supreme Court docket has all the documents - the responses are due February 2, by 4 p.m. ET. The LA Times is wrong on that detail as well. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17a795.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The LA Times article is wrong on one detail. You don't need five justices to grant cert, you just need four. But you need five for a stay and without a stay, the election is going forward under new maps. I also can't find a copy of that order anywhere or any other news reports on it. They definitely have 4 GOP hacks to save the PA Gerrymander and 4-5 house seats for 2018. Does anything really think they won't take it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The Supreme Court docket has all the documents - the responses are due February 2, by 4 p.m. ET. The LA Times is wrong on that detail as well. wow, the amicus do not at all even pretend there's a real federal question here. it's just a bald plea to the supreme court to overturn a decision they don't like despite the supreme court having no jurisdiction to hear their issues. mcmagic posted:They definitely have 4 GOP hacks to save the PA Gerrymander and 4-5 house seats for 2018. Does anything really think they won't take it? Yes, but they need five. Granting cert (four votes) doesn't grant a stay (five votes). While if only four justices want to grant cert one usually will give them a stay vote I would be very surprised if the rest of the justices were so accommodating when it was a transparently political act. If they granted cert but no stay, 2018 would have to go forward with new maps while 2020 would go forward with the old ones (assuming they won) which would be...odd. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:wow, the amicus do not at all even pretend there's a real federal question here. it's just a bald plea to the supreme court to overturn a decision they don't like despite the supreme court having no jurisdiction to hear their issues. If they grant cert, how could the case possibly be heard and decided in a time frame where the 18 maps can be changed? That means they save 4-5 seats in 2018. The GOP hacks doing their job and what they were put on the court to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
I can see the liberals granting a stay, knowing they are going to overturn the Wisconsin etc maps. Why make them draw a new map in PA now when they are going to set up new targets/goals for legal maps like a month or two later?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I can see the liberals granting a stay, knowing they are going to overturn the Wisconsin etc maps. Why make them draw a new map in PA now when they are going to set up new targets/goals for legal maps like a month or two later? It would only be relevant if the federal standard is stricter than the state’s though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If they grant cert, how could the case possibly be heard and decided in a time frame where the 18 maps can be changed? That means they save 4-5 seats in 2018. The GOP hacks doing their job and what they were put on the court to do. If they grant cert, but no stay, the order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remains valid until the Supreme Court says it's not. That means that the maps stay invalid, and if the PA legislature doesn't get a map approved by the governor then the PA state supreme court draws its own maps, and after about March there's no time to change the maps back. So any Supreme Court decision striking down the maps would not effect 2018. That's why, historically, someone from the 5 justices voting to deny cert will vote to grant a stay in cases where you need a stay not to moot the case. For example, if a death row inmate gets four votes for cert, someone's gonna cross over to give him five votes for a stay so that he isn't executed in the interim, but it would be legal to do so without a stay. But I don't see that happening here without 5 votes to actually overturn the PA supreme court because it would be such a nakedly political move that there's no way you vote for a stay and then vote to deny the appeal later on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I can see the liberals granting a stay, knowing they are going to overturn the Wisconsin etc maps. Why make them draw a new map in PA now when they are going to set up new targets/goals for legal maps like a month or two later? Because there's no legitimate basis for federal intervention, and everyone knows that a map produced by a republican legislature and a democratic governor, or the state supreme court, is going to pass muster under whatever standards the Court announces in the Wisconsin case (if they do rule against partisan gerrymandering). The Democratic governor of PA has no reason to approve a gerrymandered map. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Does anything really think they won't take it? I do. Roberts is very picky about standing and jurisdiction, and it doesn't get much more obvious that there's no federal question at issue than this case. Roberts has voted to boot cases due to standing even when it was obvious that he wished he could hear it on the merits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The Supreme Court docket has all the documents - the responses are due February 2, by 4 p.m. ET. The LA Times is wrong on that detail as well. Why are the respondents listed as the PA Executive and not League of Women Voters? Also: Application for Stay posted:In short, the question in this case is whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the Pennsylvania “Legislature” under the federal Constitution, and the answer to that question is a resounding no. This is the best they can come up with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I do. Roberts is very picky about standing and jurisdiction, and it doesn't get much more obvious that there's no federal question at issue than this case. Roberts has voted to boot cases due to standing even when it was obvious that he wished he could hear it on the merits. that's actually good to hear, i'm glad he has something resembling principles beyond 1) his own legacy (which admittedly this factors into but still) and 2) helping the GOP if it won't hurt 1 more
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I do. Roberts is very picky about standing and jurisdiction, and it doesn't get much more obvious that there's no federal question at issue than this case. Roberts has voted to boot cases due to standing even when it was obvious that he wished he could hear it on the merits. He's more picky about doing the job he's there to do. To advance fascism. GreyjoyBastard posted:that's actually good to hear, i'm glad he has something resembling principles beyond 1) his own legacy (which admittedly this factors into but still) and 2) helping the GOP if it won't hurt 1 more Overturning the VRA is going to be on his tombstone. Probably Roe too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's more picky about doing the job he's there to do. To advance fascism. His orphaned, unsigned opinion on ACA suggests something more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Why are the respondents listed as the PA Executive and not League of Women Voters? Because the League of Women Voters won in the PA Supreme Court, so the PA Executive is the Petitioner in the Supreme Court of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
I have faith that the guy who's only on the court because of Bush v. Gore will do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
There's a shot Roberts isn't interested in jumping into this but I am more relying on Kennedy to be uninterested in a transparent ploy to preserve a partisan gerrymander considering he's always hated them. Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch obviously would vote for a stay and to grant cert even if the only hook for federal jurisdiction was "but it's terrible for our party!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's a shot Roberts isn't interested in jumping into this but I am more relying on Kennedy to be uninterested in a transparent ploy to preserve a partisan gerrymander considering he's always hated them. oh, I took it as an obvious given (except with mcmagic I guess) that Kennedy was not going to vote for a stay. I was further speculating that I don't think they could even get to 4 votes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:the constitution is not a person with hopes and dreams and a fully consistent and rational set of principles which informs its view of the world, but is actually a hodgepodge mess that started as a least-lovely compromise of contradicting principles that finally managed to get a majority agreement at a convention and then got 7 governments to sign on, and has been added to and changed over hundreds of years by different people with different ideas that don't necessarily agree with what went before and doesn't sum to a coherent whole. I want to tattoo this on my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Why are the respondents listed as the PA Executive and not League of Women Voters? Also: Oh, hey, the respondents get to cite Marbury v. Madison a lot. That's always fun. Never a sign that someone overlooked a very basic principle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch obviously would vote for a stay and to grant cert even if the only hook for federal jurisdiction was "but it's terrible for our party!" On the other hand, Thomas likes to write cranky dissents about how the court shouldn't be hearing all kinds of cases because it's not their business. It'll be interesting to see which side he takes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:On the other hand, Thomas likes to write cranky dissents about how the court shouldn't be hearing all kinds of cases because it's not their business. It'll be interesting to see which side he takes. now I wonder if there are any cases of him voting to grant cert specifically so that he can go on record bitching about how cert shouldn't have been granted
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:On the other hand, Thomas likes to write cranky dissents about how the court shouldn't be hearing all kinds of cases because it's not their business. It'll be interesting to see which side he takes. The PA appeal mostly cites a dissent by him, rhenquist, and scalia that wanted to hear an appeal of a case in Colorado where the colorado state supreme court said the legislature's redistricting violated the state constitution that permitted only one every decade, so he'd be willing to hear it. You know you're pretty hard up for precedent when your best case is a dissent from a denial of cert
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Perhaps it will ultimately go nowhere but anyone who thinks the conservative justices aren't looking for a way to intervene are insane. With any luck, maybe something this nakedly corrupt will nudge that tiny sliver of humanity inside of Kennedy and push him to rule against Wisconsin and Gerrymandering will be struck down nationwide. That'd pretty much guarantee the House flips in November (unless they rule the changes don't have to happen until 2020) as well as hand a lot of states back to the Democrats, including Wisconsin and NC.tetrapyloctomy posted:Doesn't that ruling basically say, "This applies to this case only, don't use this as precedent"? It says a lot of things and nobody with the slightest bit of sense read their "this only applies to this case, no, really, it's only this case (because we're stealing an election)" bullshit as binding. Rigel posted:I do. Roberts is very picky about standing and jurisdiction, and it doesn't get much more obvious that there's no federal question at issue than this case. Roberts has voted to boot cases due to standing even when it was obvious that he wished he could hear it on the merits. How anyone can look at his nakedly political dismantling of the VRA (when the SCOTUS is explicitly forbidden from acting in the way they did per a loving Constitutional Amendment) and think he cares about standing more than advancing personal beliefs is insane. John Roberts was the most political justice on the bench until Gorsuch was appointed, and that's only because Gorsuch is a loud Trumpian moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 03:40
|
|
