|
The court's job is to check congress. Saying "this is assigned to congress so the SCOTUS has no role at all" is stupid. Beyond that I have no idea what y'all are talking about on the 15th amendment stuff. Link for info?
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:The court's job is to check congress. Saying "this is assigned to congress so the SCOTUS has no role at all" is stupid. Beyond that I have no idea what y'all are talking about on the 15th amendment stuff. Link for info? The Dred Scott decision defender has logged in
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
As a country, we've depended on SCOTUS as a failsafe to a dangerous extent and I think it's made all the muscles that could have been exercised figuring out the best ways to pass Constitutional amendments completely atrophied. I'm not sure if there's an easy way out of having SCOTUS so ideologically poisoned given how all the disciplined political organization in our nation seems to be exercised by the social archconservatives. Maybe some unhealthy Republican diets will cause trouble at the right time? It's hard to stay optimistic, but I don't see any point in throwing up our hands and giving up either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Isn’t the only third amendment jurisprudence in the last century some swat team taking over a house for a few hours and the response was “we appreciate the creativity but ‘boarding’ requires you to stay overnight” That and this one, which appears to have held that since Third Amendment rights were so obscure and had never come up in court before that it was forgivable for the government to have unwittingly infringed them. haveblue fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Oct 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The court's job is to check congress. Saying "this is assigned to congress so the SCOTUS has no role at all" is stupid. Beyond that I have no idea what y'all are talking about on the 15th amendment stuff. Link for info? Guess whose job it is to check the Court?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Guess whose job it is to check the Court? A civil war or implied threats from the executive, using history as a guide
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Isn’t the only third amendment jurisprudence in the last century some swat team taking over a house for a few hours and the response was “we appreciate the creativity but ‘boarding’ requires you to stay overnight” I thought the dodge on that one was they weren't sleeping there, just staging shifts. It really isn't the same as what the Third was written for, which was dumping soldiers in houses to keep an eye on you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Harik posted:I thought the dodge on that one was they weren't sleeping there, just staging shifts. It really isn't the same as what the Third was written for, which was dumping soldiers in houses to keep an eye on you. I routinely get poo poo on for this but I think there's actually a lot of extremely important 3rd amendment jurisprudence. Griswold cites to the 3rd Amendment as one of the amendments creating the "penumbra" of privacy rights around the home. Every privacy-rights-based case is based in part on 3rd amendment jurisprudence. If we had a different Court, I think there would be a strong argument for opposing mass surveillance / wiretapping / etc. on 3rd amendment grounds just as much as on the 4th. The 3rd doesn't exist just because British soldiers were boorish and wore their boots in bed; it's because quartering soldiers in people's homes was a way to surveil and intimidate the population, systematically and broadly, even within the private sphere. The 4th is about one-off violations of privacy; the 3rd is about systematic ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
You have to look to the Amendments with multiple sections to find the things that literally never come up. Like questioning the validity of the Civil War debt...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Law professors have a hard on for fanciful applications of the third amendment, at least judging by my year as a submissions editor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Law professors have a hard on for fanciful applications of the third amendment, at least judging by my year as a submissions editor. Judges hate him, one weird trick to avoid 8th Amendment concerns: define nothing as cruel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:weird i dont remember more, or even a majority, of voters picking donald trump Those things don't matter because our system has the capacity to deliver dramatically different outcomes if the people desired it. The fact that people don't vote, is a form voting. I'll take your points one at a time to apply this concept. #1. Trump didn't win the popular vote but did win the electoral college. Yep that happened, and if the specter of Trump being elected was such a terrible outcome, enough people would have voted in the right states to prevent that from happening. Those people choosing not to take that action is an endorsement by omission/inaction that Trump winning was fine, and an electoral college mandate without a popular vote mandate is acceptable. #2. The Senate is not a perfectly proportional representation of democratic intent. That's fine, the Senate was designed to work that way. If the outcomes of the Senate votes as a result of the system were unacceptable then the people in the states with lower populations would decide to vote or vote differently. They don't therefore they endorse the system and it's outcomes. #3 People didn't vote for this. Yes they did, we have a system and how it works is throughly well known. The outcomes of people's votes and choices are predictable. If people wanted something different, they would behave differently. They didn't and therefore we get the results that were the preference of the nation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Those things don't matter because our system has the capacity to deliver dramatically different outcomes if the people desired it. So you're saying that if it was really bad for our system to unfairly advantage some people over others, the people who were unfairly advantaged would surely devote themselves to dismantling the unfair mechanics that give them that advantage? Sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Just World Fallacy, the post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
You know, if black people not being allowed to vote was really a problem, white people would have voted to enfranchise them!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
I'm sure the people of Wyoming are incredibly desperate to stop having the same influence over Supreme Court appointments as California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Lack of participation, a sure sign of a political system's legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
if people attempted violent overthrow would you take it as a sign of illegitimacy or legitimacy? asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Those who have the warcrimes committed against them are just as responsible due to their past inaction in committing their own warcrimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
So hypothetically, a system where Donald Trump Jr's vote counts for 250,055,999 votes would be legitimate because there are 250,056,000 voting-age people in the USA and if every single one of them turned out they could win the election, but if even one person stays home or is ineligible to vote due to felony convictions then everyone has implicitly endorsed whatever DJTjr voted for by not turning out against him, thereby signaling that they are okay with whatever DJTjr wants either because they didn't vote otherwise or they decided they'd rather smoke weed at the cost of their voting rights. That about cover it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:if people attempted violent overthrow would you take it as a sign of illegitimacy or legitimacy? asking for a friend Depends on who is doing the overthrowing and who is being overthrown
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
more people voted against what is happening than voted for it, eat my rear end
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Those things don't matter because our system has the capacity to deliver dramatically different outcomes if the people desired it. #2 gives the game away. Nobody's actually that dumb and knows how to use a computer. Yes I know people are actually that dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Maybe Avenatti's constitutional amendment proposal for guaranteeing each president up to two and only two SCOTUS appointees per term might work if it were three per term instead at first. Republicans would get to appoint a second SCOTUS justice, but then if Democrats win 2020, they get the Supreme Court majority back by getting to appoint three. It's like a "what's the matter, afraid you might lose" dare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Maybe Avenatti's constitutional amendment proposal for guaranteeing each president up to two and only two SCOTUS appointees per term might work if it were three per term instead at first. Republicans would get to appoint a second SCOTUS justice, but then if Democrats win 2020, they get the Supreme Court majority back by getting to appoint three. It's like a "what's the matter, afraid you might lose" dare. Except Democrats still wouldn't get the majority back because none of the Republican judges are going to die or retire in the next six years. The oldest one is Thomas and he's only 70. Winning the presidency in 2020 just means things probably don't get worse because a Democrat gets to nominate replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer, unless the Democrats actually commit to expanding the court or impeaching Republican justices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I meant the amendment would expand the court in order to set up the big "gamble on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election" tactic. I also think there should be a limit on the extent to which a court can have appointees from a single political party, and being split evenly hasn't worked for the FCC, so it should be something like a 70% maximum. If a liberal SCOTUS member like Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies after the constitutional amendment is passed but before the 2020 election, it won't affect the political balance as much, because the Republicans will have used up their third appointment. I'd also add onto Avanetti's proposal that the president's SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed by a majority of sitting senators from his or her own party, because that'd be better than no advice and consent at all. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I have no idea what y'all are talking about Found your problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:if people attempted violent overthrow would you take it as a sign of illegitimacy or legitimacy? asking for a friend Yes it would be, a violent revolution because electoral politics is unable to produce the desired result is a legitimate strategy. SurgicalOntologist posted:Lack of participation, a sure sign of a political system's legitimacy. Yes if a system is working so well only a small number of people need to participate that is a good thing. High participation would means something very wrong and people are desperate for a solution. Taerkar posted:Those who have the warcrimes committed against them are just as responsible due to their past inaction in committing their own warcrimes. No but they definitely have a duty to fight back to the fullest degree possible. VitalSigns posted:So hypothetically, a system where Donald Trump Jr's vote counts for 250,055,999 votes would be legitimate because there are 250,056,000 voting-age people in the USA and if every single one of them turned out they could win the election, but if even one person stays home or is ineligible to vote due to felony convictions then everyone has implicitly endorsed whatever DJTjr voted for by not turning out against him, thereby signaling that they are okay with whatever DJTjr wants either because they didn't vote otherwise or they decided they'd rather smoke weed at the cost of their voting rights. Yes, if that was the agreed to system, silence is consent. Good thing ours isn't like your Reductio ad absurdum. KingFisher fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:No but they definitely have a duty to fight back to the fullest degree possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Yes it would be, a violent revolution because electoral politics is unable to produce the desired result is a legitimate strategy. KingFisher posted:silence is consent. 
The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Anyone following circuit court stuff? Arnold Davis v. Guam was argued in front of the 9th circuit today (and I got to watch which was awesome), and it's pretty interesting. Basically Guam is holding a plebiscite concerning Guam's future relationship with the United States, and are restricting it to only direct descendants of those colonized people present in Guam in 1951 when the US made it a territory. Some white guy, Arnold Davis, who lives there now is mad he doesn't get to vote and sued, it was decided to have violated the 14th and 15th amendments, and now Guam is appealing. The core of Davis' argument is that since 98.6% of the residents of Guam in 1951 were of a single race, and the restriction is based on being a descendant (which race is passed through heredity), the restriction is de-facto racially intended, and he is being unfairly discriminated against since he is white. The counter from Guam is that the intent to only include those individuals and families who were in Guam before the US colonized it, something that is completely legitimate and no one argues is unconstitutional, but there is no way to possibly specify the restriction without being declared race-based if you deem this particular categorization unconstitutional. The best quip from Guam was that if heredity is the determining factor of race, then any system where heredity aids or classifies you, like probate or legacy admissions at colleges is prima facie also racially intended, since heredity necessarily implies race apparently. I think the 9th will remand it, though its very hard to say, but the supreme court might take it up eventually and who knows there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
What's at stake in the plebiscite? Who is funding it?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What's at stake in the plebiscite? Who is funding it? The territorial government is funding it and using government electoral machinery to administer it. They will be sending a non-binding letter to the President and to the UN Secretary General echoing the results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
What makes the plebiscite effectively different than a grandfather clause?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
A Texas district court judge ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act unconstitutional on both 14th amendment equal protection and 10th amendment commandeering grounds. This is a Big Deal, especially considering the fifth circuit cannot be counted on to squash this insanity. If this goes to the supreme court it could be really dangerous. This law was literally passed to stop the real-deal modern day genocide of American Indians via wholesale theft of their children. Combined with Sturgeon being back in front of the court again this term and posing a major threat to the reserved waters doctrine, these kinds of cases could profoundly undermine the standing of American Indians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:What makes the plebiscite effectively different than a grandfather clause? A grandfather clause was brought up, but it wasn't a substantial part of anyone's arguments. I believe the reason is that this is the current Government of Guam, not the one before colonization, and they have no claim to a grandfather clause. No one is arguing that some other group, like an organization or possibly even a college, is barred from holding what is essentially a preference poll, the problem is what is effectively the US government now is administering it. The main point was whether it was constitutional to do something like that at all, since it falls under strict scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:A Texas district court judge ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act unconstitutional on both 14th amendment equal protection and 10th amendment commandeering grounds. This is a huge test of the court's acceptance of Kavanaugh. He was aggressively criticized by Sen. Hirono (D-HI) because of an opinion he wrote stating that Native Hawaiians don't constitute a special protected "Native American" class that can receive specific preferential assistance because, crudely: indians have teepees and live on the mainland and hawaiians don't and they just aren't the same so you don't even get to help them like we're forced to do with indians. Precedent on these is firmly on the side of the territorial rights and special status afforded to colonized indigenous people, so if Roberts hates Kavanaugh's boorish behavior and wild partisan assumptions enough he will just start deciding with the liberal justices for purely jurisprudential reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:This is a huge test of the court's acceptance of Kavanaugh. He was aggressively criticized by Sen. Hirono (D-HI) because of an opinion he wrote stating that Native Hawaiians don't constitute a special protected "Native American" class that can receive specific preferential assistance because, crudely: indians have teepees and live on the mainland and hawaiians don't and they just aren't the same so you don't even get to help them like we're forced to do with indians. I was wondering how bad it could be, and holy loving poo poo. He literally argues that Native Hawaiians can't qualify as a tribe because they "don't live together", as in because the government didn't force them onto reservations and they "let" white people live around them. Oh, they don't have a system of government? The one Americans illegally overthrew? In a coup so illegal that the US refused annexation in 1893 (but only for five years - we were still pretty bad)? What a loving shitstain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Stickman posted:I was wondering how bad it could be, and holy loving poo poo. He literally argues that Native Hawaiians can't qualify as a tribe because they "don't live together", as in because the government didn't force them onto reservations and they "let" white people live around them. Oh, they don't have a system of government? The one Americans illegally overthrew? In a coup so illegal that the US refused annexation in 1893 (but only for five years - we were still pretty bad)? I think it is more or less a preview of the future, Kavanaugh doesn't pretend to give a poo poo about impartiality. Also, Roberts is still a pretty conservative justice, he just isn't a complete partisan. I wouldn't count him as a swing vote; 80-81% of close cases, he votes with the rest of the conservative block. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 10:48
|
|
