SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Kazak_Hstan posted:

also the constitution doesnt actually matter

hot take in the SCOTUS thread

Even fuckin' Alito drapes his arguments in constitutional logic.

# ? Oct 13, 2018 21:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 02:15

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

GreyjoyBastard posted:

hot take in the SCOTUS thread

Even fuckin' Alito drapes his arguments in constitutional logic.

Pretty sure that�s what they meant. Constitution is just a conduit to legitimize the outcome you want.

# ? Oct 13, 2018 22:13

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

The court is fully political. Does anyone believe they are scholars just interpreting the will of the Fathers?

# ? Oct 13, 2018 23:29

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

GreyjoyBastard posted:

hot take in the SCOTUS thread

Even fuckin' Alito drapes his arguments in constitutional logic.

that's kinda exactly what makes that statement true? Both Alito and RBG on the same issue claim to be speaking for the constitution and 'the founders' intent' and poo poo when they're on complete opposite sides. Maybe that should be a sign that we shouldn't care what the constitution or 'founders' say

# ? Oct 13, 2018 23:38

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

Pretty sure RBG isn't an originalist sexpig.

# ? Oct 14, 2018 00:42

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

GreyjoyBastard posted:

hot take in the SCOTUS thread

Even fuckin' Alito drapes his arguments in constitutional logic.

what he does not do, however, is allow the constitution to stop him from reaching his pre-determined conclusions

# ? Oct 14, 2018 01:02

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

"originalists" aren't even originalists.

# ? Oct 14, 2018 01:06

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Kazak_Hstan posted:

what he does not do, however, is allow the constitution to stop him from reaching his pre-determined conclusions

Tbh the only one who even arguably does that is Thomas.

E: Though it isn�t exactly a surprise, everyone knows that�s exactly what�s happening (I mean, it�s been an ongoing discussion in the legal academy for what, 50 years if you assume critical theory was the start of that discussion, closer to 100 if you look at positivism/realism as the starting point) it�s just that politicians like for judges to pretend that it isn�t.

Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 14, 2018

# ? Oct 14, 2018 02:08

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

doverhog posted:

The court is fully political. Does anyone believe they are scholars just interpreting the will of the Fathers?

No Dead Reckoning doesn't post itt anymore

# ? Oct 14, 2018 20:23

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Tibalt posted:

Pretty sure RBG isn't an originalist sexpig.

my dude I have bad news, originalism is a scam

# ? Oct 14, 2018 23:56

COMRADES: Apr 3, 2017; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

KingFisher posted:

#3 People didn't vote for this.

Yes they did, we have a system and how it works is throughly well known.

Totally just ignore the mass voter disenfranchisement, media blitz marketing run by monied elites, gerrymandering...

# ? Oct 15, 2018 22:39

OniPanda: May 13, 2004; OH GOD BEAR

COMRADES posted:

Totally just ignore the mass voter disenfranchisement, media blitz marketing run by monied elites, gerrymandering...

But if they didn't ignore all that, then their point would absolutely crumble, and they know they're correct so clearly everything else is wrong!

# ? Oct 15, 2018 23:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

COMRADES posted:

Totally just ignore the mass voter disenfranchisement, media blitz marketing run by monied elites, gerrymandering...

He said that a single person whose vote counts 250 million times would be a legitimate system with legitimate democratic outcomes because it would only take 250 million and one voters to come together and beat him and if only 249 million 999 thousand 999 voters oppose him then somehow even though 99.977604% of the population voted against him what he wants still represents the "will of the people" because it wasn't 99.977605%

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 15, 2018

# ? Oct 15, 2018 23:18

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/heritage-foundation-judge-clerk-boot-camp.html

very normal healthy judiciary

# ? Oct 17, 2018 05:19

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

Wonder what happens with this next? It's going to the Washington supreme court, but depending on how that turns out might go to SCOTUS.

https://theappeal.org/man-convicted-of-obstruction-for-refusing-to-open-his-door-for-police/

quote:

A man walking past called officers to the Seattle-area apartment, reporting a loud argument. The yelling had stopped when police arrived outside Solomon McLemore�s Shoreline home, but was replaced by amplified demands from police that McLemore come out or let them in. As the incident stretched on, frustrations grew.

�Open the loving door,� one officer demanded during the 15-minute exchange.

McLemore declined and stood by as police, having heard glass shatter inside the home, broke down the door. No one inside was hurt. But McLemore was arrested on suspicion of obstruction of a law enforcement officer for failing to open his home to police. He was convicted as charged on Sept. 29, 2016, following a three-day jury trial. Sentenced to 20 days under house arrest, McLemore began a series of appeals that landed his case in the Washington Supreme Court, which is expected to hear oral arguments Thursday.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 14:42

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Does he pass the paper bag test?

# ? Oct 18, 2018 16:50

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Pretty sure if that case is going to a state Supreme Court that it will not be something SCOTUS has jurisdiction on.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 17:06

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

FlamingLiberal posted:

Pretty sure if that case is going to a state Supreme Court that it will not be something SCOTUS has jurisdiction on.

Its a 4th amendment case that seemingly contradicts an opinion written by Alito of all people.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 17:13

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

hobbesmaster posted:

Its a 4th amendment case that seemingly contradicts an opinion written by Alito of all people.

But hasn't even reached the end of the appeal process at the state level, let alone somehow been appealed to federal. It's entirely possible that it doesn't even get through the lower courts, especially if it's already settled.

Also suspicion of obstructing a police office? What sort of crackerjack charge is that

# ? Oct 18, 2018 18:08

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Tibalt posted:

But hasn't even reached the end of the appeal process at the state level, let alone somehow been appealed to federal. It's entirely possible that it doesn't even get through the lower courts, especially if it's already settled.

Also suspicion of obstructing a police office? What sort of crackerjack charge is that

Existing while black

# ? Oct 18, 2018 18:11

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Tibalt posted:

But hasn't even reached the end of the appeal process at the state level, let alone somehow been appealed to federal. It's entirely possible that it doesn't even get through the lower courts, especially if it's already settled.

Also suspicion of obstructing a police office? What sort of crackerjack charge is that

That's journalistic phrasing using an idiom and technically the correct way to say things.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20suspicion%20of posted:

on suspicion of - idiom
Definition of on suspicion of: due to being suspected of (a crime)
Example: He was arrested on suspicion of robbery.

Suspicion of [crime] is how things are reported because people are innocent until proven guilty. Obstructing an officer is the crime here. He was arrested on suspicion of committing said crime.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 18:34

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

I thought since it was a clear 4a challenge it had a route to SCOTUS? I figured the next step would be federal circuit court.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 19:11

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Harik posted:

I thought since it was a clear 4a challenge it had a route to SCOTUS? I figured the next step would be federal circuit court.

State Supreme Courts always go to the US Supreme Court if they are decided on US constitutional grounds; the only way you go over to the federal system challenging something State level is generally speaking a habeas corpus action challenging a conviction as made in error.

If, on the other hand, a State Supreme Court renders a decision on state constitution grounds, it's not appealable to the US Supreme Court. This came up recently in the PA redistricting case.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 19:50

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

ulmont posted:

State Supreme Courts always go to the US Supreme Court if they are decided on US constitutional grounds; the only way you go over to the federal system challenging something State level is generally speaking a habeas corpus action challenging a conviction as made in error.

If, on the other hand, a State Supreme Court renders a decision on state constitution grounds, it's not appealable to the US Supreme Court. This came up recently in the PA redistricting case.

That itself depends on if there still is a US Constitution issue at play. In the PA redistricting case there was not. Here it is based on the 4th amendment which applies to the states via the 14th amendment.

From what I have read on the case it seems to pretty obviously violate the 4th and even shitheads like Alito agree (implicitly).

# ? Oct 18, 2018 19:56

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

Mr. Nice! posted:

That's journalistic phrasing using an idiom and technically the correct way to say things.

Ah. I thought that you dropped things like "allegedly" and "suspicions of" after a conviction. That makes more sense.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 19:58

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Raldikuk posted:

That itself depends on if there still is a US Constitution issue at play.

Yes, that's what I said. If a State Supreme Court decision rests on "adequate and independent state grounds", the State Supreme Court decision doesn't go to the US Supreme Court.

Here, in this case, there would be a few options if there were Fourth Amendment / Article I, Section 7 concerns:

1. McLemore wins in the Washington Supreme Court, and the Washington Supreme Court says: "this violated both the US 4th amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, which we interpret to say the same thing." Live US constitutional issue, appealable to the US Supreme Court.

2. McLemore wins in the Washington Supreme Court, and the Washington Supreme Court says: "this may or may not have violated the US 4th amendment, but it surely violated Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, which we interpret to give greater protection." No live US constitutional issue, not appealable.

3. McLemore loses in the Washington Supreme Court. Since that means he lost on the US 4th amendment, live US constitutional issue, appealable to the US Supreme Court.

# ? Oct 18, 2018 20:28

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

What's the guess about Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard reaching the court? 2020?

Gonna need to stockpile some gin and soda for that one. :suicide:

# ? Oct 18, 2018 21:03

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

FilthyImp posted:

What's the guess about Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard reaching the court? 2020?

In a strange line up this case will be a 5-4 decision authored by Kavanaugh with the text "Beat Harvard". Ginsberg read her concurrence from the bench consisting of "Also Yale"

# ? Oct 18, 2018 21:11

Lawman 0: Aug 17, 2010

So will they intervene in the climate case?

# ? Oct 18, 2018 21:45

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

Harik posted:

Wonder what happens with this next? It's going to the Washington supreme court, but depending on how that turns out might go to SCOTUS.

https://theappeal.org/man-convicted-of-obstruction-for-refusing-to-open-his-door-for-police/

If he loses he should take it to the Supreme Court on 3rd amendment grounds.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 04:53

goethe.cx: Apr 23, 2014

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Felony disenfranchisement is based on the conviction, not the sentence. People who are convicted of felonies and don't go to prison are still disenfranchised in a number of states. Even if you adventurously read the 15th Amendment proscription of disenfranchisement based on "previous condition of servitude" as applying to prisoners, the states could argue they are acting based on the fact of conviction, not because the person was a prisoner. And I think that would be a substantially correct argument.

I think a more compelling argument is found in Article IV's requirement that the United States guarantee each state a republican form of government. When you approach Florida levels of disenfranchisement there is a decent argument that those actions create democratic deficits, which in turn render the government something other than a republic. Textualists would just say the common usage of the word in 1789 contemplated something substantially less than universal suffrage, but there's probably a coherent argument to be made that the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments have changed the meaning of "republican form of government." All of those amendments refer to "the right to vote," which is an essential characteristic of a republican form of government. It's probably still a stretch to argue that "a republican form of government" in Article IV means "universal suffrage," but there is at least a foundation for that argument in the political science literature.

I don't really think that is a winning legal argument, but it is at least a coherent one. It would probably be an uphill fight to convince even a portion of the liberal minority on the court.

unfortunately the guarantee clause has been held to be explicitly nonjusticiable for almost 200 years

# ? Oct 22, 2018 06:41

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

goethe.cx posted:

unfortunately the guarantee clause has been held to be explicitly nonjusticiable for almost 200 years

paging clarence thomas

# ? Oct 22, 2018 06:53

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I don't think this is really a huge surprise

https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1054528683623337984

# ? Oct 23, 2018 01:41

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

So... trump wants to ask on the census (the same form that asks about age, occupation, and a myriad of other information) about citizenship.
Democrats think this will discourage participation.
Republicans think its a valid question.

'bout right?

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:14

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

Yes. Except that republicans really think that it will depress minority and immigrant response rates on the census, which means they get under counted. They live in heavily democratic areas, cities and big states, for the most part, and funding/representation in Congress is tied to the population of a state/ area.

So by depressing census response in democratic voting areas, it means democrats get less power in Congress despite having a greater population in the US in general

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:19

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

ilkhan posted:

So... trump wants to ask on the census (the same form that asks about age, occupation, and a myriad of other information) about citizenship.
Democrats think this will discourage participation.
Republicans think its a valid question.

'bout right?

I mean, the lawsuit was over the reason WHY the question was to be added. This comes back to more of the same bullshit where, if you have a record of unconstitutional intent, as long as a constitutional intent is later articulated, there's no problem. Even if the entire Commerce leadership perjures the poo poo out of itself over it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/wilbur-ross-commerce-census-citizenship.html

quote:

Oct. 12, 2018

WASHINGTON � Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has shifted his explanation for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, saying he now recalls discussing it with Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump�s former chief strategist, according to court documents filed Thursday.

Mr. Ross, who faces a court order to provide a deposition to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to strip the question from the questionnaire, told a congressional committee earlier this year that he had only talked about the question with Justice Department officials to determine its legality.

Mr. Ross now says Mr. Bannon suggested that he contact Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state whom Mr. Trump appointed to a commission to investigate his unsubstantiated claims that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The panel was later disbanded, and Mr. Kobach is currently the Republican candidate for governor of Kansas.

Mr. Bannon, whose first name is misspelled as �Steven� in government documents, �called Secretary Ross in the Spring of 2017 to ask Secretary Ross if he would be willing to speak� to Mr. Kobach, according to a document filed by Justice Department lawyers representing Mr. Ross.

It is not clear if Mr. Ross followed up on the suggestion. Calls to Mr. Bannon, who left the White House over a year ago, were not immediately returned.

A spokesman for Mr. Ross said he did not change his version of events but was quoted out of context in coverage about his testimony in March.

�Secretary Ross was responding to a question about an R.N.C. campaign email, not a direct question about the citizenship question,� said the spokesman, Kevin Manning.

But the transcript of the exchange indicates unambiguously that Mr. Ross was asked specifically about the �citizenship question.�

The new details were added �for the sake of completeness,� the secretary�s lawyers wrote.

�Secretary Ross�s story keeps changing, which is exactly why he needs to sit for a deposition. The public deserves answers on the record about who made this decision, when, and why,� said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU�s Voting Rights Project, which is a plaintiff in the case.

Immigrant and voting rights groups claim that the addition of the question is intended to discourage immigrants, especially Hispanics, from registering with the census. The decennial count, overseen by the Commerce Department, is used to determine electoral boundaries as well as a host of government programs and benefits.

The lawsuit challenging the addition of the question was filed by New York and other states, as well as localities and advocacy groups. They argue that asking about citizenship would �fatally undermine� the accuracy of the census because both legal and undocumented immigrants might refuse to participate in it.

On March 20, Mr. Ross told the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee that the insertion of the question had been initiated �solely� by officials at the Justice Department, with no involvement from officials in the White House.

�Has the president or anyone in the White House discussed with you or anyone on your team about adding the citizenship question?� asked Representative Grace Meng, Democrat of New York.

�I am not aware of any such,� Mr. Ross testified.

Discrepancies in his account of the drafting of the question �have placed the credibility of Secretary Ross squarely at issue,� Judge Jesse M. Furman, of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, wrote last month in ordering the deposition to go forward.

Judge Furman found that Mr. Ross probably had unique firsthand knowledge of key facts. Indeed, he said, three of his aides had testified that only Mr. Ross could answer certain questions.

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that Mr. Ross could be deposed in the case, rejecting the Justice Department�s argument that his reasons for adding the question were irrelevant. The court acknowledged that depositions of high-ranking officials are rare. But it said there are exceptions, particularly when the officials have knowledge not available elsewhere.

Later on Tuesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg granted a temporary stay of the depositions of Mr. Ross and John Gore, a Justice Department official. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether the depositions should proceed.

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:28

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1054543252374933505

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:36

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

The court is illegitimate.

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:36

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

The courts just ignoring blatant bad faith by the police, politicians, agencies, the president, etc is one of the most infuriating things in modern law.

# ? Oct 23, 2018 02:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 02:15

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Slaan posted:

The courts just ignoring blatant bad faith by the police, politicians, agencies, the president, etc is one of the most infuriating things in modern law.

They would call that 'working as intended'

# ? Oct 23, 2018 03:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »