|
Main Paineframe posted:Whatever grounds they want. The Court hasn't always looked at the law the same way it does now, and even now there's plenty of cases where the Court's reasoning is some thinly veiled bullshit. I've always seen the term "judicial activism" in the modern sense as "the judge ruled against my political platform." It's just politically-loaded and I give it about as much credence as "strict textualists."
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Whatever grounds they want. The Court hasn't always looked at the law the same way it does now, and even now there's plenty of cases where the Court's reasoning is some thinly veiled bullshit. I get that historically, jurisprudence has been used to suppress rights. You know what else has been used to suppress rights regularly? Legislation! But you're not saying "we shouldn't seek legislative remedy because historically legislation has been used against progressive causes". The context here is the statement that seeking judicial remedy to the violation of the constitutional due process rights of immigrants is "short circuiting the legislative process", which I find patently ridiculous. What's the point of a constitution if the response to violations of minority's constitutional rights is "eh, ask the people suppressing your rights to stop"? It's a cop-out. The courts might be full of lovely assholes unwilling to do their job, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do their loving job, and they shouldn't be commended when they do and condemned when they don't. Stickman fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Mar 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If his Batson challenge is successful, then he will go to trial, even though it will be his 7th trial. They have always been able to convict or come close to convicting, and I can't imagine them giving up and saying "ok, we're done with you" for 4 alleged murders. The prosecution needs to quit loving up. For normal people, sure. For cops who murder people (or help cover up the murder and are caught red handed doing so)? Well...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I get that historically, jurisprudence has been used to suppress rights. You know what else has been used to suppress rights regularly? Legislation! But your not saying "we shouldn't seek legislative remedy because historically legislation has been used against progressive causes". What I'm saying is that sometimes legislation fucks over minority rights and the judiciary fixes it, and sometimes the judiciary fucks over minority rights and the legislature fixes it. As a result, it's important to balance the power of the two branches and keep one from gaining too much advantage over the other. Otherwise, you end up with poo poo like Shelby County, where Roberts jammed his finger right in the legislature's face as he gutted the Civil Rights Act and dared our dysfunctional Congress to fix it, knowing full well that it was incapable of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
You cheer when Congress passes laws you like, but what about when they pass laws you don't?! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we'll see an end to legislative activism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:For normal people, sure. If he was a cop, it would be a coin flip if charges were brought at all, and if they were they'd probably go for some kind of manslaughter bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If he was a cop, it would be a coin flip if charges were brought at all, and if they were they'd probably go for some kind of manslaughter bullshit. If a cop went in and shot up somewhere he was moonlighting for extra cash over a pay dispute they’d almost certainly actually run the murder charges. I would assume the trial prosecutor wouldn’t be a racist idiot about but it is Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If a cop went in and shot up somewhere he was moonlighting for extra cash over a pay dispute they’d almost certainly actually run the murder charges. I would assume the trial prosecutor wouldn’t be a racist idiot about but it is Alabama. This did happen, and they did try the cop four times. The first three were mistrials because even though dude wasn't on duty he was still a cop so a jury wouldn't convict on murder, only manslaughter. He still gets his pension tho. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-ex-tulsa-cop-shannon-kepler-convicted-in-death-of-daughters-black-boyfriend-jeremey-lake/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
At least it was the jury that were idiots?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At least it was the jury that were idiots? Good news, we only have to change society and/or the constitution, instead of changing a prosecutor and/or judge
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:You cheer when Congress passes laws you like, but what about when they pass laws you don't?! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we'll see an end to legislative activism. Stickman posted:I get that historically, jurisprudence has been used to suppress rights. You know what else has been used to suppress rights regularly? Legislation! But you're not saying "we shouldn't seek legislative remedy because historically legislation has been used against progressive causes".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
SCOTUS is supposed to interpret laws according to how congress wrote said law, and ensure that said laws are staying within the boundaries of the constitution. Not to write laws itself or creatively interpret the laws to reach a certain conclusion. Congress should be activist. SCOTUS should not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
That case about the house foreclosureis confusing. Was the guy's federal lawsuit valid or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I don't think it's wrong to generally err on the side of the more democratic institution. You might if you were part of a minority who the majority is totally fine with oppressing. The whole point of Constitution is to establish boundaries to protect against unjustified actions by a majority (via the power of the government). It doesn't always (or even often) work that way, but if you're not willing to push to enforce it for the most vulnerable what's the loving point? Just ditch it and replace it with "whatever congress says, goes". E: Oh, but if they come for your guns or right to say brown and lgbt people don't belong in America, watch the gently caress out! Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:That case about the house foreclosureis confusing. Was the guy's federal lawsuit valid or not? It was a "valid" lawsuit in that it was based on "existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law." ...and even more so in that 3 courts of appeals had agreed with his position previously. It was not valid in that he lost at the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:That case about the house foreclosureis confusing. Was the guy's federal lawsuit valid or not? The FDCPA is a kinda poorly written law that addressed a lot of valid concerns in the late 70s or so when it was enacted and is now a complete cluster gently caress. 90% of what the FDCPA prohibits is based on judicial decisions of increasingly hyper technical interpretations of the statute (according to various federal judges). The Supreme Court is oddly selective in which areas it choses to clean up. The statute generates 10,000 lawsuits a year, mostly in federal courts and most of which are worth less than $10,000 all told. Iirc, The Supreme Court is going to hear one case with a circuit split about statute of limitations, but not another case with a circuit split about disputes. It’s best not to worry about them unless they somehow effect you
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What I'm saying is that sometimes legislation fucks over minority rights and the judiciary fixes it, and sometimes the judiciary fucks over minority rights and the legislature fixes it. As a result, it's important to balance the power of the two branches and keep one from gaining too much advantage over the other. Otherwise, you end up with poo poo like Shelby County, where Roberts jammed his finger right in the legislature's face as he gutted the Civil Rights Act and dared our dysfunctional Congress to fix it, knowing full well that it was incapable of doing so. The only remedy is to win elections and then control the courts. What's the alternative, strip the courts of power to overturn unconstitutional laws, in which case the only way to repeal those laws is to...win elections which will let you control the courts anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
I've read Ulmont's work on Preap. I'm sorry, the 5 Republican justices pretended they didn't know how Congress structures language so they can ignore the plain meaning of the two paragraphs in §1226(c)? What the gently caress??
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
"We prefer that §1226(c) end halfway though the second paragraph." Buddies, I'm completely loving assured both you AND DHS know exactly how referencing specific descriptors in law works. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The only remedy is to win elections and then control the courts. The big question is how to give the courts the power to overturn unconstitutional laws without also giving them the power to overturn any law they feel like for just about any reason. Yes, the courts are supposed to stick to the Constitution and such, but history has demonstrated repeatedly that there's not a whole lot that can be done if five out of nine judges all decide to issue a ruling that's the legal equivalent of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Yes, it's important for the court system to exercise oversight over the legislative branch. However, it's also important for someone to exercise oversight over the judicial branch, something which has been sorely lacking due to the extremely lopsided balance of power between the courts and Congress (who are, theoretically, the only entity with the ability to respond to bad court rulings). Let me put it this way. The conservative priority in appointing judges for at least thirty years has been the overturning of Roe v Wade. Now the GOP has stacked the court with flunkies, and conservatives have been setting up abortion-related cases that are obviously destined for the Supreme Court. When Kavanaugh writes the majority opinion on a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe and banning abortion in half the country, the phrase "that legal reasoning makes no sense" may be fun to say but won't have any meaningful effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
The problem is that Congress has bad faith actors in enough positions of power that they can push that agenda forward without a straight up majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Let me put it this way. The conservative priority in appointing judges for at least thirty years has been the overturning of Roe v Wade. Now the GOP has stacked the court with flunkies, and conservatives have been setting up abortion-related cases that are obviously destined for the Supreme Court. When Kavanaugh writes the majority opinion on a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe and banning abortion in half the country, the phrase "that legal reasoning makes no sense" may be fun to say but won't have any meaningful effect. This but the real target is Brown v Board.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The big question is how to give the courts the power to overturn unconstitutional laws without also giving them the power to overturn any law they feel like for just about any reason. Yes, the courts are supposed to stick to the Constitution and such, but history has demonstrated repeatedly that there's not a whole lot that can be done if five out of nine judges all decide to issue a ruling that's the legal equivalent of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Roe seems like a weird issue to bring up to make this point, because overturning it doesn't nullify any unconstitutional laws, in fact the opposite the Roe decision is what overturned a bunch of laws which would all come back into effect if the new ultra-conservative court said "nah". Adding "oversight" to the court's ability to overturn legislation (beyond winning elections and appointing different justices) could only ever harm Roe. Ron Jeremy posted:This but the real target is Brown v Board. Which would be irrelevant because that decision has already been legislated into effect by the Civil Rights Act of 1965 anyways. They probably want to overturn Heart of Atlanta and declare the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Javid posted:The problem is that Congress has bad faith actors in enough positions of power that they can push that agenda forward without a straight up majority. Which, in turn, helped them to then secure Congressional majorities/ Especially the fuckery with 2010 Gerrymandering and especially after the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds to gut the VRA since Congress and Obama were too chickenshit to call them on it. Ron Jeremy posted:This but the real target is Brown v Board. Why would they overturn Brown? Schools are as segregated, if not moreso, now than back when Brown took place. Leaving Brown in place just provides a convenient cover for what they've done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah honestly, if they torched Roe half the country would applaud it. Reversing Brown would only please a (bigger than we'd like but still) small minority. Not worth it, in GOP political calculus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Javid posted:Yeah honestly, if they torched Roe half the country would applaud it. Reversing Brown would only please a (bigger than we'd like but still) small minority. Not worth it, in GOP political calculus. Overturning Roe would be a turning point in American politics. It would greatly benefit Democrats electorally. Not much of a silver lining, but it’s there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The big question is how to give the courts the power to overturn unconstitutional laws without also giving them the power to overturn any law they feel like for just about any reason. Yes, the courts are supposed to stick to the Constitution and such, but history has demonstrated repeatedly that there's not a whole lot that can be done if five out of nine judges all decide to issue a ruling that's the legal equivalent of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade was a legal decision overturning laws, though, so arguing that trying to overturn RvW is evidence for why we should be skeptical of judicial oversight of the legislature seems a bit backwards. Unless you’re arguing that Roe v Wade should never have happened and we should have just passed laws enshrining the national right to abortion, which I can guarantee would not have happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Overturning Roe would be a turning point in American politics. It would greatly benefit Democrats electorally. Not much of a silver lining, but it’s there. Most democracies secured abortion rights through regular laws and referenda. Some conservative ones like Ireland were very late to the party. Something similar would happen within the states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
Javid posted:Yeah honestly, if they torched Roe half the country would applaud it. Reversing Brown would only please a (bigger than we'd like but still) small minority. Not worth it, in GOP political calculus. Yeah, I mean right now 43 states have laws that ban abortion after a certain gestational age, and yet Trump is President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The only remedy is to win elections and then control the courts. Winning elections is not necessarily followed by controlling the courts, the current SCOTUS makeup is proof of that, as is the last what, 8 years of lower court appointments? I don't really have a point and I know it's stating the obvious, but 'just win elections' is a bad argument that irritates me when gerrymandering and "the rights of the minority" are enough to allow said minority to exert considerably more influence to control the courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Winning elections is not necessarily followed by controlling the courts, the current SCOTUS makeup is proof of that, as is the last what, 8 years of lower court appointments? the alternative is, eh, not great though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Winning elections is not necessarily followed by controlling the courts, the current SCOTUS makeup is proof of that, as is the last what, 8 years of lower court appointments? Or alternately you could start a revolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 09:32
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This is an important point. If abortion were again an issue where voting clearly mattered then it would start swinging elections. Ireland only got off its rear end when women started dying in hospitals because doctors wouldn’t help even after women suffered miscarriages. It’d be nice if that didn’t have to happen here but it’s going to if/when the GOP manages to repeal Roe. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Roe vs. Wade was a legal decision overturning laws, though, so arguing that trying to overturn RvW is evidence for why we should be skeptical of judicial oversight of the legislature seems a bit backwards. Unless you’re arguing that Roe v Wade should never have happened and we should have just passed laws enshrining the national right to abortion, which I can guarantee would not have happened? What I'm arguing is that the Supreme Court is a calvinball body that can rule whatever it wants for whatever reason it wants, and there's not really any meaningful way to exercise oversight over that. Liberals were fine with that when the court was ruling their way, but now that the power balance has shifted, it's downright silly to ask "well, what legal justification would they use for a conservative shift?", which was the question I was originally responding to. Yes, it was great when the Supreme Court was a liberal check on conservative Congressional excesses, but it was a mistake to assume that was some inherent property of the court rather than a simple coincidental instance of how the politics happened to line up for a few decades. Now the conservatives have succeeded in their decades-long quest to take over the courts, and they're going to roll back the last half-century of both judicial and legislative progress, even if the Dems manage to retake the legislature. Going off on a derail about whether judicial abuse of minority rights is better than legislative abuse of minority rights seems a bit off-track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Is there any kind of impeachment process for a justice? Pretend for a minute the Dems have enough collective spines to pull that lever, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is there any kind of impeachment process for a justice? Pretend for a minute the Dems have enough collective spines to pull that lever, I guess. Yes. It's identical to the one for the president, though the only stated standards are 'good behavior'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yes. It's identical to the one for the president, though the only stated standards are 'good behavior'. Which is still sufficient to remove Thomas and Kavanaugh for their past behaviors. Or current, in Thomas's case since he never recuses himself from cases involving parties that just happen to pay his wife large sums of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
The only Supreme Court justice ever impeached was impeached for excessive partisanship, though subsequently acquitted by the Senate. Make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Which is still sufficient to remove Thomas and Kavanaugh for their past behaviors. Republicans won't do it though. They're more likely to get rid off Trump than they are to do it to a Supreme Court Justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
The GOP sees the SCOTUS as their strongest guardian against their Christian, reactionary definition of godlessness. Their inability to hold a Justice accountable isn't just politically motivated; falling in line behind openly corrupt Justices like Thomas is mandated by their internal religious moral compasses. Impeachment isn't going to happen in the present incarnation of Senate representation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:57
|
|