|
Orange Devil posted:Entirely depends on who gets to decide on who is or is not a real person. Facts don’t matter, only power does. This is a power grab. Effectively this could give the courts the power to apportion EC votes etc I read that CA, FL and TX would each lose one seat and OH, MN and maybe MI would gain. Don't quote me on the last one, but I'm sure about the first two.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:What's great about this argument is it simply asserts its conclusion: It's unclear if you read it as a logical argument. It's very clear that it says "we claim the power to do this [because it is politically convenient for us]" with a fig leaf of "we already have some powers which are kinda sorta maybe similar if you squint really hard and also it doesn't explicitly say anywhere we don't have this power". If the executive gets to decide who counts as an inhabitant just loving lol if you think this is going to mean a change of only three or so EC's in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
If that's the argument and Biden wins then the court will probably vote against it just to deny the power to a Dem president since the next census and apportionment isn't for 10 years. Nobody wants to play the long game if they don't get the first turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
It was pretty good that four justices were fine with the census question despite it already being shown DOJ lied about their reasoning and kept changing their reasoning even before Hofeller's daughter published his documents showing he drafted the memo and it had an explicit racist basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:If the executive gets to decide who counts as an inhabitant just loving lol if you think this is going to mean a change of only three or so EC's in the long run. First of all Biden is going to win, so whatever advantages may be created would be controlled by the Democrats. That aside, the president is not going to be able to just arbitrarily subtract people wherever he wants on a whim, and if you think they will then you are just flat-out wrong. The method to subtract illegal immigrants has to be an objective method that is publicly known, and done by pencil-pushing apolitical bureaucrats. The only real influence aside from saying they should be excluded as a general matter of policy, may be to choose from several possible objective methods, all of which would likely yield roughly the same, mild result. Rigel fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Oct 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Let me place my faith in the constraints of power placed on the imperial presidency, which has only seen its power increase with every passing year for decades now. This seems smart to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
The only saving grace is that the worst things Trump can do in regards to this can be trivially fixed by the incoming Congress and President.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The only saving grace is that the worst things Trump can do in regards to this can be trivially fixed by the incoming Congress and President. You mean by the broken minority-party controlled senate and the almost hundred+ lifetime appointments to the judiciary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
jeeves posted:You mean by the broken minority-party controlled senate and the almost hundred+ lifetime appointments to the judiciary? Almost 300+.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
jeeves posted:You mean by the broken minority-party controlled senate and the almost hundred+ lifetime appointments to the judiciary? All the federal courts are packable, if they take the trifecta and have the will to pass a new Judiciary Act. I mean, you can definitely argue that they won't do this in the end, because democrats, but nothing forbids it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
jeeves posted:You mean by the broken minority-party controlled senate and the almost hundred+ lifetime appointments to the judiciary? Anything done by the executive branch can be pretty trivially undone by it, especially since a Biden Presidency will go through the proper legalistic motions that won't leave them as open to challenge. However a Democratic majority has some significant benefits to it, like actually bringing legislation to the floor which will probably get Republican votes from those at risk in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Expanding the Federal Courts should be a no-brainer, they've been due an expansion for decades, it should be 3x the current size with our growth in population.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:All the federal courts are packable, if they take the trifecta and have the will to pass a new Judiciary Act. I mean, you can definitely argue that they won't do this in the end, because democrats, but nothing forbids it. That takes a spine and doing stuff outside of ~DECORUM~
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Expanding the Federal Courts should be a no-brainer, they've been due an expansion for decades, it should be 3x the current size with our growth in population. So should congress
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
We’re gonna find out who actually cares about textualism pretty quick. Also, few more of these and they’ll make the case for court-packing themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing, did the early censuses (there were some in 18th and 19th century, right?) count everyone, or just white people , or just white men?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Apropos of nothing, did the early censuses (there were some in 18th and 19th century, right?) count everyone, or just white people , or just white men? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Apropos of nothing, did the early censuses (there were some in 18th and 19th century, right?) count everyone, or just white people , or just white men? They counted everyone, regardless of race or enslavement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:So should congress Congress should be about 3500 to keep each seat representing around 100,000 people, which in my opinion is about the largest district where a grassroots campaign can be effective and therefore the best size.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:We’re gonna find out who actually cares about textualism pretty quick. Also, few more of these and they’ll make the case for court-packing themselves. Look, when the Founders wrote "persons", they meant only [checks notes] oh poo poo whoops
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Let me place my faith in the constraints of power placed on the imperial presidency, which has only seen its power increase with every passing year for decades now. This seems smart to me. Trump's term has been filled with insane proclamations and orders that have been ignored by the bureaucracy. Trump has been remarkably ineffective and unable to do very basic, simple executive actions that should have been within his power (like just simply ending DACA for one, lol) because of his inability to understand how to work the bureaucracy. The faceless cogs can and will ignore him if he tries to order them to do something the law doesn't allow, since they are not willing to risk their jobs or freedom for him. The president flat-out will be unable to say "lets take 10 million away from California's count! How did I arrive at that number? I don't need to justify it, lol". If you think he can, then you haven't been paying much attention to his inability to get the government to follow his agenda. He can't even get the government to mail out little $200 bribes to old people before the election because the bureaucrats told him its against election law and stubbornly folded their arms. Rigel fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Oct 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
This is probably as much about the principal of hating immigrants as it is any actual apportionment difference for the administration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, when the Founders wrote "persons", they meant only [checks notes] oh poo poo whoops Delaware about to have 600 EVs
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
The year 2032, all 9 seats are conservatives. Democrats pack the court. Adding 1 seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This is probably as much about the principal of hating immigrants as it is any actual apportionment difference for the administration. Looking at the breakdown by state seems kind of pointless, the point is to make gerrymanders within each state easier to pull off
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Delaware about to have 600 EVs  well played
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Also that a college student losing his scholarship for raping a classmate was an example of anti-male bias. I looked this up and this particular case is a lot more ambiguous than you're making it sound- Washington Post posted:John and Jane were students in Purdue’s Navy ROTC program when they began dating in the fall of 2015, according to a summary of the case in the court ruling that relied on John Doe’s presentation of the facts. They had consensual sexual intercourse numerous times. In December, Jane attempted suicide in front of John. He reported her suicide attempt to the university, and they stopped dating. You'll never guess who pops up to provide further rhetorical cover for this whole line of thought- Washington Post posted:The Supreme Court has not ruled on a Title IX campus sexual assault case in the past decade, experts said. But Ginsburg, a feminist icon, surprised some victim’s advocates in a 2018 interview with the Atlantic magazine in which she was asked about due process for those accused of sexual harassment. As for the part that directly deals with Barrett- Washington Post posted:In the Purdue opinion, Barrett wrote that John Doe’s allegations of gender discrimination were plausible in part because of the pressure that the Obama administration applied to schools and universities to confront sexual harassment and assault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
In that specific case the guy got screwed over but lol at the idea that college campuses punish rape *too* harshly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/arguendope/status/1318366850858844163?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
Someone forgot about Bush v Gore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
If you think it's bonkers now, wait until Barrett is confirmed. They'll retroactively throw out all the late-arriving ballots in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
It was mentioned in the comments that they can do exactly that. For once it'd be nice to see a state just say "yeah no, gently caress you and gently caress your power grab of a ruling" when they do so. Unless it won't change the election's outcome, then they won't bother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It was mentioned in the comments that they can do exactly that. For once it'd be nice to see a state just say "yeah no, gently caress you and gently caress your power grab of a ruling" when they do so. Unless it won't change the election's outcome, then they won't bother. The Supremacy Clause is a real thing. It doesn't matter what a state law or constitution says if the Feds decide otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Supremacy Clause is a real thing. It doesn't matter what a state law or constitution says if the Feds decide otherwise. The Supremacy Clause has no real bearing on this, though - the Court has (generally) not reviewed state law decisions by state supreme courts that lack a federal question. That's because Article III limits SCOTUS's power to "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ..." A case arising out of purely state law does not arise out of the Constitution or the laws of the United States, meaning that the federal courts lack the Constitutional authority to rule on it *unless the state provision contradicts federal law or statute*.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The Supremacy Clause has no real bearing on this, though - the Court has (generally) not reviewed state law decisions by state supreme courts that lack a federal question. That's because Article III limits SCOTUS's power to "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ..." A case arising out of purely state law does not arise out of the Constitution or the laws of the United States, meaning that the federal courts lack the Constitutional authority to rule on it *unless the state provision contradicts federal law or statute*. It would be... interesting... to see SCOTUS grab whatever power over they please state election laws with article IV section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Beyond hot takes about "lol one party rule for the Republicans" they could come up with a lot of motivated reasoning about the threat of voter fraud (or whatever other justification) presenting a threat to republican government so dire that states must implement strict voter ID, regular purges of infrequent voters, and other classic suppression techniques.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:It would be... interesting... to see SCOTUS grab whatever power over they please state election laws with article IV section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." There are a lot of deeply unrepresentative yet surprisingly common practices out there - plurality at large voting in city councils, for instance, where a single slate takes every seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Supremacy Clause is a real thing. It doesn't matter what a state law or constitution says if the Feds decide otherwise. “John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Conversely, they could also prohibit these things if they so desired. "Could" in the sense that "SCOTUS likely has the theoretical power to do that," sure. But we're talking about a court that already struck down the Voting Rights Act because they felt Congress was being too darn responsive to the will of the electorate when they exercised their constitutionally enumerated power to ensure voting rights, which actually made the whole thing unconstitutional for, uh, reasons. We're looking at a shift rightward from that low bar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:"Could" in the sense that "SCOTUS likely has the theoretical power to do that," sure. That's what really made Ginsburg dying make me at least feel so hopeless. It's not that you have 6 conservatives Justices - it's that they're going to keep making decisions without even a slight veneer of legal reasoning. It's just going to be totally made up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:That's what really made Ginsburg dying make me at least feel so hopeless. It's not that you have 6 conservatives Justices - it's that they're going to keep making decisions without even a slight veneer of legal reasoning. It's just going to be totally made up bullshit. If it makes you feel any better (and I know it won't), all its really done is remove the veneer of legal reasoning, which itself never really existed in any aggregate sense. Its always been a body that justifies whatever it wants depending on who's sitting on the bench. So much of the American Governmental construct is smoke & mirrors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:53
|
|