|
yet again very assured that these decisions about technical issues and academic definitions are being made by lawyers listening to lawyers arguing about intent of law written by elected lawyers
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Stickman posted:For anyone that isn't Trump, the point of the lawsuits is to sell the narrative that Republicans were robbed, Democrats are corrupt, and the Biden presidency is illegitimate. That'll make it easier for them to implement onerous voter suppression, rile folks up for 2022, and to sell their obstructionism even when it materially harms their base. I'm convinced that the reason this particular suit was filed is that Paxton is trying to get a pardon https://mobile.twitter.com/tplohetski/status/1337167620609626112
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
What was the legitimate purpose of presidential pardons ever even supposed to be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:What was the legitimate purpose of presidential pardons ever even supposed to be? "Well, kings get to do it, why not our guy?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:What was the legitimate purpose of presidential pardons ever even supposed to be? Someone getting railroaded by a prior administration and stuck with a long prison sentence for a crime they did not commit, or someone who was prosecuted under an unjust law that had since changed, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
In theory it's a safety valve for the justice system; it will always be possible to reach outcomes that history or contemporary society decides are improper so the power to unilaterally override it should exist somewhere. And given the rest of the government and the 18th century assumptions under which it was designed, the president is the best place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:"Well, kings get to do it, why not our guy?" This is literally it. The creation of the presidency was basically gathering up all the sets of rights and powers owned by 18th century monarchs and assigning them to the chief executive position as an elected office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:This is literally it. The creation of the presidency was basically gathering up all the sets of rights and powers owned by 18th century monarchs and assigning them to the chief executive position as an elected office. Yup, and while many of the constitutional monarchies of the world have continued to take those powers away from monarchs, the fact the US President is elected means if anything their power has grown. When Australia periodically debates becoming a republic a common argument against it is that we don't want to risk ending up with a position equivalent to POTUS in our system. Senor Tron fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
That’s what parliamentary systems are for. Hope that helps, Australia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
So when does the SC have to decide on taking the case? Are Kavanaugh and Barrett likely to accept it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So when does the SC have to decide on taking the case? No one is going to accept it. It will be dismissed on Monday with a single line just like the Kelly v PA request was denied. The complaint mirrors the core arguments of Kelly with regard to PA. If the SCOTUS had any interest in the case, they would have already shown it. Kav and Barrett aren't likely to do anything. There's no reason the SCOTUS takes Texas' case. It is all political posturing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No one is going to accept it. It will be dismissed on Monday with a single line just like the Kelly v PA request was denied. What about the death threats they might get through right wing extremists, and Trump egging them on? Would that compel them to take it Willo567 fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:What about the death threats they might get through right wing extremists, and Trump egging them on? Would that compel them to take it Judges don’t usually respond well to death threats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:What about the death threats they might get through right wing extremists, and Trump egging them on? Would that compel them to take it Trump has no power over them. He can't remove them, fire them, or do anything related to them. They also have security details. Also, any such death threats would also likely come after they dismiss the case on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Why are people saying Monday? Is there no chance they reject it today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Why are people saying Monday? Is there no chance they reject it today? Today is listed as a conference day. Monday is when the court releases its next list of orders. The one line dismissal of the case will be in that list. It is possible that they issue something today on the case, but I'm not personally holding my breath because the SCOTUS works on their own schedule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
I'm a lawyer, so it's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I can't recall whether the Court actually has the ability to "deny cert" on cases such as this where they have original jurisdiction, rather than the much more usual route of being presented with appeals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:I'm a lawyer, so it's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I can't recall whether the Court actually has the ability to "deny cert" on cases such as this where they have original jurisdiction, rather than the much more usual route of being presented with appeals. They do, but not in Thomas's moon law, and Altio agrees with him but nobody else. (We don't know about Barret.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
I want to see a state be declared a vexatious litigant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:They do, but not in Thomas's moon law, and Altio agrees with him but nobody else. (We don't know about Barret.) Thanks (but hmmm, see below). If they grant cert, then, the only reasonable response is for California, Illinois, and New York to file suit against all the red states with the exact same argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:They do, but not in Thomas's moon law, and Altio agrees with him but nobody else. (We don't know about Barret.) Thomas and Alito are right on this. SCOTUS has no right to refuse a case that comes up before them on the limited original jurisdiction that they have, and they only get away with it because there’s literally no one to tell them they can’t.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Thomas and Alito are right on this. SCOTUS has no right to refuse a case that comes up before them on the limited original jurisdiction that they have, and they only get away with it because there’s literally no one to tell them they can’t. They absolutely can reject an original jurisdiction case if there is no actual case or controversy. There isn't one here. There is no need for them to grant Texas' petition when the petition is meritless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They absolutely can reject an original jurisdiction case if there is no actual case or controversy. There isn't one here. There is no need for them to grant Texas' petition when the petition is meritless. Not just if there's no case or controversy, they could also do it for lack of standing, which is also the case here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
I think there's some careless use of terminology here, since standing and case/controversy arguments are the kinds of things that would win a motion to dismiss on a filed case, which are motions that happen after the court has started proceedings, rather than "you don't even get in the door" like with denial of cert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
I may have missed it but what was the ruling on the whole child slavery thing and that corporations are allowed to do it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
There isn't one yet. They only heard oral arguments from the lawyers. The decision comes later
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Thomas and Alito are right on this. SCOTUS has no right to refuse a case that comes up before them on the limited original jurisdiction that they have, and they only get away with it because there’s literally no one to tell them they can’t. As others have said, the wording in the law is that scotus shall have jurisdiction over disputes between States. Thomas's argument is that since it says shall (as opposed to may), scotus has no choice but to take the case. Shall only refers to jurisdiction though, it doesn't say anywhere else that they are required to hear it just that they can't hand it over to another body to have jurisdiction. His argument is definitely moon law and very much requires ignoring the plain meaning of the statute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:As others have said, the wording in the law is that scotus shall have jurisdiction over disputes between States. Thomas's argument is that since it says shall (as opposed to may), scotus has no choice but to take the case. Shall only refers to jurisdiction though, it doesn't say anywhere else that they are required to hear it just that they can't hand it over to another body to have jurisdiction. Thomas isn’t just loving around here, he’s able to cite to Justice Marshall from 1821 on this point: “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should...We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Mr. Nice! posted:They absolutely can reject an original jurisdiction case if there is no actual case or controversy. There isn't one here. There is no need for them to grant Texas' petition when the petition is meritless. Certainly not unreasonable for lack of case / lack of standing / bullshit, but that’s after the Court saying “ok, here’s a thing” to say “and it’s trash.” ulmont fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Saw some right wing twitter people saying they've already heard that SCOTUS is denying TX leave to file it's bill of complaint and will issue an order today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Saw some right wing twitter people saying they've already heard that SCOTUS is denying TX leave to file it's bill of complaint and will issue an order today.  A weekend long twitter meltdown followed by the EC vote would be 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Saw some right wing twitter people saying they've already heard that SCOTUS is denying TX leave to file it's bill of complaint and will issue an order today. That would probably be the sensible thing to do given the timing of the voting of the Electoral College, plus I imagine they don't want to hear requests asking the electors of South New East Virginia to be included.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Saw some right wing twitter people saying they've already heard that SCOTUS is denying TX leave to file it's bill of complaint and will issue an order today. Do you have the Tweets in question? Are they even credible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
I mean if it’s not today it will be Monday
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Do you have the Tweets in question? Are they even credible? I have not been able to find them again, and I apologize for that. I should have copied it earlier. It was an unverified account, but it was certainly a right wing person's account. If I stumble across it again, I'll post it. I'm at work now and now able to dig too much. FlamingLiberal posted:I mean if it’s not today it will be Monday This is what matters - the SCOTUS will not be entertaining Paxton's attempt to get a pardon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:52
|
|
ulmont posted:Thomas isn’t just loving around here, he’s able to cite to Justice Marshall from 1821 on this point: That's dicta.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Buh bye. Trump rage tweets imminent. https://twitter.com/acosta/status/1337541172672258051?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
generic one posted:Buh bye. Trump rage tweets imminent. For now good. At least have some an easy weekend. Still some stunts that will be pulled but ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's dicta. Supreme Court dicta is more binding than most dicta and some panel opinions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
I was wrong. It wasn't a one sentence denial. It was a three sentence denial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
The dissent was a nice gently caress you from the more conservative arm. "Hey, we would have heard your case, but granted no relief."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 01:22
|
|