|
Crows Turn Off posted:I hate how I'm seeing lots of articles and posts now about how women are on the verge of losing abortion rights. There were many many people who were like "I loving hate Hillary but the SCOTUS seats/Roe mean I'm voting for her" It was an incredibly common thing and it's frustrating that you've seem to have memory-holed that.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There were many many people who were like "I loving hate Hillary but the SCOTUS seats/Roe mean I'm voting for her" It was also common the other way around, there were plenty of "moderate" Republicans who claimed the exact same thing for Trump: "I don't like that he says the quiet parts out loud, but there's an open SCOTUS seat so how can I not vote for him". If it helps mobilize one side, it can also help mobilize the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I hate how I'm seeing lots of articles and posts now about how women are on the verge of losing abortion rights. I remember posting in 2012 that all Obama & Dems needed to do for the general election was hold up an enlarged pic of RBG at that time because of the threat to abortion rights post-Bush. But the effect of the Casey ruling three decades ago had already eroded abortion rights to such a strong degree that it was virtually impossible to get an abortion in many states. (Mississippi only has one abortion provider, e.g.) I don't recall any Congressional efforts to codify Roe after Casey but with the number of anti-choice Dems in the party it'd have been a futile effort anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It was also common the other way around, there were plenty of "moderate" Republicans who claimed the exact same thing for Trump: "I don't like that he says the quiet parts out loud, but there's an open SCOTUS seat so how can I not vote for him". If it helps mobilize one side, it can also help mobilize the other. Jaxyon posted:There were many many people who were like "I loving hate Hillary but the SCOTUS seats/Roe mean I'm voting for her" Makes me wonder if some group could win electoral power by promising to remove judicial review and returning the Federal Courts to only getting their constitutionally required jurisdictions, or if its just another example of everyone wanting an unaccountable super-legislative branch as long as its on their side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There were many many people who were like "I loving hate Hillary but the SCOTUS seats/Roe mean I'm voting for her" But I don't recall news reports pushing the topic much, and most people thinking that SCOTUS would be "objective" and follow "precedent" and stuff, despite how obviously Roe was a priority target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
Over the last decade or so Democrats have just been really into testing out the accelerationism theory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Maybe you're right. I remember personally making a big deal out of the SCOTUS picks. I would suggest you stop consuming the capitalist propaganda we call news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I hate how I'm seeing lots of articles and posts now about how women are on the verge of losing abortion rights. By her actions, namely naming an antichoice VP candidate, Clinton didn't make it a big deal and Biden was explicitly in favor of anti choice policies until 2019. The democrats as an entirety haven't had that much energy behind defending abortion for decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Maybe you're right. I remember personally making a big deal out of the SCOTUS picks. This is a month before: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/5/13170746/trump-pence-abortion-vp-debate-punish-women Here's an even more explicit one: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html People were making a pretty big deal about it, especially since the open seat at the time made it a salient, rather than theoretical, issue. That said, the reason it wasn't pressed much at the time can be summed up here: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/presidential-election-will-actually-affect-supreme-court/ quote:And even if there was one additional Trump appointee, you would still probably have a 5-4 court.” It wasn't a belief that the court would be "objective" or that Trump wouldn't appoint bad judges. It was that a) him winning wasn't seen as a particularly likely event, so why fan the flames, and b) even if he did win they didn't think he'd appoint a third of the court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:By her actions, namely naming an antichoice VP candidate, Clinton didn't make it a big deal and Biden was explicitly in favor of anti choice policies until 2019. The democrats as an entirety haven't had that much energy behind defending abortion for decades. poo poo like this https://mobile.twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/859550404237037571 https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1227370760408313856 So on the one hand they say oh the right to choose is so fragile, Republicans are trying to take it, vote for us. But on the other hand they're saying it's a solid constitutional right, it's never going away, so it's OK for us to have Democrats who want to take it from you too. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, do we need to elect Democrats to protect it or not. And now of course when they might need to pass legislation to protect women's rights instead of just letting the court take it out of their hands while they pander to voters from both sides well oops they can't, too many antichoice Democrats. Sorry! E: Oh right don't forget about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#Legislative_and_judicial_history quote:In the House, the final legislation was supported in 2003 by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats. It was opposed by 4 Republicans, 137 Democrats, and 1 independent. Twelve members were absent, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats.[15] In the Senate the bill was supported by 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It was opposed by 3 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 1 independent.[16] Two Senators were absent, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a supporter of the bill, and John Edwards (D-NC), an opponent of the bill. poo poo, only 47 Senate Republicans voted for the bill! They didn't even have a majority, Democrats got it through! How exactly are Democrats the protectors of abortion rights again? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
For comparison's sake, even the lovely Democrat-lite politicians we have north of the border in Canada have made support for abortion a necessary condition for being an MP. Justin Trudeau pretty much said anyone who's anti-choice would be kicked out of the party unless they swallowed their personal beliefs and voted in favour of abortion if it comes up in the House, and when pushed on it by conservative members of his party he told them to shut the gently caress up and they did. Now to be fair Canada has much stricter party whipping, since the party controls your nomination instead of you being picked in a primary election, so if you violate the whip and get kicked out of the party as a result you're almost certain to lose your job, but it's still very telling just how stark the difference is in messaging coming from the top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Cool cool the supreme court is going to bring back Jim crow next and demolish unions. I fully expect with a 7-2 the GOP increase supreme court justices to like 40 and turns the country into a Christian theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Cool cool the supreme court is going to bring back Jim crow next and demolish unions. Strategically, if you know you have lovely, unpopular views, it is smarter to keep the size of the court small, so that you may by luck asymmetrically have a larger influence on the court than prior election results would have indicated. If we have 40 justices, we'd have openings all the time, and things would be forced to an average of the last 6 or 7 presidential elections. As it is, the GOP can luck out with Trump, lock in young justices, and laugh as they sit there with no openings for Biden to fill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
Yeah, why would they increase the count once another old idiot liberal judge dies and they just don’t allow the seat to be filled under a non-Republican President. 6-2 is just as good as 7-2. Republicans have shown they will not have any sort of decorum with timelines of Garland vs AC[A]B noms. Nothing matters anymore now that they don’t play fair and having Justices to enforce their minority rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
There certainly was no luck involved in how the court was packed with Republicans. It was very much an intentional work by the people involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There certainly was no luck involved in how the court was packed with Republicans. It was very much an intentional work by the people involved. They've lucked out with RBG and Breyer having huge egos and not willing to step down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They've lucked out with RBG and Breyer having huge egos and not willing to step down. The Republicans also spent 30 years convincing them to do exactly that. Scalia in particular did everything he could to ensure Ginsburg maintained distance from the Democratic Party and spurned any "judicial activism" such as timing the political ramifications of her retirement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
The Democrats and the mainstream media have never treated or talked about the Court as it actually is so I'm not sure why anyone expects their voters to act like it's do or die. In the past two decades the Court has made a whole bunch of totally insane decisions including installing a president who lost but you'd never know that unless you followed the Court closely which most people don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The Democrats and the mainstream media have never treated or talked about the Court as it actually is so I'm not sure why anyone expects their voters to act like it's do or die. In the past two decades the Court has made a whole bunch of totally insane decisions including installing a president who lost but you'd never know that unless you followed the Court closely which most people don't. There was plenty of media coverage given to people spouting that Bush won FL anyways and this is clearly sour grapes from the Democrats and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There was plenty of media coverage given to people spouting that Bush won FL anyways and this is clearly sour grapes from the Democrats and nothing more. But the party wide sour grapes over that really reminds me of another more recent politician.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:It's been posted about in this thread several times that bush did win Florida and the only thing the court did was confirm it. Wasn’t the problem with Florida that Gore didn’t ask for a recount of the entire state, and Bush won whatever selection of counties made up the actual recount by like 500 votes? I don’t know if it’s ever been established what a state-wide recount would have discovered. Bush became president because Gore conceded by not pressing the question, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:It's been posted about in this thread several times that bush did win Florida and the only thing the court did was confirm it. As I'm sure you're quite aware, Bush v. Gore definitively did not confirm whether Bush or Gore won Florida in 2000. The entire argument was founded on the idea that individual counties shouldn't be allowed to recount according to independent standards, and that a statewide recount according to a single standard was infeasible. There was no real justification made for any of this, and the party line vote fundamentally delegitimized both the election and the court. Later research indicated that if the court-ordered statewide recount had not been halted, Gore would have been declared the victor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
I'm sure the 5-4 "our guy is ahead so he wins, please stop counting votes to find out who really got more votes, btdubs this decision is so bad we don't want it used as precedent ever, goodbye" ruling was made with the highest respect for legal and democratic institutions
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Some of you have this funny idea that the court's liberal members consider themselves the sworn enemies of the conservatives in the same way we do. This is half correct. The liberal members of the court do indeed consider themselves part of a club of wise philosopher-kings who must rule over the hoi polloi by decree as democracy cannot be trusted, and therefore they do not want something as gauche as an election deciding the makeup of the court. Or rather, they do not want to admit that the court is even partisan and that elections determine who is making the rulings and what decision wins, or encourage anyone to think of the court as being decided by elections. However the conservatives do consider themselves the sworn enemies of liberals and the Democratic party, which is why for example Kennedy retired right before the 2018 midterms to ensure their majority was not left to chance, why O'Connor selected Bush to win the 2000 election in case she needed to retire for her husband's health, why a Republican senate didn't confirm Garland while a Democratic senate confirmed Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy etc. And we're living in the consequences of that now, turns out the side that plays to win wins, and the side that won't even admit there's a contest loses. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They've lucked out with RBG and Breyer having huge egos and not willing to step down. Two parts luck, 50 parts planning and 50 parts willingness to ditch any and all pretense of norms or fundamental guiding principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:As I'm sure you're quite aware, Bush v. Gore definitively did not confirm whether Bush or Gore won Florida in 2000. The entire argument was founded on the idea that individual counties shouldn't be allowed to recount according to independent standards, and that a statewide recount according to a single standard was infeasible. There was no real justification made for any of this, and the party line vote fundamentally delegitimized both the election and the court. Later research indicated that if the court-ordered statewide recount had not been halted, Gore would have been declared the victor. Ilkhan can't post in good faith because doing so risks them finding a conscience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
I forgot about this dumb case. So a lower court ruled that because a defendant’s trial lawyer hosed up, a habeas petition was granted. The State of Arizona appealed to SCOTUS saying that even though this is the case, the defendant should still be executed and SCOTUS agreed to take the case which is not a good sign. https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1467854522445877251?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Look, the tree of justice must from time to time be watered with the blood of innocents
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence Improperly reached
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I forgot about this dumb case. So a lower court ruled that because a defendant’s trial lawyer hosed up, a habeas petition was granted. The State of Arizona appealed to SCOTUS saying that even though this is the case, the defendant should still be executed and SCOTUS agreed to take the case which is not a good sign. Please God just wipe out the human race already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
I'm no lawyer, but according to this cert petition, the "we can kill this guy even if he's innocent" language is actually explicitly established in the law they're citing?quote:And even if some meritorious claims “might escape federal habeas review, that feature is inherent in the restrictions that AEDPA imposes on the grant of federal habeas relief.” App. 208 (Collins, J., dissenting [from the denial of en banc rehearing]) Upon a failure of diligence and the absence of statutory exceptions, § 2254(e)(2) mandates new evidence’s exclusion even if that evidence is highly probative—or even dispositive—of a claim. edit: I also love this: quote:(“The role of a federal habeas court is to guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not to apply de novo review of factual findings and to substitute its own opinions for the determination made on the scene by the trial judge.”)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Curious, from someone who's not a SCOTUS watcher, why is it a bad sign that they agreed to take such a case? Is there a possibility this is one of those strategic easy wins for Roberts to throw off critics and make the court look more legit? I remember when everyone was pleasantly surprised Gorsuch turned out to have some weird libertarian streak that worked in our favor in one big case. My perception as a non-court watcher is that the times where the Conservatives on the bench surprise everyone by not being absolute monsters acts like a bit of a pressure release valve on the criticisms that assert they're conservatively biased, and that in turn scores them enough points in the public eye to continue being absolute monsters on other cases (cases which are perhaps, more important to capital?) Not a regular court follower though so interested in everyone else's thoughts? -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I'm no lawyer, but according to this cert petition, the "we can kill this guy even if he's innocent" language is actually explicitly established in the law they're citing? Way back in 1993, the Court decided 6-3 that it's not unconstitutional to ignore evidence of innocence and execute people anyway, as long as some other constitutional violation wasn't involved in the case. In other words, the actual act of executing innocent people is not unconstitutional, your only defence as an innocent person sentenced to death is to hope that there was some unrelated unconstitutional thing in your case. Relevant quotes: quote:In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that the rejection of Herrera’s petition did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that evidence of Herrera’s actual innocence was not relevant to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus absent some constitutional violation by the state of Texas. This rule was grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts existed to ensure that individuals were not unconstitutionally imprisoned, not to correct errors of fact. Chief Justice Rehnquist acknowledged that the Court sometimes examined the sufficiency of evidence in death penalty cases, but only to determine whether there was an independent constitutional violation. It's also clear that the question of whether or not it's unconstitutional to execute an innocent person was at stake in this particular case: quote:Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter. He wrote that executing an innocent person was contrary to contemporary standards of decency. Justice Blackmun argued that Herrera should have been granted relief if he showed both a reasonable doubt about his guilt and that he was actually innocent. He also expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the death penalty. The dissent says "you know, executing an innocent person because we refused to allow evidence of his innocence to be entered into the record is pretty hosed up and should be unconstitutional" and the majority opinion responds "shut the gently caress up, it's not cruel and unusual punishment to execute an innocent person as long as they were constitutionally convicted and sentenced to death." My extremely cynical guess is that the Court will respond "oh woe is us, we cannot overturn this established precedent from 1993, put the innocent man to death" and then the next day release an opinion saying "precedent is for losers, we're overturning Casey and Roe." vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Curious, from someone who's not a SCOTUS watcher, why is it a bad sign that they agreed to take such a case? Because if they didn't take the case the habeas petition would've gone through. It is possible that they want to clarify things and will uphold the lower court's decision but usually the supreme court only does stuff like that to resolve a circuit split.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
raminasi posted:That reads to me like "this thing we want to do is stupid and unjust but the law says we can so you have to let us." If they're correct about the law, what's the "right" solution here? Junking that portion of the law on constitutional grounds? (Obviously that won't happen, of course.) Yes? Is a law that says we can kill you even if you didn't do anything really due process If the government can just grab you off the street and say they're killing you for I don't know, Nicole Simpson's murder or something, do you even live in a free country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
If there is genuine evidence of innocence that needs to be considered by whatever process is there.Kaal posted:As I'm sure you're quite aware, Bush v. Gore definitively did not confirm whether Bush or Gore won Florida in 2000. The entire argument was founded on the idea that individual counties shouldn't be allowed to recount according to independent standards, and that a statewide recount according to a single standard was infeasible. There was no real justification made for any of this, and the party line vote fundamentally delegitimized both the election and the court. Later research indicated that if the court-ordered statewide recount had not been halted, Gore would have been declared the victor. But it does still sound like a good reason we should push for mandatory audits of every election, every time. Every legit vote should be counted. And people should know that their vote was meant something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Idk we should probably take a hard look at processes that say we won't look at evidence you were innocent before executing you. If you were wrongfully accused I doubt you would be so blasé about a process that says you aren't allowed to prove it
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
I'm guessing the original intent judges would say that a governor's/president's pardon power is the check on new evidence not considered by the trial court? Those powers are not usually used with that thinking however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk we should probably take a hard look at processes that say we won't look at evidence you were innocent before executing you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:18
|
|