|
We need to repeal AEDPA already It has made it functionally impossible to right a wrong at the state level in federal court
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
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. It should be a 9-0 "this poo poo is Unconstitutional so it's null and void" ruling but the SCOTUS is stacked with garbage so it's going to be 6-3, or worse, saying that it's ok to execute someone who wasn't given the proper defense they're supposed to receive. To do otherwise would run afoul of the long-standing tradition of prosecutors intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence because the entire point of the US criminal justice system is bloodlust and punishment. Truth and actual justice is an occasional side-effect. vyelkin posted: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." IIRC, they did exactly this with Shelby County and another case. The SCOTUS is a farce and every POTUS and Governor who abides by their rulings is a coward. FlamingLiberal posted:We need to repeal AEDPA already Working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Im not being blasé, I'm agreeing with you. Ah OK misread your comment
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Anyways the ancient conservative liches on the court are stuck in the 70s and 80s fears about violent  inner city criminals pouring into the suburbs to loot and murder and the corollary that bleeding heart liberals are doing it to us by letting criminals walk. These narratives molded their personalities and legal theories so they're inherently skeptical of any argument that might reduce conviction rates (aside from rich people buying justice) because they worry cunning criminals will use them to take advantage of foolish liberal judges. Since a respectable person would simply pay for premium legal protection, "ineffective assistance of counsel" is inherently an argument from suspicious characters who are probably guilty of something.But this view isn't inherent to conservatism. Like the drug war, it's a Boomer psychosis born out of traumas related to the Civil Rights Era, so I wouldn't be surprised to get a 5-4 ruling with some of Trump's shiny new Gen X judges joining the liberals on this one since they don't see what's so important about maintaining maximum conviction rates regardless of justice. Kinda like how Gorsuch was able to correctly reason that discriminating on the basis of gender identity is also inherently discrimination on the basis of sex because his brand of lovely pro-business conservatism isn't encumbered by 1950s gay panic VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1468007382395596801?s=20 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1468008599037390850?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
That report will be useful as toilet paper when we live in a oligarchy run by Republicans
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
I think we all knew where it was going when we saw who was on the commission. Even if it had only been liberal law professors it would've been weak poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
I can't believe that the commission report just harps on how the status quo is good. Truly a shocking development nobody saw coming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Lol it's a high school paper "All in all, court reform is a land of contrasts, thank you for reading. "
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That report will be useful as toilet paper when we live in a oligarchy run by Republicans I'd be curious to see how that future differs from the present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:I'd be curious to see how that future differs from the present. I’m sure Soviets in the 1950’s would be tickled pink to love to know how the Russia they worked so hard for is in present day! I foresee something similar happening to this country, just with more self proclaimed warlords stealing taxpayer-paid-for military equipment by the battalion-load to make little fiefdoms for themselves at gunpoint around the world. You know, the dream of every Republican, apparently?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I’m sure Soviets in the 1950’s would be tickled pink to love to know how the Russia they worked so hard for is in present day! If/when that happens it means a lot of nukes will end up in the hands of a lot of insane people willing and possibly eager to use them with no thought to the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:They shouldn't be counting by whatever standards they feel like. The methodologies should be standardized, and shouldn't end in different results (so that different groups counting should still end up with the same results). But I'll concede that 2000 was not as black and white as I thought. I certainly agree with all the electoral best practices that you're talking about here. Standardized, audited, transparent elections should be the right and expectation of every American. In the moment of the 2000 election, everything was quite a bit more murky, and probably the best thing to have done would have been for the US Supreme Court to back up the Florida supreme court - both because SCOTUS didn't have any particular legal insights to offer that hadn't already been explored at the lower level, and because the best remedy for the systemic electoral machine problems was clearly to conduct to a manual state-wide recount (which was already underway due to the Florida Supreme Court order). At the end of the day, it was very clear to everyone that SCOTUS interjecting itself into a state election and halting a court-ordered recount - in a patently partisan manner and without any real legal jurisdiction or reasoning - would have the effect of delegitimizing the integrity of the court and the outcome of said process. And that's exactly what happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Bush v Gore wasn't just bad because they installed the guy who lost they also claimed in the decision that it only applied to this single case which is insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush v Gore wasn't just bad because they installed the guy who lost they also claimed in the decision that it only applied to this single case which is insane. Yeah that was very much an admission that there was no real legal reasoning involved - they couldn't defend their action, and didn't want to be held to account in the future. It was a real shark jumping moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush v Gore wasn't just bad because they installed the guy who lost they also claimed in the decision that it only applied to this single case which is insane. They also knew full well that "this only applies here and nowhere else" rings hollow because the SCOTUS can't order other courts, let alone a future SCOTUS, to ignore one of their rulings. Clinton and Gore should've rejected the SCOTUS ruling on Bush v. Gore but that'd require them to have spines and if they did they wouldn't have been Democrats (or in that situation to begin with).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:SCOTUS can't order other courts, let alone a future SCOTUS, to ignore one of their rulings. They do this all the time, judges and lawyers are keenly aware of the precedential value of a given ruling It might be lovely, but it's not like the system isn't equipped to do it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
I mean they "can't" do what they did in Bush v Gore where they said it only applies to that specific case but everyone kinda has to go along with it because otherwise it means every presidential election is invalid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Clinton and Gore should've rejected the SCOTUS ruling on Bush v. Gore but that'd require them to have spines and if they did they wouldn't have been Democrats (or in that situation to begin with). How would that have worked, exactly? Clinton sends federal marshals to take over Florida's count? Maybe he just arrests the state's electors after the fact and instates his own?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I mean they "can't" do what they did in Bush v Gore where they said it only applies to that specific case but everyone kinda has to go along with it because otherwise it means every presidential election is invalid. Non-precedential decisions are all over the federal courts of appeals; the reason that SCOTUS (usually) doesn't use them is because their docket is discretionary, not mandatory, so they (mostly) just don't take up cases that would result in a non-precedential decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 05:23
|
|
|
The decision in Bush v Gore absolutely should have been precedent there's no argument that stands up to scrutiny for them to say "uhhh but this only counts here".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
raminasi posted:How would that have worked, exactly? Clinton sends federal marshals to take over Florida's count? Maybe he just arrests the state's electors after the fact and instates his own? Tell the state electors they should continue and that the USMS is going to ignore any orders from the SCOTUS to enforce their ruling. The power of the SCOTUS comes entirely from people accepting and abiding by their decisions. They have no actual power to enforce anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Tell the state electors they should continue and that the USMS is going to ignore any orders from the SCOTUS to enforce their ruling. The power of the SCOTUS comes entirely from people accepting and abiding by their decisions. They have no actual power to enforce anything. Why would the state election apparatus listen to the federal government? (Why would the USMS have enforced the ruling at all?) Are the marshals going to make them keep counting somehow? Is the federal government going to take over the count? In either case, what happens when the state doesn’t want to play ball?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Why would the state election apparatus listen to the federal government? (Why would the USMS have enforced the ruling at all?) Are the marshals going to make them keep counting somehow? Is the federal government going to take over the count? In either case, what happens when the state doesn’t want to play ball?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
raminasi posted:How would that have worked, exactly? Clinton sends federal marshals to take over Florida's count? Maybe he just arrests the state's electors after the fact and instates his own? This seems like a relevant question given the GOPs current efforts to capture statewide election apparatus. (though perhaps less relevant since they have also successfully captured the judiciary already)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
What happens is a constitutional crisis. Democratic counties could continue to count protected by US marshals, Republican counties might not and the feds would either have to take over or back down and let a coup happen. But since the Republicans were willing to carry out a coup (with violence if necessary, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot) and Democrats were not willing to resist one, obviously none of that was going to happen. And now one of the participants in the riot to buy time for the high court to pull off a coup is on the high court herself instead of being jailed and disbarred, thanks Clinton! And special shout out to RBG for saving a seat for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:We're already at that point. Lefty states/regions/cities are ignoring federal immigration laws, conservative states/regions/cities are ignoring federal gun control laws. The next national election is almost certainly going to feature multiple instances of states refusing to certify winners. What happens after that? Biden says that he’s very disappointed and some dnc fundraising emails mention election integrity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Fortunately we will all be saved from an illegitimate coup by the fact that Biden is so catastrophically unpopular that he is almost certain to lose the next election fair and square even in a world with no voter suppression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fortunately we will all be saved from an illegitimate coup by the fact that Biden is so catastrophically unpopular that he is almost certain to lose the next election fair and square even in a world with no voter suppression. Biden's getting pirmaried hard if he runs again in 2024 because he's not going to do poo poo before the midterms, let alone after them when the GOP retakes both chambers of Congress (and immediately launch an impeachment hearing against him for the 2020 election).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Biden's getting pirmaried hard if he runs again in 2024 because he's not going to do poo poo before the midterms, let alone after them when the GOP retakes both chambers of Congress (and immediately launch an impeachment hearing against him for the 2020 election). Primarying a sitting president is always a pipe dream. I don't believe it has ever worked in the history of the Republic and on the rare occasions it has even come close it has guaranteed a loss in the general election. Incumbency just has too much inertia behind it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Primarying a sitting president is always a pipe dream. I don't believe it has ever worked in the history of the Republic and on the rare occasions it has even come close it has guaranteed a loss in the general election. Incumbency just has too much inertia behind it. I think the larger possibility is that hes physically unable to handle the rigors of a presidential run in 24 - the man is barely cogent as is
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I think the larger possibility is that hes physically unable to handle the rigors of a presidential run in 24 - the man is barely cogent as is I mean, four years ago I thought Trump would be an alzheimer's vegetable by now We always want to tell ourselves these people are just too old to possibly keep going but turns out medical science is pretty advanced these days Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, four years ago I thought Trump would be an alzheimer's vegetable by now If you inject and consume enough uppers to kill a horse into yourself daily you can prop up most corpses to be honest
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
No offense, but it's a pipe dream to think a sitting president will be primaried.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JimmyHooverDC/status/1468614917670514691?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What happens is a constitutional crisis. Democratic counties could continue to count protected by US marshals, Republican counties might not and the feds would either have to take over or back down and let a coup happen. The thing is that Democrats are terrified of being the ones to provoke a constitutional crisis by refusing to acknowledge a SCOTUS ruling as illegitimate, so they just go along with whatever insane partisan thing SCOTUS dreams up, because they don't realize that we are already in a constitutional crisis and have been since 2000 when the Supreme Court gave itself the power to appoint the president, no one stopped them, and they have since used that precedent (not the legal precedent set by Bush v Gore, but the political precedent that they can do whatever they want unchallenged) to assert their power to decree laws on any subject at any time regardless of what the executive branch, legislative branch, or constitution say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Thanos was right in Endgame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Biden's getting pirmaried hard if he runs again in 2024 because he's not going to do poo poo before the midterms, let alone after them when the GOP retakes both chambers of Congress (and immediately launch an impeachment hearing against him for the 2020 election). He is not getting primaried lol, anyone who tries that and isn't just some nobody crackpot like the West Virginia dude who "primaried" Obama will be absolutely curbstomped by the party machine worse than Bernie ever was because you do not run against the coronated choice in an open presidential primary, and you sure as gently caress do not primary an incumbent VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Thanos was right in Endgame. There have been actual senile justices and Alito still manages to be the dumbest person to serve on the Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:There have been actual senile justices and Alito still manages to be the dumbest person to serve on the Court. Alito is not an idiot. He's just a complete shithead who openly doesn't care about anything but making his person political views into rulings
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 19:05
|
|
