|
-Blackadder- posted:The thing is we're already seeing absolutely massive swings in the polls just from kicking it back to the states. LegalTwitter is really dragging them over Louisiana, their credibility as an institution is dropping like a stone even among their peers (even Dershowitz called them out for judicial activism lol), the more decisions they release, the worse it gets. I don't see how they keep up this momentum if they want things to stabilize. Especially on Abortion, if they try to go national things are going to get heated. The only justice who cared about their institutional credibility was Roberts and he became irrelevant the moment it went 6-3, which is why you're seeing all of this poo poo roll out so quick. The masks are off, the time of pretending has passed. You're talking about a game that is no longer even being played.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The only justice who cared about their institutional credibility was Roberts and he became irrelevant the moment it went 6-3, which is why you're seeing all of this poo poo roll out so quick. Yup, they got that brass ring in their hot little hands and by god they are cashing in while they still can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Ah yes, known moderate Ketanji-Brown Jackson didn't get past the Senate. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-us-supreme-court-business-labor-unions-race-and-ethnicity-8c6d60600fb6b35f16d7f15bfec5713d Mixed record on labor issues, which is pretty hosed considering how slanted that field is already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The only justice who cared about their institutional credibility was Roberts and he became irrelevant the moment it went 6-3, which is why you're seeing all of this poo poo roll out so quick. I highly recommend Ezra Klein Show from Sunday https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/26/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-dahlia-lithwick.html Dahlia Lithwick very clearly expresses how things are now. This is now the exercise of power for power's sake and it will not stop with Roe. Robert's has lost the court, there will be no more "chipping away" at rights over time, nor does the court any longer care about the social ramifications of their decisions. Feels like this is the crises point that we've seen on the horizon coming to fruition. As someone said, there are some wrinkly-rear end old men lighting 50-year-old cigars and celebrating this week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
What rulings have states successfully ignored in the past? If a state legislature and governor were both on board and decided to ignore a SCOTUS ruling on redistricting, for example, who or what enforcement mechanism could/would stop them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
eXXon posted:What rulings have states successfully ignored in the past? If a state legislature and governor were both on board and decided to ignore a SCOTUS ruling on redistricting, for example, who or what enforcement mechanism could/would stop them? The federal government, so depending on which states are ignoring which SCOTUS election ruling, results may vary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Dameius posted:The federal government, so depending on which states are ignoring which SCOTUS election ruling, results may vary. In that example, what could the federal government actually do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Realize at this point for the hypothetical you're already in constitutional crisis territory. The executive branch would send the troops (federal police, national guard, etc..., depending on where the hypo is going) to oversee fair elections. Presumably this would be done with consent and aide of Congress. At its closest parallel it would be akin to federal administration of former rebellious states during reconstruction after the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Yup, they got that brass ring in their hot little hands and by god they are cashing in while they still can. Yeah, it's pretty amazing what people can do when they actually exercise the power they have instead of constantly claiming their hands are tied but gosh darn another $15 donation might loosen the knots in November. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Yup, they got that brass ring in their hot little hands and by god they are cashing in while they still can. I would imagine the court is going to stay 6-3 for a long time, at least 10+ years. I can't see Thomas retiring during any democratic administration when McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I would imagine the court is going to stay 6-3 for a long time, at least 10+ years. I can't see Thomas retiring during any democratic administration when McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate. Thomas isn't retiring for anyone or anything. I could see him and/or Alito dropping dead of covid strokes or heart attacks, but sans death yeah, court packing is the only way you're going to fix this, and then there's still the equally compromised federal judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
raminasi posted:In that example, what could the federal government actually do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
raminasi posted:In that example, what could the federal government actually do? US Marshal Service can enforce the practical side. Like escorting black kids to schools, or whatever it may be. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I highly recommend Ezra Klein Show from Sunday I said that. And this is a great link, highly recommended pro read/listen. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:US Marshal Service can enforce the practical side. Like escorting black kids to schools, or whatever it may be. For certain things, yeah, but I can't see how the USMS could enforce a legislative map. (Are they printing ballots? Counting them? Arresting every poll worker in the state who distributes the wrong ones?) In practice, it seems like the closest you could get would be arresting and replacing senior election officials, which, if it didn't have the overwhelming support of Congress, would be closer to and I can understand a lot of hesitance to pull that particular trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
raminasi posted:For certain things, yeah, but I can't see how the USMS could enforce a legislative map. (Are they printing ballots? Counting them? Arresting every poll worker in the state who distributes the wrong ones?) In practice, it seems like the closest you could get would be arresting and replacing senior election officials, which, if it didn't have the overwhelming support of Congress, would be closer to The hypothetical's premise starts at, "state government is in open defiance of the federal government and, from the federal government's perspective, conducting illegal elections," so not much room to operate in between that and civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Dameius posted:The hypothetical's premise starts at, "state government is in open defiance of the federal government and, from the federal government's perspective, conducting illegal elections," so not much room to operate in between that and civil war. This was basically what kicked off the Ethiopian civil war between Addis and the Tigray state government in late 2020, for example, with the added wrinkle that the national government had pushed back national elections from August until the next year due to COVID, which made Tigray declare the national government illegitimate and decide to hold their elections in September.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Dameius posted:The hypothetical's premise starts at, "state government is in open defiance of the federal government and, from the federal government's perspective, conducting illegal elections," so not much room to operate in between that and civil war. Isn’t this the like actual point of the electoral count act? Or the legislative bodies ability to not seat a member? I swear the right telegraphs its punches by chaffing up the avenues of accountability then claiming both sides when that accountability would be used against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do we know who is writing the majority opinion for the EPA case? They try to equally distribute opinions within each argument sitting. The EPA case was heard in the February sitting and it looks like Alito, Roberts, Kagan, and Sotomayor haven’t authored any opinions from that sitting. So it’s a good guess that one of them has it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
raminasi posted:In that example, what could the federal government actually do? In the case of an illegal election, Congress could refuse to seat the disputed representatives. That's something that can be appealed to the Supreme Court (and in fact, there's Supreme Court decisions heavily limiting that power), but good luck getting the Supreme Court to force the House to recognize the winner of an election that was conducted in open defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. In theory, Congress could just say "we're refusing to seat any representatives from your state until you obey the Supreme Court ruling".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm seeing memes on Facebook with his alleged home address. it's a shame the other 5 justices address's aren't being reposted every day on here and on twitter. Nothing illegal about that. Ethically, those address' should be reposted as much as possible. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Lmao just tongue loving the asses of the fascism wizards who just wrote with their dumb little pens that people should be obliged to die bleeding from a bundle of cells growing in their fallopian tube rather than receive medical care for it. No, don't be mean to the wizards!! No posting for you, 6 hours Dogshit probations (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Nope other than it will be on of the six biggest monsters on the court. Lol probated for truth (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
But have you considered the pros and cons of dismantling the administrative state?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Sometimes, it's the big things I'll be honest, Obergefell or Lawrence is where I see a lot of people getting hurt, because the same people who love doing violence against LGBT people now will take it as open season to escalate to lynchings. Cimber posted:No, its bad, and might even be super bad if you take it to the logical conclusion. Native sovereignty over those lands, I note, is older than the state of Oklahoma. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'll be honest, Obergefell or Lawrence is where I see a lot of people getting hurt, because the same people who love doing violence against LGBT people now will take it as open season to escalate to lynchings. I'm hoping that Roberts and Gorsuch would vote to maintain both decisions since they also voted that gay and transgender people got protection under the Civil Right Act of 1964. Plus undoing them, especially Lawrence, seems like it would disrupt aspects of the criminal justice system and invalidate a huge number of legal contracts (which is basically what marriages are). Roe was a little different because the SC basically sent it back to the individual states to decide (granted they knew how a lot of those states would decide). But the idea that Mike and Steve are married in California but not in Alabama, that they can have legal marital relations in Vermont but not in Mississippi... I think/hope a majority of the SC will choke on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Free terrorist ambulance, a good Canadian lad who means well, and, most importantly, is 100% correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Imo breyer can do a whole lot of good before he retires
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
This was more a dumb Twitter “gotcha” that got off the rails, and since I admittedly know very little figured I’d let you all tear me to bits. But assuming the impending death of the administrative state does occur, and the majority opinion bothers to cloak it in a thin veneer of logic, there seems to be a consensus that this would resemble the argument that it is harmful or unconstitutional to place regulatory powers in the hands of unelected individuals. Wouldn’t that set precedent for abolishing judicial review?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
It's important to document the undemocratic, oligarchic behaviour of the Roberts court. This year's rulings have made it explicit that SCOTUS is now a political body that makes decisions based on Republican policy, not precedent or intelligent legal analysis. Assuming good faith from the justices, or the politicians who appoint them, is fatally flawed. Any discussion of SCOTUS should acknowledge this reality, and it's an important question to consider what comes next. It's possible that the current situation will continue for some time, as Congress cedes more of its power to a non-elected body. The intended checks and balances don't work when Republicans in Congress care more about Republican power than they care about the power of the legislative branch. We can discuss the legal reasoning contained in these rulings as if they are legitimate thoughts from a Supreme Court functioning as intended, rather than the dictates of a tyrannical body that contradicts the will of the people, but to what end? As the Supreme Court is behaving in an extraordinary way, any discussion of it must be prepared for extraordinary discussion of what could happen if there were a serious push back against the court's power. As such, I'm making the following point in good faith: Those are some dogshit probes and Cinci Zoo Sniper should be ashamed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
killa-pope posted:This was more a dumb Twitter “gotcha” that got off the rails, and since I admittedly know very little figured I’d let you all tear me to bits. But assuming the impending death of the administrative state does occur, and the majority opinion bothers to cloak it in a thin veneer of logic, there seems to be a consensus that this would resemble the argument that it is harmful or unconstitutional to place regulatory powers in the hands of unelected individuals. It's against the laws of physics for an institution to decide to reduce its own power. It's like expecting an apple to reattach itself to the tree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:It's against the laws of physics for an institution to decide to reduce its own power. It's like expecting an apple to reattach itself to the tree. Oh to be sure, the last thing I’d expect is this or any future court to intentionally do so. This is more of a sanity check, I guess? Such a ruling would seem to provide cover for a legislature to run roughshod over them, assuming they were willing. Which means it will be in 50 years when there’s a liberal court again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'll be honest, Obergefell or Lawrence is where I see a lot of people getting hurt, because the same people who love doing violence against LGBT people now will take it as open season to escalate to lynchings. As a white person born in Oklahoma, I feel obligated to point this out to anyone who will hear. The territory that became Oklahoma was promised to native Americans who traveled there by foot and horseback, from as far as Florida. After only a short while, at the end of the 19th century, the US govt took the land back creating Oklahoma. Land theft atop land theft. The five tribes who were relocated here had little to no historic connection to the geographic region. Prior to their relocation, I believe the area was mostly covered by various nomadic people but my memory is hazy of the details. My grandfather was born in Oklahoma on the eve of statehood, my grandmother soon after. They were in the first generation of white people to settle that great flat land. Growing up, we celebrated the "land run" in elementary school, simulating the theft every spring. They had us dress in "pioneer" clothing and run across the playground to stake our claim to the earth. The way the story was told, Oklahoma was unsettled land and the US govt was offering it freely to anyone, starting at noon on a certain day that was well advertised. Every white Oklahoman is propagandized in this way. Our most well known football team is named after the families who ran to stake their claim too early, the Sooners. The majority of white Oklahomans are directly descended from original settlers and no one talks about it. At all. Two generations ago, white people stole Oklahoma from Indians and I think we should turn the entire state back over as a start. It was shocking when it halfway happened last year and the pendulum swing back to US control comes at no surprise. Leon Sumbitches fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:It's against the laws of physics for an institution to decide to reduce its own power. It's like expecting an apple to reattach itself to the tree. The Republicans in Congress are willing to let the legislature become completely dysfunctional, because they don't want a working government anyway, and they know that the Supreme Court lets them wield power regardless of what the voters think. (Democrats don't want a functional government either, but they care about the status quo.) If a scenario ever happens where somehow SCOTUS has a long-lasting liberal majority, but Congress is controlled by Republicans, watch how quickly it becomes important for the legislative branch to have power and the judicial branch to have none.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It's important to document the undemocratic, oligarchic behaviour of the Roberts court. This year's rulings have made it explicit that SCOTUS is now a political body that makes decisions based on Republican policy, not precedent or intelligent legal analysis. Assuming good faith from the justices, or the politicians who appoint them, is fatally flawed. Any discussion of SCOTUS should acknowledge this reality, and it's an important question to consider what comes next. It's possible that the current situation will continue for some time, as Congress cedes more of its power to a non-elected body. The intended checks and balances don't work when Republicans in Congress care more about Republican power than they care about the power of the legislative branch. We can discuss the legal reasoning contained in these rulings as if they are legitimate thoughts from a Supreme Court functioning as intended, rather than the dictates of a tyrannical body that contradicts the will of the people, but to what end? As the Supreme Court is behaving in an extraordinary way, any discussion of it must be prepared for extraordinary discussion of what could happen if there were a serious push back against the court's power. Document as you will. The problem as I see is that the first Probed person was calling for the publication of the home address of SC Justices. And it's not about "making them uncomfortable." It's about that crazy fucker who shows up because he's "realized" that the best way to "change the dynamic" is to assassinate those judges. ' Something Awful survived Slenderman and Lowtax. I don't want to find out if it can survive "Website implicated in plot to murder Supreme Court Justices."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Are addresses not public knowledge? Mine is, and I don’t even have the comfort of a fence to keep protestors away. I know I got half an answer to this earlier—it sounds like they’re not published anywhere, but how can the location of a big fancy house be considered secret? One neighbor gets pissed at Thomas jacking it into a coke can with the blinds open and lets everyone know and that’s that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Are addresses not public knowledge? Mine is, and I don’t even have the comfort of a fence to keep protestors away. I know I got half an answer to this earlier—it sounds like they’re not published anywhere, but how can the location of a big fancy house be considered secret? One neighbor gets pissed at Thomas jacking it into a coke can with the blinds open and lets everyone know and that’s that. They're not currently protected, though there are efforts to pass legislation to make it a crime to post SCOTUS addresses online. It's a bad bill for lots of reasons, but given that we have a quite recent example of someone going to the home of a federal judge to try to kill her (and succeeding in killing her son and wounding her husband) maybe let's not post their addresses here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
These aren’t real judges though. Their victims aren’t personally connected to them. They’re politicians like any other - and no such laws exist or should exist to censor public knowledge of basic facts like where Representatives live.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:33
|
|
|
killa-pope posted:This was more a dumb Twitter “gotcha” that got off the rails, and since I admittedly know very little figured I’d let you all tear me to bits. But assuming the impending death of the administrative state does occur, and the majority opinion bothers to cloak it in a thin veneer of logic, there seems to be a consensus that this would resemble the argument that it is harmful or unconstitutional to place regulatory powers in the hands of unelected individuals. No, not at all. The predicted basis for striking down Chevron would have nothing to do with whether or not the regulators were elected. Rather, the basis would be that the Constitution says that only Congress can exercise these powers. The judges would rule that since the Constitution says these powers belong to Congress, only Congress would be able to use them, and therefore they can't delegate their constitutional powers to other branches. It's nothing to do with electedness, it's just an appeal to the text of the Constitution. Kaal posted:These aren’t real judges though. Their victims aren’t personally connected to them. They’re politicians like any other - and no such laws exist or should exist to censor public knowledge of basic facts like where Representatives live. Posting people's home addresses, whether they're political actors or not, very rarely contributes anything of value to discussion. If you have a good reason to incorporate it into your argument, that's one thing, but it's hard to think of a serious line of discussion that would be enhanced by posting somebody's home address. SCOTUS judges are obviously real judges, and redefining words like this doesn't contribute much either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
Everyone posted:Document as you will. The problem as I see is that the first Probed person was calling for the publication of the home address of SC Justices. What in the gently caress are you talking about? Those addresses are already public, they don't need to be posted here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 07:45
|
|