|
Main Paineframe posted:Who said anything about legitimacy? When you've got state governments arguing with the federal government over who won the election, legitimacy kind of goes out the window regardless. It's not as if a judicial intervention (like Bush v Gore) is much better. In essence implying that once Republicans hold all branches of the government the mechanism to invalidate any non Republican victory becomes complete?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:No, that’s not what anyone in the field of environmental law is saying. While the holding was narrower than it could have been, the case effectively gives a tool to every Fed Soc district judge to strike down — or at least nationally enjoin for months — any regulations they don’t like. Major question is a completely subjective standard that gives plenty of leeway to judges, and is a huge change in doctrine. My early take was along the lines of Rigel's, but that sounds plausible. Obviously the actual protocol here is me waiting for Andrew Openingarguments to tell me what to think.  I appreciate you and everyone else who is making substantive posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Sorry, I didn't realize you meant within the party. Ah yeah ok that's what I was talking about In general elections there's no conflict between supporting your personal power and supporting the power of the party even if the candidate sucks it's still better to win than lose, so I wasn't talking about that. Well arguably, someone could argue the other way I suppose but I wasn't arguing that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who said anything about legitimacy? When you've got state governments arguing with the federal government over who won the election, legitimacy kind of goes out the window regardless. It's not as if a judicial intervention (like Bush v Gore) is much better. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
The only real answer to the SCOTUS is for blue states to come together and jointly announce they will no longer follow the court's rulings. Biden's a piece of poo poo who'd probably order them all arrested for treason but the court is beyond corrupt in how it's just going down the right wing checklist and half-assing (at most) legal justifications for those rulings. The US is heading for a catastrophic and extremely violent end due to decades of kicking the can down the road. GaussianCopula posted:Actually the Defence of Marriage Act (DOPA) is still on the books, which means if Obergefell would be struck down, gay marriage would be federally outlawed again. Any judge or lawyer who thinks "laws not enshrined don't exist" should have the 9th amendment tattooed on their forehead shortly before being thrown into a pit of rabid squirrels. Zeron posted:Yeah I'm not studied on law but it seems like the big portion of this decision is that schools cannot ban religious activity just because they "fear" that it is against the law/constitution. Even if this particular circumstance was completely on the level, this opens schools up to being sued for literally anything that prevents students/teachers from doing religious activities. And then courts can use this as precedent to force them to allow it. So to avoid being sued, schools would be very afraid to disallow any actions even if they were beyond the pale/illegal. Also in general it seems like they've massively narrowed what can be counted as going against separation of church and state. A lot of knock on effects. The goal with this case was to make it easier to indoctrinate children into their chosen hosed up flavor of Christianity because fewer and fewer young people are religious since they're seeing the bullshit for what it is. Constantly beat them over the head with it until they give in or hook them when they're still young and impressionable. Or both. Bizarro Kanyon posted:Well this is not good. They really don't want to waste time or risk the Dems somehow not getting crushed in 2024, I guess. Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. If Biden wasn't a worthless piece of poo poo, his response to this would be "cool so by this logic the federation goverment can set whatever rules we want for elections too with no oversight. Shelby county's back and if you don't like it tough poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
This kind of poo poo is only going to hyper-charge irreligiosity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If Biden wasn't a worthless piece of poo poo, his response to this would be "cool so by this logic the federation goverment can set whatever rules we want for elections too with no oversight. Shelby county's back and if you don't like it tough poo poo." Wouldn't that just result in the federal government filing a bunch of civil suits that get immediately thrown out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Wouldn't that just result in the federal government filing a bunch of civil suits that get immediately thrown out? The federal government has the most guns and the biggest guns. As well as control over the money red states need to survive and not turn into the 3rd world shitholes the GOP is trying to make the country into. Grape posted:This kind of poo poo is only going to hyper-charge irreligiosity. Only in the kids who aren't successfully brainwashed, which the GOP intends to make as small a number as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The federal government has the most guns and the biggest guns. As well as control over the money red states need to survive and not turn into the 3rd world shitholes the GOP is trying to make the country into. This implies the federal government being run by a party that's capable of meaningful action. Realistically, the response to SCOTUS removing judicial oversight from elections will be Nancy Pelosi reading two poems (because it's very serious), immediately followed up by an email asking for money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If Biden wasn't a worthless piece of poo poo, his response to this would be "cool so by this logic the federation goverment can set whatever rules we want for elections too with no oversight. Shelby county's back and if you don't like it tough poo poo." One thing to keep in mind (which may be a meaningless distinction, as I'll close with), the independent legislature theory doesn't say that the Feds are powerless here. The congress gets to set basic rules for elections which the states have to follow. The states then fill in the blanks wherever the congress wasn't clear or decided not to give guidance. Many states have state constitutions which have election rules and there have been ballot initiatives from the people like independent redistricting commissions restricting the state legislature from partisan fuckery. Under the theory that the SCOTUS is signalling they might believe in, the state legislatures can ignore their own state constitution, the people, and any vetos by the governor, because they and they alone (under this theory) decide what to do about federal elections in those areas where congress wasn't clear or left it up to the states. Congress could still pass a really big election reform law like HR1. But then of course the Supreme Court could be standing by waiting to strike it down for.... reasons, and innocently go "what? You passed an unconstitutional law, so don't get mad at us, it is not our fault. Congress still has priority to make rules about federal elections over the state legislatures, but next time pass a law that we don't hate. Oops your out of time? Well shucks, guess we'll go with what the state legislatures set up then, better luck next election." That is even assuming the GOP doesn't just simply take one of the houses of congress and goes "yep, what the states are doing looks fine to us".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Congress could still pass a really big election reform law like HR1. Could is doing a LOT of work here. They theoretically have the legal authority to do so... they totally can't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
I would hope that this would actually cause the Dems to do something, its not a "little people" problem like Roe but something that tangibly and negatively affects them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Serous posted:I would hope that this would actually cause the Dems to do something, its not a "little people" problem like Roe but something that tangibly and negatively affects them. I believe that one of the unspoken reasons why the Dems pushed Manchin and Sinema extremely hard on HR1 even to the point of forcing a doomed vote on filibuster reform, is that for a lot of them this is an existential threat to them keeping their own jobs. They may care a lot about "issues", but not as much as being in Congress. Winning re-election is issue #1 for a lot of these people, so it was literally HR1/S1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
So if I'm reading this EPA opinion correctly, they are saying that the agency can't outright ban CO2 emissions, because it effects other places like office buildings where people exhale a lot of CO2, but they also can't put limits on CO2 emissions because they're only allowed to ban things? The whole opinion is incredibly confusing and contradictory, saying first that the agency needs to provide a clear path towards achieving a pollutant emission reduction goal, but then also handwaves away the fact that this regulation is itself the path towards achieving a goal of lower carbon emissions from the electricity grid in general because "power generation" apparently isn't being regulated according to them, "coal plants" are, and coal plants can't reduce emissions in any way that isn't just a reduction in power production, so for them specifically there's no path to achieve the goal. They keep alluding to a way in which this regulation would be fine, because they explicitly state that they don't have any problem with the EPA making sure immediately dangerous chemicals aren't released so clearly there are ways to regulate some industries, but whenever they bring one up they then immediately explain that actually the EPA can't regulate things in that manner. The EPA could have banned coal burning entirely, but they can't because they need to weigh it against impacts on grid capacity and they aren't tasked by congress with that authority. They even say that cap and trade is fine for things like sulfur dioxide because congress set an explicit limit in the bill, and then it's also okay for carbon monoxide because even though they didn't set an explicit limit they specifically say a "safe concentration of the pollutant in the ambient air ... based on some scientific, objective criterion." And even though the law also says that the EPA is in charge of regulating other stuff, not just the few examples they knew about at the time, actually they can't because they aren't allowed to do science you need to set limits. "They can do it this way but they also can't" is effectively the whole opinion. It's so obviously starting at the conclusion that the EPA cannot regulate CO2 emissions in any way and then just making up reasons why the law narrowly doesn't allow them to. It's infuriating Stereotype fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
wait is "did u know? humans also exhale CO2 too! therefore..." actually a part of that opinion
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:wait is "did u know? humans also exhale CO2 too! therefore..." actually a part of that opinion "...when he himself is made of carbon!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:wait is "did u know? humans also exhale CO2 too! therefore..." actually a part of that opinion  because regulating carbon emissions means regulating schools and churches, it means regulating everyone's exhaled breath. that's why they can force the regulation to undergo stricter scrutiny
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:
Given this sudden interest in human chemical emotion, at least the water wars are going to be legally interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Congress could still pass a really big election reform law like HR1. But then of course the Supreme Court could be standing by waiting to strike it down for.... reasons, and innocently go "what? You passed an unconstitutional law, so don't get mad at us, it is not our fault. Congress still has priority to make rules about federal elections over the state legislatures, but next time pass a law that we don't hate. Oops your out of time? Well shucks, guess we'll go with what the state legislatures set up then, better luck next election." That is even assuming the GOP doesn't just simply take one of the houses of congress and goes "yep, what the states are doing looks fine to us". I'm going to say it again. This is the most important mid-term election in your life time. This only confirms it. Vote hard and vote with your friends and allies like there is no tomarrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Under the theory that the SCOTUS is signalling they might believe in, the state legislatures can ignore their own state constitution, the people, and any vetos by the governor, because they and they alone (under this theory) decide what to do about federal elections in those areas where congress wasn't clear or left it up to the states. The state legislatures are creatures of, and powerless to act outside the rules (including gubernatorial vetoes and judicial review) set by, their respective states' constitutions. Everyone should feel free, and in fact obligated, to ignore SCOTUS rulings to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Comstar posted:When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it? The SCOTUS calendar goes from the first Monday in October to the first Monday in October the following year, with most of the decisions being released in June.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
shades of eternity posted:I'm going to say it again. In a 6-3 decision my vote was rendered moot
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
Comstar posted:When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it? Bush v. Gore was decided over 20 years ago, OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
Comstar posted:When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it? I'm sure you mean this as a tongue in cheek post, but my serious reply would be to worry seriously about Moore v. Harper. That will be heard in October of 2022, but the decision won't come out until after the midterms. To quote electoral-vote.com's writeup of this issue: quote:The specific issue in question is the North Carolina district maps, which the Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered six ways to Sunday, and the Democratic-controlled state Supreme Court struck down. The Republican legislators are arguing that the Constitution gives them sole authority to administer federal elections, and that they should therefore not be answerable to the courts in elections-related matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
Question: does the SC have an explicit right, as granted by either the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, to rule on the Constitutionality of any law, or are they only explicitly the final court of appeals? If neither then by their own recent logic they have no authority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sure you mean this as a tongue in cheek post, but my serious reply would be to worry seriously about Moore v. Harper. That will be heard in October of 2022, but the decision won't come out until after the midterms. To quote electoral-vote.com's writeup of this issue: That's what I meant, thanks. So they hear the arguments in 4 months, and release the resulting destruction of American democracy in...May next year? I would think they'd want to get it out early. Hope my Kickstarter miniatures arrive before then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:Question: does the SC have an explicit right, as granted by either the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, to rule on the Constitutionality of any law, or are they only explicitly the final court of appeals? If neither then by their own recent logic they have no authority. No they granted that to themselves as the only logical possible conclusion way back in marbury v Madison
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
Cimber posted:snip Did the SCOTUS when already 6-3 not throw out lawyer's attempts to decertify election results in states like Arizona? And even if they did the Biden admin and their DOJ would throw out any states attempts to decertify the election, refuse to budge and stay in power. So I think they're gonna give the state legislatures more leeway but stop short of giving them absolute control. Something in-between, just like yesterday's ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:Question: does the SC have an explicit right, as granted by either the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, to rule on the Constitutionality of any law, or are they only explicitly the final court of appeals? If neither then by their own recent logic they have no authority. Actually, the ability to strike down laws that the SC uses is not an explicit right, but is instead one it granted to itself in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison of 1803. In that case the court decided that because a law conflicted with the constitution, then that law was not a valid law and was struck down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison Yes, congress could do something about it if they really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Read back what you just quoted about decertification. Well, we just don't know. If this was five years ago I'd say maybe, but we have Thomas who's said that its his mission in life to make the libs cry, and we have 3 justices appointed by trump who are fight right extremists. Thats four justices right there who don't give two shits about Stare decisis. Peel off one more justice from either Roberts or Alito and then we got a really bad day in America. And there is NOTHING we can do about it once that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Just read this before you continue dooming, aight?quote:...And the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the ISL theory when upholding this kind of state regulation. As recently as 2015, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Supreme Court rejected ISL by upholding the use of independent redistricting commissions – bodies that are decidedly not the “legislature” – for federal congressional elections. And, in 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, all nine justices agreed that state constitutions could be used as a check on partisan gerrymandering in congressional elections. Adopting the ISL theory is thus at odds with more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and would disrupt whole bodies of law written by state legislatures and reviewed by state courts relying on that precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:25
|
|
|
They might not formaly adopt ISL but still say "well, you should listen to your elected legislature and if you don't like it, elect new ones. These maps are nonjusticiable except that they stand." Kinda like how they didn't formally kill chevron yet still produced the expected outcome in the immediate case at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:They might not formaly adopt ISL but still say "well, you should listen to your elected legislature and if you don't like it, elect new ones. These maps are nonjusticiable except that they stand." "You don't like the maps that the hyperpartisan legislature drew up? Well, just vote them all out and vote in new people to redraw the maps!" "But....we can't vote them out since the hyperpartisan legislature drew up maps that is explicitly designed to keep them in power...." "Sucks to be you! This is non justicable! Don't like it, vote them out!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Adopting ISL would be the dumb-equivalent of axing Chevron - something the scotus decided not to do yesterday. They granted cert. They absolutely did not have to do that, and a lot of people expected them to refuse to hear the case, because the legislature's map was blocked (we thought) only by state law via the state constitution, and not by Federal law. ISL is the only plausible way they could make this into a Federal issue. Saying "sure, lets seriously consider this wacky ISL theory" is a gigantic red flag, on fire, with sirens blaring in the background. Harold Fjord posted:They might not formaly adopt ISL but still say "well, you should listen to your elected legislature and if you don't like it, elect new ones. These maps are nonjusticiable except that they stand." No one is going to the supreme court asking them to strike it down based on Federal law. Its already struck down by state courts based on state law, and they should have just stayed out of it. This is the supreme court sticking their nose into this and somehow saying there is a federal issue, and the question asked by the appeal which they agreed to hear is solely based on ISL. Rigel fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:
A couple pages back but what a baffling claim and weird whataboitism. What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Honestly having an issue with Marbury vs. Madison seems really ridiculous unless you're coming from a literal textualist interpretation (like a level of caricatured textualism) or just bad faith desire to override the court. It clearly wasn't the intention of the drafters of the Constitution and doesn't make any sense that laws passed by Congress should override the Constitution. In which case you need a body that can decide if a law does break the Constitution. For a reducto and absurdum imagine Congress passing a law stating that the US army soldiers will be quartered in people's houses from now on to save DoD budget. The supreme court is the most obvious option for deciding on matters of laws and which conflict and it certainly doesn't conflict with how law courts worked previously. The British crown didn't win every case they brought simply because they represented the king.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Honestly having an issue with Marbury vs. Madison seems really ridiculous unless you're coming from a literal textualist interpretation (like a level of caricatured textualism) or just bad faith desire to override the court. It clearly wasn't the intention of the drafters of the Constitution and doesn't make any sense that laws passed by Congress should override the Constitution. To hammer on drafting intent as well you have to keep in mind that the capital C “Constitution” in the UK is literally just a number of collection of laws that parliament has passed since olden times and there are theoretically no enshrined rights that require special rules to remove like we have here. Parliament is the ultimate sovereign with no checks other than what’s customary, and can theoretically pass a law saying “every 3rd baby born shall be thrown out” and no court or countervailing governmental authority can stop them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Just read this before you continue dooming, aight? I don't think we can take what they said in their confirmation hearings as truth. I think they only didn't axe Chevron because that would have been so immediately crippling to the Federal government's ability to function that it would give weight to the voices saying "ignore the court, they can't enforce this", and even Biden might have listened to those voices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:I don't think we can take what they said in their confirmation hearings as truth. They can axe Chevron after they have finished off the judicial coup and ensured a permanent Republican majority for the next 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 18:23
|
|