|
Evil Fluffy posted:e: The argument for ISL is also much more extreme than saying that the US Congress has sole authority over US election law and that the SCOTUS has no authority to rule on such matters, including prior cases like Shelby County. It could be a Dred Scott-tier ruling and with similarly cataclysmic results. I'm curious, could you expand on this, please? Also, attempting (as much as possible) to assume that the FedSoc 6 are true believers in whatever their strand of legal theory is (ex: Thomas' hate on for substantive due process or Gorsuch's broken clock obsession with Native American rights/Tribal sovereignty), what are the likely (or most popular) arguments in favor of ISL and how legitimate are they? In other words, how much support does ISL have in modern American jurisprudence, and how would the legal community perceive/react to an SC decision in favor of it?
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Cimber posted:I wonder, is the Dobbs decision going to gently caress with everyone who has embryos frozen for IVF? Not everyone, just everyone in red states. IVF treatments routinely create more embryos than come to term just because the process is unreliable; disposing of those counts as murder to pro-lifers
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Not everyone, just everyone in red states. IVF treatments routinely create more embryos than come to term just because the process is unreliable; disposing of those counts as murder to pro-lifers They don’t actually seem to care or push to enforce anything about that though afiak
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
Ezra Klein put out a podcast this week delving into the partisan nature of the Supreme Court. It's worth listening to, though I think that it's difficult to come away from it without recognizing that the current moderate position is that the Supreme Court is fundamentally destabilizing the concept of American law and justice. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-shaw.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:They don’t actually seem to care or push to enforce anything about that though afiak The true zealots care (well, they care about enacting fetal personhood, and do not care that this would eliminate IVF). The ones taking advantage of the true zealots would prefer to not be seen attacking desperate couples trying to have children, so they try to keep the discourse away from this
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Ezra Klein put out a podcast this week delving into the partisan nature of the Supreme Court. It's worth listening to, though I think that it's difficult to come away from it without recognizing that the current moderate position is that the Supreme Court is fundamentally destabilizing the concept of American law and justice. It's actually somewhat heartening to hear a middle of the road NYT's pundit, who wants very badly to believe in the good faith of conservative positions, unable to reconcile the actions of the court with anything other than the intentional enshrinement of minority rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:It's actually somewhat heartening to hear a middle of the road NYT's pundit, who wants very badly to believe in the good faith of conservative positions, unable to reconcile the actions of the court with anything other than the intentional enshrinement of minority rule. I mean there's a reason people like Roberts are leery of this kind of stuff even though they support the ideas in question. Moving it really fast and aggressively bypasses boiling the frog to death slowly, people feel the sudden burn and react. It's why yeah, letting state legislatures do whatever is horrifying, but it will also be openly horrifying. Maybe not right away to most people, but come 2024 to have "this was the vote count, and the state house said naw" is against the basic idea most people have about how voting works. It's all very naked and raw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:It's actually somewhat heartening to hear a middle of the road NYT's pundit, who wants very badly to believe in the good faith of conservative positions, unable to reconcile the actions of the court with anything other than the intentional enshrinement of minority rule. I was reading somewhere (I forget where) that the recent rulings were a mess philosophically, because while they were attempting to justify their decisions with historical precedent, they were in fact cherry-picking which historical precedent they wanted to follow that just supported the decision they already made. So they might pick decisions from 1500, 1720, 1792, 1850 as proof of historical belief, but would also ignore poo poo from 1600, 1735, 1800 and 1855 that didn't support what they were saying. This is causing a lot of confusion by professional jurists as they don't know what historical basis test would be legitimate and which would be overturned. It's so bad that the American Bar Association has had to put out a statement saying that all students taking the bar exam this summer are to disregard the decision rendered at the end of term 2021. https://abovethelaw.com/2022/06/taking-the-bar-exam-dont-worry-this-disastrous-scotus-term-wont-be-tested/
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
In fairness the bar exam thing makes sense regardless of the quality of the decisions. Students have just had some absolutely massive changes to how the law should work and it would be kind of lovely to expect them to fully process it in time for their exams. Not to mention having to redraft the whole exam to identify what answers are now wrong. I don't think it's much of a comment on the quality of the rulings. That said, the rulings are dog poo poo and the obvious answer to 'what is the correct historical test' is does it support an outcome that promotes GOP policy? Then it's appropriate. If not then it's an historical aberration that can be ignored or isn't actually analogous to the legal matter in question even if seems almost identical because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Grape posted:I mean there's a reason people like Roberts are leery of this kind of stuff even though they support the ideas in question. Moving it really fast and aggressively bypasses boiling the frog to death slowly, people feel the sudden burn and react.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That is exactly what the interstate electoral college thing is trying to do, by the way. There would have to be states who vote GOP in the election turning electoral college votes to dems for it to work. *cough* Georga *cough*
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That is exactly what the interstate electoral college thing is trying to do, by the way. There would have to be states who vote GOP in the election turning electoral college votes to dems for it to work. I think people would pretty much accept it though, because the media and all candidates would be going into the election telling the voters that NPV will decide it. People wouldn't really be focused on electoral votes at all, we'd just be staring at two big numbers ticking up for a few days after the election. This isn't that. This is the voters being told we are having a fair election, then the GOP going "actually no, we still win even if we lose"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Cimber posted:*cough* Georga *cough* Rigel posted:I think people would pretty much accept it though, because the media and all candidates would be going into the election telling the voters that NPV will decide it. People wouldn't really be focused on electoral votes at all, we'd just be staring at two big numbers ticking up for a few days after the election. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Yes, the "history and traditions" cases are transparently setting things up to allow lower court chuds to rule however they want by cherrypicking about "what things used to be like" to rule whatever way the modern day Republican party wants
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I was reading somewhere (I forget where) that the recent rulings were a mess philosophically, because while they were attempting to justify their decisions with historical precedent, they were in fact cherry-picking which historical precedent they wanted to follow that just supported the decision they already made. Doesn’t the bar exam always ignore the most recent scotus decisions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the bar exam thing is normal - they rarely test you on the most recent term, it just usually isn’t a big deal because it’s minor tweaks or in untested areas. It’s just that they’ve made such huge changes in areas the exam does test (esp con law) that they had to explicitly say it this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think people would pretty much accept it though, because the media and all candidates would be going into the election telling the voters that NPV will decide it. People wouldn't really be focused on electoral votes at all, we'd just be staring at two big numbers ticking up for a few days after the election. That and the NPVIC has the backing that it will reflect the popular vote of the nation, whereas ISL has the backing of "gently caress you, we win with even less of the vote share than we earned" The NPVIC is also a dirty hack. The correct procedure here would be to amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college, but that's impossible thanks to the consequences of allowing the electoral college to remain in effect for so long haveblue fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, the bar exam thing is normal - they rarely test you on the most recent term, it just usually isn’t a big deal because it’s minor tweaks or in untested areas. It’s just that they’ve made such huge changes in areas the exam does test (esp con law) that they had to explicitly say it this time. Yeah, the Court dive bombed the load bearing pillar for pretty much the entire right to privacy jurisprudence so, uh, you can't just rewrite the entire con law exam and expect the students to re-study for it in a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
I teach high school government and I am going to have to change A LOT of what I go over. The last 6 years of government have already had me say “this is how it normally worked” a lot but it seems like how I teach government is going to be fully changing from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yes, the "history and traditions" cases are transparently setting things up to allow lower court chuds to rule however they want by cherrypicking about "what things used to be like" to rule whatever way the modern day Republican party wants
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I'm curious, could you expand on this, please? The popular argument for ISL is that it would give the GOP unassailable control over the country. They've gerrymandered so many state legislatures they can guarantee themselves the White House since even if there were some historic blowout where they lose by 30+ points they could have their state legislatures say "nope doesn't count because we say so" under ISL. Support for it is irrelevant beyond the SCOTUS and political movers within the GOP. Even if the rest of the country hates it there's nothing they can do to stop the SCOTUS through legal means if the SCOTUS decides to go nuclear and give this poo poo the greenlight because the right has been preparing for violence for decades while the left just kept insisting that they can be the adults in the room and meet the violent extremists in the middle. I know Clinton was trash but when the Bush v. Gore decision came down he should've sent the US Marshals to round up the SCOTUS, announce that their decision is non-binding, and for Florida's election system to continue its work. Instead like all worthless shitlibs he just shrugged and moved on with his life because he knew he'd spend the rest of his days rich and powerful so why put that at risk. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Thanks, I was wondering about it from more of a legal theory standpoint. Like, is ISL something legitimate in modern American jurisprudence or is it considered literally just the modern medicine equivalent of phrenology?
-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 07:56
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Thanks, I was wondering about it from more of a legal theory standpoint. Like, is ISL something legitimate in modern American jurisprudence or is it considered literally just the modern medicine equivalent of phrenology? I'd say the difference there with phrenology or your pre-edit example is that phrenology cannot achieve the results its adherents claim, and any rare alignment between reality and its predictions are essentially random chance, because its theories are unscientific and it is not properly analyzing observable physical reality. Methods of political representation and governmental processes have nothing to do with physics or biology. A new political election method taking effect or not is purely a function of enough high-level political actors wanting to see it, wielding enough political power to implement it, and enjoying enough buy-in from populations subject to it that its outcomes are accepted without real pushback. I doubt any serious working lawyer has given ISL any more thought than "this is laughable Kraken-tier nonsense" until last month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis? How, specifically, would it have been authoritarian to tell SCOTUS they can't stop a recount (required by law) at the request of one of the candidates' brother?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
As just demonstrated, it appears to be the natural state of things that Americans will interpret the left playing hardball to preserve democratic norms as naturally more authoritarian than the right doing the same to overtly subvert democracy. It's always been a problem, but we do seriously seem to be living through an increasingly acute crisis of severely asymmetric standards. We (America and her political thought leader caste) are lending too much credulous leeway to the likes of judges that the American Bar Association handed nonpartisan, objective "not qualified" ratings. Where ostensibly-qualified justices of the Supreme Court are concerned, we continue to tolerate the antics of judges who routinely question the basis or application of war-earned equal protection with poo poo-you-not Medieval legal values as though this was a cute thought experiment in a classroom rather than a country of 320 million thinking, feeling l, often-suffering people. The string of radical religious extremism on display in our highest court may be waking a few moderates from their stupor, but we're still in deep trouble with respect to lending respect to an institution that has sold itself out to Great Awakening conspiracy theories and White Replacement panic. To make it absolutely clear in case it is not possible to read between the lines here and answer the topic at hand, I believe it is shameful to ask the question "by what right would someone stop a judicial coup" as though Bush v Gore involved purely academic circumstances rather than matters that permanently injured the health and integrity of constitutional law in the United States. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 09:46
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis? Gore v. Bush is a clear example of official corruption - government workers get arrested for this sort of thing routinely, and it isn't seen as authoritarian. Citizens United is another example of an act of bribery and corruption that goes way past impeachable into blatantly criminal behavior. Recognizing that officials cannot violate the law, thumb the scales for their friends, or personally profit from their authority isn't edgy leftist headcanon, it's a normal moderate belief in the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What consequences do you think would get, say, Manchin to fall in line on this? Plenty of House committees could investigate the skyrocketing prices of oh, I don't know, epi pens for example. And bring to the capital anyone involved in that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
Devorum posted:How, specifically, would it have been authoritarian to tell SCOTUS they can't stop a recount (required by law) at the request of one of the candidates' brother? Because doing something, anything, that might inconvenice powerful people is authoritarian overreach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 13:14
|
|
Kaal posted:Gore v. Bush is a clear example of official corruption - government workers get arrested for this sort of thing routinely, and it isn't seen as authoritarian. Citizens United is another example of an act of bribery and corruption that goes way past impeachable into blatantly criminal behavior. Recognizing that officials cannot violate the law, thumb the scales for their friends, or personally profit from their authority isn't edgy leftist headcanon, it's a normal moderate belief in the rule of law. Given that 3 out of 7 judges appointed by Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court sided with Bush, I don't think you can just claim that the SCOTUS decision was an example of official corruption, let alone one so obvious that Clinton should have gone for an executive branch coup, which is what ignoring the judgement of the SCOTUS would have been.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Given that 3 out of 7 judges appointed by Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court sided with Bush, I don't think you can just claim that the SCOTUS decision was an example of official corruption, let alone one so obvious that Clinton should have gone for an executive branch coup, which is what ignoring the judgement of the SCOTUS would have been. This is totally absurd - you're positing that the legality of a superior's actions should be based on whether enough of their subordinates go along with it. Of course it's going to be difficult for members of the judiciary to oppose a coup attempt led by the highest court. That doesn't change the underlying reality that the court members involved in this violated multiple laws with 100+ year standing in order to overturn an election and seize power for themselves and their confederates. Those are crimes, whether they got away with them or not. There is absolutely no dispute that the judges involved were corrupted and acted without legal or constitutional authority. Even if you aren't sure whether that constitutes official corruption, that isn't up to you or me - they should be tried in court. Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Thanks, I was wondering about it from more of a legal theory standpoint. Like, is ISL something legitimate in modern American jurisprudence or is it considered literally just the modern medicine equivalent of phrenology? Honestly, it is not a question that has ever been seriously addressed. As with many things the problem is that the people who wrote this part of the constitution were not clear. Congress gets first crack at setting election law and rules for federal elections but in areas of election procedure where congress is unclear or chooses to leave it up to the states, the constitution says the state legislatures decide. What does that mean? State legislatures are creatures created by state constitutions so they have to obey their own constitutions, and ballot initiatives are often thought of as direct legislation by the people. Governors have a role in vetoing things they don't like from the state legislatures, and the state constitution itself also often has election rules trying to make elections more democratic and fair. Rational judges (who I guess these days are "the left" in the judiciary) think all of that should matter. Yeah, the state legislatures should decide things that congress did not decide on election rules, but they have to obey their own state constitution, they usually have to get their governor's OK or have enough votes to override him, and the people can weigh in with ballot initiatives. The idiotic robots comprising the majority of the supreme court apparently go "beep boop beep, I only see legislatures, not state constitution, governor, or the people. So the state legislature and ONLY the state legislature decides, beep boop beep". The reason this is bad is because there are many states which have a reasonable chance of voting Democrat in an election that have republican legislatures who for now have successfully insulated themselves from being voted out through unfair maps that the supreme court refuses to intervene in. So they can't be easily voted out without a massive blue wave. If the Democrats win their state in 2024, under ISL the state legislature could make up a bullshit pretext about how the election in their state was unfair and fatally flawed, and they have no choice but to ignore the false election results and pick electors themselves, and the supreme court could then say there's nothing anyone else can do to stop it. Don't like it? Find a way to overcome that unfair map protecting that state legislature and vote the state legislature out then. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This isn't the 1st, or even 10th time we have seen this tiresome argument on this board. The answer is not "they could do something, but just don't care" or "they secretly hate abortion". Are you ever going to explain this mysterious reason you're being so condescending about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Wasn’t Florida’s Secretary of State a Bush partisan in 2000? I thought that the state election apparatus was looking for an excuse to give Bush the election. If Clinton had said “you don’t have to follow the ruling,” the state would have done it anyway. Clinton would have instead had to say “You can’t follow the ruling” and the logistical enforcement of that seems intractable.Devorum posted:How, specifically, would it have been authoritarian to tell SCOTUS they can't stop a recount (required by law) at the request of one of the candidates' brother? In the proposed scenario, the president is arresting judges who issued a ruling interfering the election of his own vice president, which is more than simply “telling” and also unprecedented in the popular mind. However you personally think “authoritarian” should be defined, it definitely would have played that way to the general public, who wouldn’t know or care about the underlying legal question and would just see a scene straight out of a dystopian YA novel. Potato Salad posted:As just demonstrated, it appears to be the natural state of things that Americans will interpret the left playing hardball to preserve democratic norms as naturally more authoritarian than the right doing the same to overtly subvert democracy. I think this is true largely because the right has figured out you can get away with anything “negative” (i.e. something that takes the form of not doing something) or boring and technical, and they avoid anything that’s not in one of those two categories. Even the Dobbs ruling is frameable as “not doing something” (federally regulating abortions). This is where many online leftist fantasies for Bush v Gore or Shelby County responses get tripped up - arresting judges who issue opinions you don’t like (for example) is loud, simple, and facially objectionable, even if there’s a moral case for it. If you have to explain that moral case, you’ve already lost. A notable example of this from the Democrats is Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster the filibuster for lower court judge confirmations. And the growing boldness of the right means they might start abandoning this, which could get interesting. (Or not, and remain simply terrible.) raminasi fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Are you ever going to explain this mysterious reason you're being so condescending about? No. This exact argument has played out over and over again on this board countless times, and the mods have been pretty clear that we shouldn't do it yet again unless there's something new or interesting to discuss about why the Democrats could or could not get Manchin and Sinema in line if they just tried hard enough or why the Democrats are or are not a waste if they can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No. This exact argument has played out over and over again on this board countless times, and the mods have been pretty clear that we shouldn't do it yet again unless there's something new or interesting to discuss about why the Democrats could or could not get Manchin and Sinema in line if they just tried hard enough or why the Democrats are or are not a waste if they can't do that. You're too high and mighty to let this argument you've deemed tedious play out again but not above telling me I'm too stupid to infer your secret reason, cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis? That you think it's authoritarian to intervene against a judicial coup, one so nakedly obvious that even the majority in the decision tried to downplay it as much as possible, with poo poo like their "this ruling totally isn't something that can be referenced in the future" disclaimer, is your problem to deal with. Republicans knew that if a statewide recount happened, Bush was going to lose. Granted, if the US had a functional election system and not some slaver-based garbage like the EC then we'd never have had to deal with this coup in the first place. Because make no mistake, Bush v. Gore was absolutely a coup to seize the presidency for their party and the ease at which they pulled it off with no real resistance sent the signal to the powers within the American right that they can do what they want and pay no price for it. raminasi posted:Wasn’t Florida’s Secretary of State a Bush partisan in 2000? I thought that the state election apparatus was looking for an excuse to give Bush the election. If Clinton had said “you don’t have to follow the ruling,” the state would have done it anyway. Clinton would have instead had to say “You can’t follow the ruling” and the logistical enforcement of that seems intractable. There's this too, yes. The Florida GOP was looking for any possible way to give Bush the win there, including outright declaring "Bush wins because we say so" which is supposedly something the SCOTUS was trying to avoid because them stealing the election would look more legitimate than the state doing it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
The use of "authoritarianism" is usually a good weathervane to realize the point of what is actually happening is being missed entirely. Every group of people acting to enforce their will against someone who has an opposing goal is "authoritarian" if you don't like what the outcome is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:You're too high and mighty to let this argument you've deemed tedious play out again but not above telling me I'm too stupid to infer your secret reason, cool. Responding to your request for clarification, I'd like to quote D&D rules. II.C posted:Make points that are fresh or falsifiable. If a point is stale, it can at least be interestingly debated if it's specific and falsifiable. If a point is not falsifiable, it can at least provide interesting food for thought by being original or not commonly known. If it's neither, there's little we can gain intellectually from it. I do not presume to claim that the point you have made is not specific or falsifiable, though. Just skimming through the reports queue as I have a moment of brief downtime, so I didn't quite catch up with the thread. I hope this helps. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Given that 3 out of 7 judges appointed by Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court sided with Bush, I don't think you can just claim that the SCOTUS decision was an example of official corruption, let alone one so obvious that Clinton should have gone for an executive branch coup, which is what ignoring the judgement of the SCOTUS would have been. Absurd even by the standards of your other absurdities. Telling SCOTUS they don't get to pick the POTUS as a favor to Jeb isn't a coup. SCOTUS stopping the count early is much closer to one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 16:21
|
|