Main Paineframe posted:

If you don't know and haven't read the decision, then this is nothing more than your preconceptions. It's not really much of an answer to what was presumably a serious question.

Main Paineframe posted:

If you don't know and haven't read the decision, then this is nothing more than your preconceptions. It's not really much of an answer to what was presumably a serious question.

gregday posted:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1545401931383939072

gregday posted:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1545401931383939072

Main Paineframe posted:

If you don't know and haven't read the decision, then this is nothing more than your preconceptions. It's not really much of an answer to what was presumably a serious question.

Evil Fluffy posted:

While Wisconsin might eventually unfuck its state supreme court, their legislature will never leave the GOP's hands without an earth-shattering political upheaval.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Being right because you guessed and then going "but I'm right" is how you turn your brain into a reactionary one where you trust your gut over data because "it's always right".

Harold Fjord posted:

I read it and I agree with the dissent and the posters who say it is obviously ideologically motivated. On what basis do you dispute the dissent?

yronic heroism posted:

If a future state Supreme Court reverses the current majority okaying state house/senate gerrymandering, all bets are off.

Evil Fluffy posted:

Remember how Kennedy kept insisting that he'd totally look at Gerrymandering if people could give evidence of it, and when he received it with the Wisconsin gerrymander we got the totally shocking result of the SCOTUS deciding it was ok and there was nothing they could do about it since it's outside the judiciary's control and if the people don't like it they can just vote out the politicians who have given themselves something like an 11 point advantage in the state?

Can't wait for round 2 with the ISL lawsuit where we're going to get a ruling that state legislatures have sole control over elections and we can just stop pretending the US has any sort of open and fair elections and get on with this country burning in nuclear hellfire.

Main Paineframe posted:

It's a pretty straightforward interpretation of Wisconsin's election laws (which were written by Wisconsin's ideologically-motivated legislature). The GOP has dominated the Wisconsin State Assembly almost nonstop since 1994, losing control of it only a single time (2008-2010). The Wisconsin Supreme Court doesn't need to invent reasons to strike down progressive provisions of the law, because there aren't really any in the first place. They can just do the usual judge thing and write perfectly normal analysis of the law, grounded in the actual text of the statutes.

After decades of conservative control of the legislature, the laws are already written to serve right-wing interests, so the decision will naturally favor right-wing ideological positions even if the judges base their opinion in boring but plausible legal analysis like they're supposed to - and for the most part, that's exactly what they appear to have done in the actual ruling itself.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Being right because you guessed and then going "but I'm right" is how you turn your brain into a reactionary one where you trust your gut over data because "it's always right". It's the thinking pattern that turns you into one of those "It's just common sense!!!" Guys

Groovelord Neato posted:

It's funny talking to conservatives about the 2018 election in Wisconsin because their defense is well did the Democrats win the majority of the vote in the majority of the districts like every state is supposed to have an Electoral College-esque voting scheme. A few of them I've talked to just totally dodge the gerrymander thing and the ones that don't bring up Maryland and then short circuit when you say all gerrymanders are bad and it's not like the GOP is fighting against them.

Harold Fjord posted:

So no actual analysis from you, just reiterating that they must be right since everyone involved is an rear end in a top hat. Have you considered that this might just be your preconceptions at work?

Kaal posted:

The Republicans on the court get outright paid tens of thousands of dollars each year in "gifts" by their patrons, and profit in a wide variety of other ways as well. The Bush v. Gore decision was demonstrably based on false pretenses, it violated existing laws governing election interference and court authority, and because they're terrible lawyers who were on a time crunch they managed to admit as much in their ruling. It's not difficult to put together a criminal case over their behavior. Investigating them would doubtlessly unveil further crimes, both because they believe they are above the law and because they'd likely react with fury if they were challenged and would end up obstructing justice. The only thing needed would be a court willing to actually challenge a corrupt justice.

MrMojok posted:

Are we just never going to hear again about the leak that the right called an “insurrection” ?

MrMojok posted:

Are we just never going to hear again about the leak that the right called an “insurrection” ?

Koos Group posted:

Do you have a source for the court being paid tens of thousands of dollars each year in conflicts of interest, and the specific laws that the Bush v. Gore decision violated?

quote:

Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who headed the Faith and Action group headquartered near the Supreme Court from 1995 to 2018, said he arranged over the years for about 20 couples to fly to Washington to visit with and entertain Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia.

Schenck, who was once an anti-abortion activist but broke with the religious right in the last decade over its aggressive tactics and support for gun rights, said the couples were instructed before the dinners to use certain phrases to influence the justices while steering clear of the specifics of cases pending before the court — for example, to “talk about the importance of a child having a father and a mother,” rather than engage in the particulars of a gay-rights case.

(snip)

Schenck said that, in addition to making regular donations to Faith and Action, the Wrights financed numerous expensive dinners with Thomas, Alito, Scalia and their wives at Washington, D.C., hotspots including the Capital Grille. Don Wright died in 2020.
...
Don Wright’s obituaries on Dignity Memorial and Legacy.com cited his charitable work with Faith and Liberty and his closeness to Supreme Court justices through his support for the Supreme Court Historical Society. Among the pictures featured on the Dignity Memorial site were images of the Wrights and their extended family with Scalia and Alito, and Don Wright with Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The late Antonin Scalia enjoyed hunting and fishing trips with the [Wright] family. But whether he was sitting in a hunting cabin with the guys or at a Supreme Court dinner he was always the same,” read the obituary on both sites.

In reporting Wright’s passing, The Dayton Business Journal wrote on August 3, 2020: “As trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, Wright became friends with several prominent justices, including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia. An avid hunter/outdoorsman, Wright said Scalia would often accompany the family on hunting trips.”

Supreme Court Historical Society newsletters indicate Wright was a major donor to the group and was elected as a trustee for a three-year term in 2003 and again in 2006.

(snip)

For his part, Schenck said that in addition to the dinners, Scalia was a guest at the Wrights’ home in Jackson Hole. A financial disclosure report Scalia filed shows his transportation, food and lodging for a June 2006 visit to Jackson Hole were paid for by the Wyoming State Bar in connection with a continuing education program for lawyers. Similar reports show he spoke to the Wyoming State Bar in Cheyenne in September 2008 and to the Federalist Society in Laramie in October 2012, with expenses paid by those groups.

...

The justices file annual disclosure forms under the Ethics in Government Act requiring them to report gifts now worth more than $415 in aggregate, but meals are rarely reported as gifts and “personal hospitality” received at a host’s private home or business need not be reported. The justices also report annually on travel, lodging and meals received in connection with speaking engagements and legal conferences.

A review of more than a decade of financial disclosures from Thomas, Alito and Scalia found no reporting of restaurant or other meals as gifts, aside from food being included along with transportation and lodging expenses reimbursed by groups and entities sponsoring speaking events featuring the justices.

shades of eternity posted:

https://openargs.com/?p=3122

opening arguments just did a pretty systematic breakdown of What Happened and what we need to do.

shades of eternity posted:

https://openargs.com/?p=3122

opening arguments just did a pretty systematic breakdown of What Happened and what we need to do.

Fuschia tude posted:

The third parties!!!!!!! argument remains dumb.

shades of eternity posted:

Sure hillary run a kinda bad game (but still got the popular vote),
but also syphoning off by third party happened.

shades of eternity posted:

https://openargs.com/?p=3122

opening arguments just did a pretty systematic breakdown of What Happened and what we need to do.

The14th Amendment US Constitution posted:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization posted:

the Court
surveyed more than 700 years of “Anglo-American common
law tradition,” 521 U. S., at 711, and made clear that a fundamental right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this
Nation’s history and tradition,” id., at 720–721

19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization posted:

Not only was there no support for such a constitutional
right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a
crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was
criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common
law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time of the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of
the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining States would soon follow.
Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey
declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis. It is
therefore important to set the record straight.

shades of eternity posted:

The smart response would be for the Democratic Party to

shades of eternity posted:

Something similar happened in Canada 2011 where The CPC won a majority because the NDP had a surge and split the vote with the LPC.

Kalman posted:

Cimber posted:

Well well well

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul27.html#item-1