|
FlamingLiberal posted:Oddly when they killed Roe last year it wasn’t the final week of the term The public leak of the decision probably influenced the release date.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
So the more I'm reading about Moore v. Harper, the more interesting it gets. Apparently a non partisian map has been stayed from implimentation while they wait for the USSC decision. Now that it's out does that mean NC is going to get redistricted again in a neutral manner? Could this be the end of the Republican House?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Oddly when they killed Roe last year it wasn’t the final week of the term I imagine most of them expected the "silent majority" of conservative Americans to be thrilled with the decision. The Democrats' collective shrug at the leak did nothing to suggest any real repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So the more I'm reading about Moore v. Harper, the more interesting it gets. Apparently a non partisian map has been stayed from implimentation while they wait for the USSC decision. Now that it's out does that mean NC is going to get redistricted again in a neutral manner? Could this be the end of the Republican House? It means it gets redistricted in a more neutral manner. It's probably not going to produce a gain of more than one blue seat, but considering the margins in the House that could be significant
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It means it gets redistricted in a more neutral manner. It's probably not going to produce a gain of more than one blue seat, but considering the margins in the House that could be significant But the previous election, held under the now found unconstitutional map, stands, I assume? Seems like they held off on making a decision long enough to swing both the election and the court in the state towards the result they wanted anyway while still being able to wag a finger and say 'now don't do that again!'
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Oracle posted:But the previous election, held under the now found unconstitutional map, stands, I assume? I don't see how they could reverse the prior election and no way in hell we want that sort of thing to happen. Take the lump for 2 years with a republican house and watch them eat themselves alive, then hope in 2024 the non crazies take over congress again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
There are no penumbra of a right to actual democracy in the Constitution and it's even the opposite of say, gun control, where you can find historical precedent for the liberal opinion
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Oracle posted:But the previous election, held under the now found unconstitutional map, stands, I assume? Yes, none of these cases ever involve invalidating previous elections, and yes, that is definitely an abusable loophole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There are no penumbra of a right to actual democracy in the Constitution and it's even the opposite of say, gun control, where you can find historical precedent for the liberal opinion Article IV guarantees a republican form of government. What do you mean by "actual democracy" exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Craig K posted:6-3, but thomas's dissent was "why is this even here it's moot as hell", so 7-2 against ISL theory, i guess I don't know what could possibly possess you to think Thomas was against ISL. His dissent makes it clear he's fully on board with the new majority of the NC supreme court ruling in favor of ISL (the NC supreme court is political as gently caress and going to kill any momentum we had in clawing our way out of being a red state shithole). Cimber posted:Well, the case was made moot because the NCSC said "Oh, we don't actually have the right to review this stuff." The USSC said "Yeah actually, you do have the right, don't listen to those legislators talking out their asses." It's meaningless in this case because when it goes back to the NCSC the Republicans on it are going to go "of course our minority party rigging elections to remain a majority is fine, gently caress You." And we can't get a federal resolution because of the prior "lmao no the federal courts can't hear Gerrymandering cases" ruling from Roberts and co. We have no recourse in NC other than to maybe, hopefully get the NCSC majority back in the next elections but the GOP now has a supermajority in the legislature due to a shithead Congresswoman changing parties (in a district she is 100% going to lose reelection in as a Republican, assuming she survives the GOP primaries) if/when they ram through more voter suppression bills it's going to further tilt the scales. Oracle posted:But the previous election, held under the now found unconstitutional map, stands, I assume? Yes, this has been a long-standing tactic for Republicans. See also: Ohio republicans repeatedly passing Unconstitutional maps and then just using those maps for elections because oh look the clock ran out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Article IV guarantees a republican form of government. What do you mean by "actual democracy" exactly? I mean there’s no grounds to challenge that a duly-elected official does not hold office because the election was improper or undemocratic. Suppose for example that a number of constituents without whom the winner would have lost were coerced into voting for them—I don’t see how there could be any Constitutional post facto remedy (other than using existing means to remove them from office obviously). e: that’s a silly example. What happens in real life is coercing people into not voting but the legal argument is the same
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So the more I'm reading about Moore v. Harper, the more interesting it gets. Apparently a non partisian map has been stayed from implimentation while they wait for the USSC decision. Now that it's out does that mean NC is going to get redistricted again in a neutral manner? Could this be the end of the Republican House? I believe North Carolina's demographics aren't quite Dem-friendly enough for an immediate flip. I'm sure gerrymandering has helped, but a lot of the population lives in the rural areas and those rural districts have continuously helped the GOP stay one step ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I mean there’s no grounds to challenge that a duly-elected official does not hold office because the election was improper or undemocratic. Suppose for example that a number of constituents without whom the winner would have lost were coerced into voting for them—I don’t see how there could be any Constitutional post facto remedy (other than using existing means to remove them from office obviously). I mean, you can challenge that various aspects of an election were wrong or mishandled or corrupt in some way at the state level. That's exactly what Trump did! And then got smacked down by every single judge, even the ones he'd appointed. But that wasn't because courts aren't the venue to resolve this argument, that was because his arguments were all dogshit and unsupported by evidence. Federal courts are not going to step in to kick someone out of office or require a do-over election, no. That's largely because elections are handled at the state, not the federal, level. And they're particularly not going to intervene to decide who is or can be a member of Congress, because the Constitution explicitly grants that exclusive power to each chamber of Congress to gatekeep its own membership. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jun 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I believe North Carolina's demographics aren't quite Dem-friendly enough for an immediate flip. I'm sure gerrymandering has helped, but a lot of the population lives in the rural areas and those rural districts have continuously helped the GOP stay one step ahead. If North Carolina hadn't suffered a long run of extensive GOP-lead voter suppression and Gerrymandering the legislature would be pretty drat close to a split and occasionally Dem controlled. Instead it has a Republican super majority because it's possibly the most gerrymandered state in the country (Wisconsin might be worse). There's currently zero paths to getting NC properly redistricted. Even if the NCSC flips back to a Dem majority, any ruling that forces a new map is just going to be ignored by the GOP legislature or they'll do like the Ohio GOP and keep passing gerrymandered maps that can't be used and run out the clock until the next election that they reclaim the NCSC so that they can reverse all the rulings they don't like (which is what they did after the 2022 elections).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1674281715286589442
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
You can sue a corporation anywhere they have an established presence instead of having to pry them out of their big fluffy office drop box in Delaware? What the hell is happening to this court? They keep doing the right things. I'm confused. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1168_f2ah.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 06:22
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:You can sue a corporation anywhere they have an established presence instead of having to pry them out of their big fluffy office drop box in Delaware? What the hell is happening to this court? They keep doing the right things. I'm confused. Gorsuch was convinced it was the originalist interpretation https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-originalism-corporations-lose.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
You can already sue in a state if you can argue the conduct you’re suing about happened there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
Yep. This was about “do state statutes requiring corporations to consent to lawsuit jurisdiction in that state in order to operate there violate the constitution?” In this case, the conduct didn’t happen in PA but the lawsuit was brought there on the basis of such a statute (likely because PA has more favorable laws for this type of suit than other options, though I don’t know that for sure.) Nothing in it says that a state *has* to do that, though most do. (Federal civil lawsuits already were permissible against a corporation in this way.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 11:26
|
|
|
Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Jackson is not the lineup I expected for a ruling against a corporation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down? He would have needed to live in texas I think at some point in his involvement. Gentleman worked for Norfolk Southern, moved to pennslyvania for sometime while employed with them,
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Affirmative action ended at universities. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
huzzah! racism's officially been canceled!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:huzzah! racism's officially been canceled! don't be silly it was already cancelled in shelby county v holder
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:He would have needed to live in texas I think at some point in his involvement. Gentleman worked for Norfolk Southern, moved to pennslyvania for sometime while employed with them, Oh, I thought the ruling meant that anyone could sue a corp anywhere the corp had a business dealing. So the plaintiff would still need to live in the district they file in and not in some other friendlier district?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
Craig K posted:don't be silly it was already cancelled in shelby county v holder
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down? That company would have to do business in that state in a manner that requires jurisdictional consent i.e. more than just normal interstate commerce, typical being physically present at an endpoint of that kind of transaction. What would you even sue over though? Lawsuits are very expensive and any cause of action you choose is likely going to be considered spurious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down? Yeah I haven’t read the opinion. But I wouldn’t be shocked if the ultimate result is that other states start to pass laws like the one PA has and the whole thing becomes a forum shopping extravaganza. Kagan in dissent is almost always a bad sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down? Only works if the company has sufficient or relevant operations in Texas (assuming Texas has a consent to jurisdiction statute similar to PAs, which it probably does.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
As expected, affirmative action just got killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
That was inevitable when they got a conservative majority back. It lasted a few extra years because Scalia died the last time they heard an AA case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
What did they decide with Groff? I'm having a hard time finding the opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:What did they decide with Groff? I'm having a hard time finding the opinion. unanimously vacating and remanding the lower court's ruling 9-0, so in favor of the worker if i am reading this correctly
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
This is the most disturbing part of this ruling IMO https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1674419888511938563?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:What did they decide with Groff? I'm having a hard time finding the opinion. From the scotusblog live feed: quote:The decision is unanimous. Sotomayor has a concurring opinion, joined by Jackson. The Third Circuit's decision is vacated and remanded. (I don't know what that actually means for the case)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Love the one opinion that’s like “Lived experiences as minority about how race has impacted them are okay but race can not be a factor”
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
haveblue posted:From the scotusblog live feed: Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
basically it's asking, when a worker wants accomodation for religious stuff (in groffs case, being an evangelical christian and not wanting to work on sunday), how far the accomodations have to go before its an "undue hardship" on the company. before this it was "any cost at all" and now it's "substantially increased costs"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Love the one opinion that’s like “Lived experiences as minority about how race has impacted them are okay but race can not be a factor” I guess that means the admitter is allowed to think about race but no one is allowed to create a written policy codifying guidelines for consideration of race I'm sure this will not be a problem because at no point in American history did relying on a bunch of unwritten rules plus the personal judgement of the evaluator ever lead to widespread racial discrimination
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:38
|
|