|
Cimber posted:They have jurisdiction because they say they do. They have jurisdiction because the Constitution gave Congress the power to set SCOTUS' jurisdiction*. Congress gave them final appellate jurisdiction over all matters with federal questions. That includes suits over constitutional matters**. Jurisdiction isn't an issue here *They have original jurisdiction that Congress can't touch in a few areas like suits between the states and ambassadors per article 3 ** They stole constitutional review in Marbury though, tbf, which was basically "we decide because we say we do"
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:10 |
|
This...is quite a take from Harvard Law.quote:Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard, said the justices were in an impossible spot.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:21 |
|
Cimber posted:But its not! The SC clearly stated the only way to evoke 14.3 is to have congress do it. almost like this ruling was designed to create this catch 22
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:24 |
Bubbacub posted:This...is quite a take from Harvard Law. jack goldsmith is one of the old republicans at lawfare that grimly shakes his head in disappointment about whatever the latest trump thing is but doesn't ever support much anything good
|
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:30 |
Colorado tried to exceed their authority under the 14th, which the court correctly bounced. "Congress isn't doing what we want" isn't a legal justification for a state to grab congressional authority.
|
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:37 |
|
Isn’t Goldsmith a former Dubya WH guy?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:37 |
|
Slaan posted:They have jurisdiction because the Constitution gave Congress the power to set SCOTUS' jurisdiction*. Congress gave them final appellate jurisdiction over all matters with federal questions. That includes suits over constitutional matters**. Jurisdiction isn't an issue here If you want to get really “Originalist”, the Constitution merely says that judicial power extends to a variety of cases, and vests that power in one supreme Court and those inferior courts that Congress may establish. There’s no rules saying that any particular court has a specific jurisdiction, nor governing which court should be considered supreme at any particular time. Congress could simply declare that the Supreme Court is the one in charge of all cases involving ambassadors, while the Circuit Courts have oversight over other matters. Or maybe there’s a new court called the Ultimate Court that is more supreme, and therefore there’s 13 open seats to fill. The jurisdictional definitions are so vague that they can easily be interpreted however you’d like. The Commerce Clause is the classic example of the court doing an end-run around their constitutional limitations. Breaking the Constitution over your knee is fairly simple if you’re willing to do the same sort of gaslighting as the judicial Republicans. At the end of the day we’re talking about an unelected, anti-democratic institution filled with life-long oligarchs that is appointed by a similarly ancient and undemocratic Senate, and whose impact for decades has only been to destabilize the rule of law and degrade the interests of the United States. The Roberts Court’s signature has been throwing out legal precedent, issuing momentary decrees, and daring the country to do anything about it. Congressional Republicans are calling for a second American Revolution, threatening to imprison all their enemies, and are challenging each other to act rather than to speak. This is largely enabled because they believe they have given themselves a stranglehold on the courts. How America decides to meet that threat will largely be up to their ability to imagine alternatives.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 21:52 |
Kaal posted:The jurisdictional definitions are so vague that they can easily be interpreted however you’d like. The Commerce Clause is the classic example of the court doing an end-run around their constitutional limitations. Breaking the Constitution over your knee is fairly simple if you’re willing to do the same sort of gaslighting as the judicial Republicans.
|
|
# ? Mar 5, 2024 22:10 |
|
Potato Salad posted:
There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 00:15 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional. Is this frictionless perfectly spherical cow on an infinite plane theorizing or something? We can't even write legislation to keep the loving lights on without some rear end in a top hat demanding we disband the DoE. Which one? Yes.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 01:40 |
|
bird food bathtub posted:Is this frictionless perfectly spherical cow on an infinite plane theorizing or something? We can't even write legislation to keep the loving lights on without some rear end in a top hat demanding we disband the DoE. Which one? Yes. Legally possible is not the same thing as politically possible. The former happens to be the one more relevant to Supreme Court discussion.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 01:49 |
|
It's moot in the case of Trump because even if Congress were to pass a law tomorrow, the SCOTUS majority would rule against applying it to Trump. Whether saying it's an ex posto facto violation or some other blatant bullshit that'd give him electoral immunity for his crime.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 01:59 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is 100% false, easily and verifiably so. The case is about whether Colorado is allowed to determine that Trump has violated the 14th and enforce consequences against him for it. Since the Supreme Court ruled against that, they reversed all of the consequences that Colorado had imposed for that purported 14th-violation, including (but not limited to) removal from the ballot. They could have chosen to address the question of whether Trump was ineligible under the 14th amendment. The lower courts already decided as a question of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 03:12 |
So with this ruling, if hypothetically the Speaker led a coup that killed off the President and Vice President, they'd be the legal president unless Congress passed a law (which the newly anointed coup President can veto) saying it was an insurrection? I guess the same holds true for anyone in the line of succession.
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 03:30 |
|
Ardlen posted:So with this ruling, if hypothetically the Speaker led a coup that killed off the President and Vice President, they'd be the legal president unless Congress passed a law (which the newly anointed coup President can veto) saying it was an insurrection? I guess the same holds true for anyone in the line of succession. Congress could just impeach or override the veto, assuming there is the popular will to do so. If we're assuming there wouldn't be the popular will to do so under this scenario, then it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in this ruling or any other.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 03:33 |
if you've got enough military backing to do that kind of thing without being killed, you don't exactly need Congress to legitimize you, and if you don't have enough military backing they're going to remove you one way or the other either way it's the end of the current republic so no need to quibble over hypothetical constitutionality eke out fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Mar 6, 2024 |
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 03:56 |
|
The per curiam refers to “rebalancing of state and federal power” which strikes me as ultimately a confederate viewpoint. In the same way as saying the civil war was about “states’ rights” without asking the power to do what? The fourteenth amendment is not a tweak in how government functions like direct election of senators or lowering the voting age. The fourteenth amendment is a protection for the citizens of the states against their own states proclivity to disenfranchise them - specifically, but not only, those formerly enslaved. The very first sentence gives us birthright citizenship. The second sentence says something that really should be implied by that citizenship - that the protections of the declaration apply to everyone, yes even black people. Federal enforcement should be a backstop to state enforcement, intervening where the interests of minority rule work against the citizens, sure as gently caress not the other way where only the feds can enforce civil rights. Christ the more I read the more I hate it.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 06:47 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional. I don't actually know how to engage this kind of naivete
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 09:41 |
You are extremely mad at an imaginary future scotus rejection of a theoretical act of congress that scotus themselves have just ruled congress has the direct and sole authority to perform. Given that congress is absolutely not interested in performing that act during this election cycle, fixating on that instead of the greater problem - that congress is utterly useless - seems unproductive.
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 12:52 |
Javid posted:You are extremely mad at an imaginary future scotus rejection of a theoretical act of congress that scotus themselves have just ruled congress has the direct and sole authority to perform. Given that congress is absolutely not interested in performing that act during this election cycle, fixating on that instead of the greater problem - that congress is utterly useless - seems unproductive. The courts were never going to save America from Donald Trump posted:In the last few days, the Supreme Court delivered two body blows to anyone hoping that former President Donald Trump might face consequences for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 13:38 |
|
One of the normal coping strategies with gaslighting is hoping that some herculean and perfect effort will be enough to meet the undefined expectations and change things for the better. But the reality is that Lucy still pulls the football away. The Republicans have been killing off the 14th Amendment with a thousand cuts, and aren’t going to change their minds about that.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 13:40 |
John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. Some of them realllllllllly hate the 14th and wish it cant be used, ever The 14'th amendment provides for equality in the eyes of the law and extends due process requirements for the protections of civil rights to the states. Both of these focuses are counter to the racist mindset enshrined in the Republican party, "For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it’s not even the most radical view. "The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate." In its inaugural publication in 1985, the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote in an article decrying school desegregation that "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868." quote:The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States. quote:In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down miscegenation statutes, which criminalized interracial marriage, as unconstitutional. alito's quotes posted:[On whether children born within the US from parents present in the territory unlawfully are automatic citizens by virtue of the 14th:] Thomas posted:Justice Clarence Thomas made a surprising proclamation: A celebrated ruling against school segregation — which, along with Brown v. Board of Education, abolished the doctrine of “separate but equal” — was wrongly decided. That decision, 1954’s Bolling v. Sharpe, compelled the federal government to abide by equal protection principles. It forms the basis of countless landmark civil rights decisions over the last 70 years. Roberts posted:The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the crowning achievement of the civil-rights era in prohibiting discrimination. Designed to enforce the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities, especially in the South. Justice Amy Courtney Barrett's words posted:Congress has to decide whether to rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment... atriptothebeach fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
# ? Mar 6, 2024 13:45 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional. Everything I have found about the enforcement act of 1870 suggests its for the 15th amendment. Is this your understanding as well fron your reading of it?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 16:21 |
|
Kaal posted:One of the normal coping strategies with gaslighting is hoping that some herculean and perfect effort will be enough to meet the undefined expectations and change things for the better. But the reality is that Lucy still pulls the football away. The Republicans have been killing off the 14th Amendment with a thousand cuts, and aren’t going to change their minds about that. Yep. I Believe In Robert Muller! I Believe In The Rule Of Law!
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 16:34 |
|
atriptothebeach posted:In its inaugural publication in 1985, the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote in an article decrying school desegregation that "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868." I forgot that I had read about this. The amount of space my brain has decided it needs to dedicate to remembering white supremacist bullshit is depressing. I recall somebody pointing out at the time that, ahistorical as this may be, it doesn't even make sense on its own nonsense pretense. Secession and war is the solution the slaveowning class of the antebellum South reached for to settle this matter. They signed up for that contest and subsequently lost. Even if the Civil War amendments had not been ratified -- which they had been, within 2-3 years -- they were passed by the 1866 Congress that had just won a massive war, had a gigantic fuckoff army, and was occupying the traitor States. The same fuckos who talk about "might makes right" can get hosed on this one: the traitors asked for that fight, lost, and had these amendments foisted upon them at the tip of Union bayonets. Live by the sword, get owned by the sword. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 7, 2024 |
# ? Mar 7, 2024 16:43 |
|
Raldikuk posted:Everything I have found about the enforcement act of 1870 suggests its for the 15th amendment. Is this your understanding as well fron your reading of it? While the Enforcement Act of 1870 was primarily about enforcing the 15th Amendment, it also contained enforcement clauses for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: quote:Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, That whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office; and any writ of quo warranto so brought, as aforesaid, shall take precedence of all other cases on the docket of the court to which it is made returnable, and shall not be continued unless for cause proved to the satisfaction of the court. This clearly delegates Congress' power of enforcement to federal DAs and gives them a legal obligation to pursue federal lawsuits against people they believe are holding office in violation of the Insurrection Clause. Moreover, it specially privileges these lawsuits, fast-tracking them by giving them precedence over other cases on the docket. In addition, it makes it a federal crime to hold office in violation of the Insurrection Clause, punishable with prison time and/or a pretty significant fine (by the standards of the time). The obvious question is "if federal prosecutors could pursue Insurrection Clause violations in court back then, why can't they do so now?", and the Supreme Court's answer is "because Congress passed a law specifically granting this power to federal prosecutors". According to SCOTUS, the power to enforce the Insurrection Act was not an inherent power of the judicial branch - it was a power held by the legislative branch, which the legislative branch could delegate to other branches if they chose to and passed a law saying so. That isn't really unusual, by the way - Congress frequently does that kind of thing. Much of the modern regulatory state is based on exercises of Congressional power which delegated actual enforcement to various regulatory agencies. In the case of the Enforcement Act, Congress delegated that enforcement power to the judicial branch, handing the responsibilities of day-to-day enforcement down to federal prosecutors and judges. The problem is that the relevant clauses have since been repealed, and thus we no longer have a law delegating Congress's power of enforcement anywhere. This is not an uncommon problem either, by the way - there's a surprising number of constitutional bits and pieces where the writers clearly expected Congress to pass a law handling the details of actually enforcing it, but Congress either never actually bothered to do so or repealed it later. What happens in situations like that is up to the judicial philosophy of whichever Supreme Court justices we happen to have at the time, as "the Constitution says Congress is required to pass a law about this, but Congress didn't" is not really an issue with a clear-cut solution, since judges can't really force Congress to pass a law. Some SCOTUSes generally answered that question with "this clause requires a law, so if there's no law on the books, this clause is effectively powerless", while others answered it with "this is loving stupid, if Congress won't act then we judges will invent something". Personally, I don't think either stance is wildly unreasonable - the first stance is probably closer to what's actually correct from a pedantic law-interpreter POV, but the second stance worked to paper over what was essentially a serious flaw in our system. The Warren Court was especially prone to doing the latter, while our current court makeup leans a lot more toward the former. Unfortunately, the Warren Court's activism may have backfired in the long run, as stretching judicial powers to cover for the legislative branch's failings eased public pressure on our politics even as Congress continued to rot. The upshot of all this is that if the court passed something like the Enforcement Act now, empowering federal prosecutors to go after insurrectionists under the Insurrection Clause, then it would in fact be possible to sue for removal of insurrectionists including Trump. Of course, even if Congress got together and passed such a law tomorrow, that still wouldn't be able to get Trump disqualified before the election. Even with the expedited procedures available to federal prosecutors under the Enforcement Act, there were very few successful removals because most of the lawsuits managed to drag out until amnesty happened. But an eagle-eyed law-reader would notice that that doesn't really matter anyway - the relevant Enforcement Act clauses weren't actually about removing people from ballots, they were about removing people from office. By the time it was passed, the South had already been openly ignoring the Insurrection Clause, with both voters and legislatures putting plenty of ex-Confederates back in state government positions even before the Amnesty Act was passed.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:14 |
|
The real problem is that instead of just executing all of the Confederate leadership they allowed them to go home and then proceed to over time retake power once Reconstruction became politically toxic for the North
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:15 |
|
If they'd executed the confederate leadership for treason, you'd have a huge bloc of the country still angry about the civil war instead of reintegrating.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:40 |
|
They still think they won!
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:43 |
|
Potato Salad posted:Yep. I don't know if you intended this, but I heard this in my head to the tune of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfY4b1NszpY and with some very slight tweaks it was thematically appropriate enough that it burned. They sold me a dream of justice They sold me a silent night And they told me a fairy story 'Till I believed in the rule of law And I believed in Robert Mueller And I looked to the sky with excited eyes 'Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn And I saw him and through his disguise
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 19:37 |
|
Morrow posted:If they'd executed the confederate leadership for treason, you'd have a huge bloc of the country still angry about the civil war instead of reintegrating. That's horseshit because that is exactly what happened. They remained still angry about the civil war and essentially fought integration at every turn. They should have executed confederate leadership and stationed the union army to forcibly enforce reconstruction rather than acquiescing and letting the confederates claw back the right to treat black people as subhuman for the next 100 years, but it turns out the whole of America is and always has been astonishingly racist. Maybe read a history book or two.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:16 |
|
Morrow posted:If they'd executed the confederate leadership for treason, you'd have a huge bloc of the country still angry about the civil war instead of reintegrating. You mean the exact thing that happened anyways, only with the Confederate leadership being alive to take advantage of it and form groups like the KKK and sabotage what little effort was put into Reconstruction before being abandoned? There's a reason other countries look at the US's post Civil War treatment of the Confederacy and do the opposite. IIRC, part of the reasoning for the Nuremberg Trials was because the Allies saw the failures of Reconstruction and problems caused by Confederate leaders and decided to try and execute Nazi leadership instead of just letting them all go (for the most part).
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:32 |
|
Every political office from sheriff up to president and every officer in the Confederate military and every appointed position in the Confederate government should have been tried and sentenced for treason with any and all wealth they had confiscated, but alas the north lacked the will to actually address the rot and we're still paying for it.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:42 |
|
Dameius posted:Every political office from sheriff up to president and every officer in the Confederate military and every appointed position in the Confederate government should have been tried and sentenced for treason with any and all wealth they had confiscated, but alas the north lacked the will to actually address the rot and we're still paying for it. Also and in one of the more damning elements of his life, Grant intervened (out of a staggeringly misplaced sense of gentlemanly good sportsmanship, best I can tell) to short circuit early attempts to put Lee specifically on trial in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination, at which time temperatures in the North were high enough that had it happened it well could have generated momentum to at least try more of the bastards. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Mar 7, 2024 |
# ? Mar 7, 2024 21:03 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The real problem is that instead of just executing all of the Confederate leadership they allowed them to go home and then proceed to over time retake power once Reconstruction became politically toxic for the North Executing the Confederate leadership wouldn't have changed much; the problem was that the Confederate population still mostly sympathized with the Confederacy's ideals. The moment Southern voters regained the ability to vote in federal elections, Reconstruction's days were numbered.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 22:04 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Executing the Confederate leadership wouldn't have changed much; the problem was that the Confederate population still mostly sympathized with the Confederacy's ideals. The moment Southern voters regained the ability to vote in federal elections, Reconstruction's days were numbered. Well there’s the answer then.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 22:24 |
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There's a reason other countries look at the US's post Civil War treatment of the Confederacy and do the opposite. IIRC, part of the reasoning for the Nuremberg Trials was because the Allies saw the failures of Reconstruction and problems caused by Confederate leaders and decided to try and execute Nazi leadership instead of just letting them all go (for the most part). It really is amazing how many things about the US are examined and emulated by other countries with a handful of changes because they saw how certain critical flaws messed us up, but we're stuck looking at our founding documents and traditions as unchangeable and perfect.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2024 22:48 |
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:It really is amazing how many things about the US are examined and emulated by other countries with a handful of changes because they saw how certain critical flaws messed us up, but we're stuck looking at our founding documents and traditions as unchangeable and perfect. Real big, "'no way to prevent this!' says only country where this happens," energy.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 00:31 |
|
Dameius posted:Real big, "'no way to prevent this!' says only country where this happens," energy. Pyotr Chaadayev once said that Russia was one of those nations that don't exist as a regular part of the world but rather to serve as a terrible warning to everyone else. Sauce for the gander, I guess.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:10 |
Our government places such a high priority on excluding traitors from returning to office that they *checks notes* oh.
|
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 00:54 |