|
Zeroisanumber posted:I don't think so. Roberts has spent his entire career trying to rip up the VRA, and I very much doubt that that rat gently caress would be at all interested in seeing it resurrected by SCOTUS decision. I mean, he'd be in the minority, nobody would be asking him if it was OK.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean, he'd be in the minority, nobody would be asking him if it was OK. Could the DoJ just start enforcing pre clearance again, and when challenged declare that the 16th gives Congress the power to regulate I voting rights?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
The Larch posted:It's also one of the two major reasons our legislature managed to get as dysfunctional as it is. And is a loving terrible decision. All true, but I can take some personal satisfaction in CU ruining the GOP presidential primaries when they clearly thought it would lead to triumph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I don't think we will see Heller or McDonald revisited directly. Some limited personal right to own a firearm is not an absurd reading of the second amendment, and it seems unlikely the court will want to be so nakedly political as to directly undo precedent. They were nakedly political when they created the individual right in Heller. Like it or not, it went against decades of precedent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Could the DoJ just start enforcing pre clearance again, and when challenged declare that the 16th gives Congress the power to regulate I voting rights? The issue with pre-clearance is that the map used was deemed out of date, and they basically said "Congress can make a new one and that would be fine". The funny thing is this is probably true - there are issues with voting laws that extend far beyond the areas covered by the map (like in Wisconsin, for example).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:They were nakedly political when they created the individual right in Heller. Like it or not, it went against decades of precedent. what precedent did Heller go against?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:what precedent did Heller go against? United States v. Miller (1939) quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:United States v. Miller (1939) A pistol would have "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" wouldn't it? Certainly soldiers carry pistols.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
It's better to say that Heller created an individual right to handgun ownership as opposed to overall firearm ownership, though, wouldn't it? Well, that and an individual right to unsafe firearm storage too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not a conflict of interest. Scalia always sided with rich scumbags no matter if they give him free vacations or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I don't think we will see Heller or McDonald revisited directly. Some limited personal right to own a firearm is not an absurd reading of the second amendment, and it seems unlikely the court will want to be so nakedly political as to directly undo precedent. Instead we will see litigation of firearms regulations and they will be upheld. So Heller will stand, but so will "may issue" concealed carry licenses, licensing in general, training requirements, and feature / capacity limits, etc. More importantly, even with a strict reading of "shall not be infringed" meaning ownership of firearms, even by felons, is 100% ok that doesn't mean public and open carry is included. Laws that restrict carrying guns outside the home can still fall right in line with the 2nd Amendment and its (very obsolete) militia-related purpose. Rygar201 posted:Could the DoJ just start enforcing pre clearance again, and when challenged declare that the 16th gives Congress the power to regulate I voting rights? They could try but lower courts will rule against them due to the last case and the SCOTUS will go 4-4 at best. Apply preclearance to the entire country and call it a day. EwokEntourage posted:A pistol would have "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" wouldn't it? Certainly soldiers carry pistols. Ownership would be perfectly in line with the 2A but open/concealed carry of firearms as a penis-enhancing fashion accessory is another matter as militia members don't go about daily business armed for combat. There is no common good or militia-related validity in having people walking around with their tactilol rifles and handguns. Kept at home for defense or used at the range or to hunt, sure. An outright ban on handgun ownership would be dumb and deserves to be struck down by the courts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
I would love for Congress to draft maps based on modern data and for them to have shocking similarity to the old maps. Gee, it turns out that the South still has problems with race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:More importantly, even with a strict reading of "shall not be infringed" meaning ownership of firearms, even by felons, is 100% ok that doesn't mean public and open carry is included. Laws that restrict carrying guns outside the home can still fall right in line with the 2nd Amendment and its (very obsolete) militia-related purpose. I agree. Even Scalia recognized it's not an unlimited right. And I don't think courts are going to overturn gun control measures that aren't outright bans on possessing, even if they are fairly strict laws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I would love for Congress to draft maps based on modern data and for them to have shocking similarity to the old maps. Pre-clear the entire country, because the rest of the states aren't much better and the South got demonstrably better under pre-clearance. Which was actually one of the arguments they used to try to axe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Pre-clear the entire country, because the rest of the states aren't much better and the South got demonstrably better under pre-clearance. Which was actually one of the arguments they used to try to axe it. Yep, there's no reason why the Klansmen in Michigan or Oregon should be any better off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I know that Clinton loves the precedent sent by anti-her group Citizens United Never Timid. Citizens United Not Timid is a separate group from Citizens United.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I sort of wonder if they can reverse themselves on striking down the VRA and have it pop back into existence without need for congress. I doubt they'd do it but has something like that ever occurred? I know Scalia had one law he loved get struck down and he insisted on applying it in his dissents as if it still was on the books because he thought the original decision was wrong. Congress hasn't repealed the VRA, so in principle president Clinton could try to enforce the pre-clearance section again, the lower courts would all hold it unconstitutional per Supreme Court opinion, and then the SC could reverse itself in a 5-4 decision, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Citizens United Not Timid is a separate group from Citizens United. huh. tmyk (but honestly, legal academia is neatly split: liberals don't like it, conservatives do, and Clinton's picking from non-Federalist candidates so anyone she nominates would be anti-CU)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Congress hasn't repealed the VRA, so in principle president Clinton could try to enforce the pre-clearance section again, the lower courts would all hold it unconstitutional per Supreme Court opinion, and then the SC could reverse itself in a 5-4 decision, right? That's inelegant but would probably work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Congress hasn't repealed the VRA, so in principle president Clinton could try to enforce the pre-clearance section again, the lower courts would all hold it unconstitutional per Supreme Court opinion, and then the SC could reverse itself in a 5-4 decision, right? Only if the SC agreed to hear the case after all the lower courts rule based on the old case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Only if the SC agreed to hear the case after all the lower courts rule based on the old case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Stare decisis is still a thing, I don't think a new Supreme Court would just outright reverse a bunch of recent decisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Unless Thomas was Chief Justice, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I swear, I only hit post once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Stare decisis is still a thing, I don't think a new Supreme Court would just outright reverse a bunch of recent decisions. Stare decisis is a doctrine and not a suicide pact. If the court determines that it erred in the past or changing circumstances have highlighted just how compelling the previously-discounted government interest actually is, they are within their power to overturn. Stare decisis is more like a request to try not to flip flop if possible. The court isn't going to just throw up their hands and go "well, stare decisis!" if someone shows sufficient regression in the wake of Shelby or that quid pro quo covers legislative favors to large donors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
It goes back to what evil weasel said. Can the court strike down a law then reverse itself and reinstate the law. I don't know of any cases where this has happened. I would also assume it couldn't, as one would think laws or portions of laws struck as unconstitutional cease to exist. What the court would probably do it wait for congress to pass another law to fix this issue then rule CU or whatever as wrongly decided and overturn that decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Isn't Plessy and Brown one instance of that exact scenario happening?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Isn't Plessy and Brown one instance of that exact scenario happening? Plessy upheld a law, Brown struck them down. We're talking about the court striking down a law then upholding/reinstating the part it struck down
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
The Supreme Court feels relatively free to overturn constitutional decisions that matter. Decisions that don't matter but you need a decision one way or the other, they don't. How to interpret laws, they (generally) don't because Congress can easily just pass a new law if they don't like the interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It goes back to what evil weasel said. Can the court strike down a law then reverse itself and reinstate the law. I don't know of any cases where this has happened. I would also assume it couldn't, as one would think laws or portions of laws struck as unconstitutional cease to exist. Laws ruled unconstitutional don't disappear off of the law books of until they are actually stricken by legislative action of some sort. See all of the states that still have laws on the books banning same sex marriage or how many states only recently repealed various miscegenation laws. In the case of a law struck down but not actually removed, if the court changed their mind the law is enforceable. See for example texas laws that the DoJ stopped before the VRA was gutted that were immediately re-implemented by the executive. On the other hand, if those laws had actually been stricken from the books, they would likely need to be passed again by legislative action to take force. Really, it's all going to depend on the facts of the situation and which state you're in. I honestly don't know about federal law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Unless Thomas was Chief Justice, of course. Not going to lie, I would enjoy this until I died from the nearest lawyer spontaneously detonating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Laws ruled unconstitutional don't disappear off of the law books of until they are actually stricken by legislative action of some sort. See all of the states that still have laws on the books banning same sex marriage or how many states only recently repealed various miscegenation laws. Yea cease to exist was a bad way to put it. I really don't know if the courts could do it and I can't think of any examples. I wouldn't compare action by the DOJ to the SC tho, only one gets to truly decide if something is unconstitutional. I'm sure someone will start working on test cases as soon as someone is confirmed
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
What's the quickest that SCOTUS has ever reversed a previous ruling?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:What's the quickest that SCOTUS has ever reversed a previous ruling? I think Minersville to WV State Board (forcing public school students to say the pledge), which was a 3 year gap
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:What's the quickest that SCOTUS has ever reversed a previous ruling? Wikipedia lists Robbins v. California (1981), overruled by United States v. Ross in 1982, and Sterrett v. Mothers’ & Children’s Rights Organization (1973), overruled by Edelman v. Jordan in 1974. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Isn't Plessy and Brown one instance of that exact scenario happening? There were like 55 years between plessey and brown. It's not so much that the court won't ever change its mind, but to just do a hard 180 within a couple years because the composition changed makes it look like a legislative body, not a deliberative legal body. They want to think of themselves as the latter, and generally understand that the legitimacy of the institution depends on people buying that. This will be like the Burger / Rehnquist retrenchment against the Warren Court criminal procedure cases. They didn't come out and say Katz is gone, and you no longer have protection against searches where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They just chipped away at where such an expectation exists. They didn't toss Miranda out whole sale (Scalia's wishes be damned) they chipped away at what exactly constitutes a custodial interrogation, how it can be invoked, whether you can pre-emotively invoke, etc. That is likely what the court will do with things like heller and citizens United.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Stare decisis is still a thing, I don't think a new Supreme Court would just outright reverse a bunch of recent decisions. No not really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I sort of wonder if they can reverse themselves on striking down the VRA and have it pop back into existence without need for congress. I doubt they'd do it but has something like that ever occurred? I know Scalia had one law he loved get struck down and he insisted on applying it in his dissents as if it still was on the books because he thought the original decision was wrong. edit: oh wait I read what you wrote wrong, and now I don't know what you're talking about but that's hilarious and Scalia continues to surprise with his treasure chest of crazy Torrannor posted:Congress hasn't repealed the VRA, so in principle president Clinton could try to enforce the pre-clearance section again, the lower courts would all hold it unconstitutional per Supreme Court opinion, and then the SC could reverse itself in a 5-4 decision, right? Very correct. Just because the VRA was held unconstitutional doesn't mean that 1) it isn't still "on the books" (it is until Congress repeals it) and 2) that the Executive can't still attempt to enforce it. It would be somewhat awkward as it is the exact same law, but the issue is a matter of applying constitutional principles, not a matter of interpreting how the statute should be construed or applied. Also, stare decisis is not super powerful for very recent decisions, and plus the majority opinion in the VRA case basically forgot about the 14th Amendment--thus, adopting the analysis basically laid out by the Ginsburg dissent would effectively make the "but the not updated formula?!?!" completely beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Since each Supreme Court justice has a circuit or two that they're primarily responsible for, what happens in the meantime with this vacancy in the fifth - do they split the caseload?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:04
|
|
