|
evilweasel posted:The Civil War amendments, 13-15, were passed in an era where the Supreme Court was not trusted to enforce civil rights because it was the same Supreme Court that had issued the Dredd Scott decision. So all of those amendments give Congress the authority to enforce them by appropriate legislation. It's up to Congress what's appropriate under the circumstances, not the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing the current circumstances and deciding the VRA is no longer appropriate. They may not have any business doing it, but they have the power to do it. This argument seems as flawed to me as my own inane post a few pages back where I wondered if a constitutional amendment could ban state level political election of judges -- my thought process was basically "that's a nonjusticiable political question" but I was forgetting the constitution decides what's political, so a theoretical amendment could do whatever it was drafted to do. Similarly, the Court decides what it has the power to review, regardless of anything else, so arguing the Court doesn't have the authority to review something it's decided to review makes about as much sense as trying to use logical arguments to persuade a bullet to miss you. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Apr 20, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:They may not have any business doing it, but they have the power to do it. It's generally a Very Bad Thing to ignore the Court, but it's entirely possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Does this make sense? The court reviewed legislation that is expressly authoritative per the 15th. You can't just decide that you want to drastically pare down an incoming case, review legislation on the basis of an unenumerated 10th right while blindfolding yourself to the authority of the 15th amendment without drawing Well, technically they can, since it's the Supreme Court that gets to decide what the 10th Amendment and 15th Amendment actually mean for the purposes of US legal interpretation. It's a lovely, bullshit ruling more concerned with enforcing the judges' ideological beliefs than making a Constitutional judgement, but Tenth Amendment cases often are. As for the balance-of-power concerns some have raised here, the problem isn't just a Supreme Court that's asserting more and more power, it's a weak Congress that's asserting less and less power and neglecting even some of its basic constitutional responsibilities. The Congressional remedy to the Shelby County ruling is simple (just pass a new preclearance formula), but no one's even bothered to discuss the possibility in an era where Congress can't even pass budgets, has essentially surrendered its oversight powers over military action, and has turned confirmation processes into nothing more but partisan rubber-stamps for or against the president. And to me, that weak Congress is much more of a concern than a strong Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:56
|
|
from civil rights groups
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, technically they can, since it's the Supreme Court that gets to decide what the 10th Amendment and 15th Amendment actually mean for the purposes of US legal interpretation. It's a lovely, bullshit ruling more concerned with enforcing the judges' ideological beliefs than making a Constitutional judgement, but Tenth Amendment cases often are. I haven't thought of a weak congress vs strong court in this way before. Unrelated: is your red text from someone who -- hold on here -- is trying to frame justification for voter inaction on the basis of hurt feelings? To wit, "You hurt my feelings in the primary, guess I better not try to stop resurgent nationalism" ??
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:They may not have any business doing it, but they have the power to do it. Court decisions have power based on their perceived legitimacy. Attacking a court decision as fundamentally illegitimate is how you weaken and reverse it. Legal arguments the court has decided to reject aren't going to sway the court, but they'll sway people who might be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. It should not be forgotten that this was a completely illegitimate decision. Main Paineframe posted:Well, technically they can, since it's the Supreme Court that gets to decide what the 10th Amendment and 15th Amendment actually mean for the purposes of US legal interpretation. It's a lovely, bullshit ruling more concerned with enforcing the judges' ideological beliefs than making a Constitutional judgement, but Tenth Amendment cases often are. It's not a weak congress issue. It's that the House has been controlled by Republicans constantly since 2010 and voter suppression is part of the Republican strategy. They just don't want to overtly admit it, but the Supreme Court lets them do nothing and get what they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
I would say that a congress that is actively abdicating powers, in this case authority over voting systems in states, by allowing them to be taken away by the SCotUS rather than trying to actively remedy a legal situation they don't like is one that is being weakened. The fact that Republicans and Democrats both don't have the votes to accomplish anything through the legislature and so are seeking other branches of government to achieve policy goals is precisely a weakening of Congress. In the case of the Democrats it was a reliance on a strong executive to accomplish policy goals through effecting laws and regulations. In the case of Republicans it is ensuring the makeup of the SC stays tilted. Neither side is willing to do anything about these mechanisms when they're in power because both know they won't be able to achieve anything in terms of effective rule. I'm not trying a 'both sides are equally bad' argument here either. The strong executive has become the only way to actually accomplish anything and the SC is a sacred cow the Dems really aren't willing to be seen undermining because they care about the legitimacy of the court. The Republicans are flat out looking for total control. Unfortunately the total control side are willing to watch everything burn if they don't have it and the Dems are desperately trying to keep the government functioning. Congress is being weakened by both sides precisely because the Republicans won't really let it work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
Some of them are overly admitting it, especially those that are being empowered by that abdication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not a weak congress issue. It's that the House has been controlled by Republicans constantly since 2010 and voter suppression is part of the Republican strategy. They just don't want to overtly admit it, but the Supreme Court lets them do nothing and get what they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think your argument that Congress has the sole power to create civil rights legislation and therefore the Supreme Court shouldn't overturn civil rights legislation is strange if you're also acknowledging that Congress wanted the outcome the Supreme Court reached on this particular civil rights legislation, and could easily effectively overturn the decision by passing a new preclearance formula, but is deliberately choosing not to. Like it's bad all those things are true, and Republicans are bad for making it happen, but the Supreme Court clearly isn't in conflict with the wishes of Congress here. One half of Congress doesn't get to strike existing legislation. Also, they wanted this result, but it was so politically poisonous they weren't willing to go on the record and vote against the VRA, which is politics working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:One half of Congress doesn't get to strike existing legislation. Also, they wanted this result, but it was so politically poisonous they weren't willing to go on the record and vote against the VRA, which is politics working as intended. Following on this, SCOTUSBlog has a good collection of period opinions surrounding Casey, including some that step back and lay out the architecture of the Casey v Holder Jim Crow gamble and its payoff for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I haven't thought of a weak congress vs strong court in this way before. The power of any particular branch of government is always relative, as it's the other two branches that can work to restrain it. The Court has certainly been pretty assertive over the past couple of decades, but it's done far worse over the years, and the current incarnation of its assertive spirit has created a lot of good rights that weren't previously recognized - that's why conservatives have been turning to a strategy of judicial warfare to begin with. On the other hand, the outcome of previous cases of Supreme Court overreach have largely depended on how willing Congress was to rein it in, as well as how eager the executive and the public were to pressure Congress to take action. For example, in 1970, Congress passed an extension to the Voting Rights Act that was then overturned by the Supreme Court, and Congress responded by amending the Constitution to put that VRA addition directly into the text of what's now known as the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Of course, there have been more famous instances too, like the heavily pro-business court of the early 20th century suddenly changing course in respond to FDR's court-packing plan, or the substantial kerfuffle set off by the Dred Scott decision. The big distinction that sets apart this era of the court from previous eras isn't really the strength or assertiveness or blatantly ideological decisions - those have all been seen before. Instead, what really distinguishes the current government situation is a weak, cowardly, irresponsible Congress that refuses to rein in the other branches of government and can barely carry out its own functions, less concerned with governing and more concerned with making sure voters blame someone else for the outcomes of governing. Partisanship is a big part of that - Congress is now more concerned with flexing their ideological bona fides and impressing well-funded ideological lobbyist organizations than actually running the country, which leads to a tendency to spend most of their time in Washington loudly posturing on the floor of Congress while quietly maintaining the status quo and leaving most of the real work of changing things to the other two branches. on the morning of November 9th, a lot of people weren't really in a good frame of mind, and some of them spent money on tearfully buying barely-coherent avatars for anyone who they thought had disagreed with them. I'm not getting rid of mine until it stops being hilarious
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:on the morning of November 9th, a lot of people weren't really in a good frame of mind, and some of them spent money on tearfully buying barely-coherent avatars for anyone who they thought had disagreed with them. I'm not getting rid of mine until it stops being hilarious Same, I'm not even sure what mine's supposed to mean, Hillary was Paul von Hindenburg? Hindenburg won, who's Hitler in this? He lost but wanted to call shots anyway. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
The idea that the Supreme Court can overturn laws merely for being 40 years old (reauthorized in 2006 with overwhelming support) is probably the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:One half of Congress doesn't get to strike existing legislation. Also, they wanted this result, but it was so politically poisonous they weren't willing to go on the record and vote against the VRA, which is politics working as intended. If I remember right this was literally one of Scalia's arguments: Congress only reauthorized it because they were afraid that voting against it would be unpopular, so was it really Congress's will if they only passed a law because voters wanted them to? Which is an...interesting...theory on the purpose of representative government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I remember right this was literally one of Scalia's arguments: Congress only reauthorized it because they were afraid that voting against it would be unpopular, so was it really Congress's will if they only passed a law because voters wanted them to? Look, the Court had to do something. Once you hand out racial entitlements, you can't get rid of them through the normal political process. The Court has to save Congress from itself sometimes. After all, the last re-authorization passed 98-0 and if you have no votes in opposition to something, that actually means there's something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Look, the Court had to do something. Once you hand out racial entitlements, you can't get rid of them through the normal political process. The Court has to save Congress from itself sometimes. After all, the last re-authorization passed 98-0 and if you have no votes in opposition to something, that actually means there's something wrong. Justice Alito cosplayers are getting too good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Justice Alito cosplayers are getting too good. Two of those sentences were Scalia paraphrases!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
So... what happens if congress creates a brand new voting rights act in the future and it's contested all the way up to the SCOTUS? If they strike it out again, what will their justification be that time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Judicial precedent, unclarified
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:So... what happens if congress creates a brand new voting rights act in the future and it's contested all the way up to the SCOTUS? If they strike it out again, what will their justification be that time? Considering by that time there will be a majority of originalists on the Court, their justification will be that the founders didn't consider non-whites to be people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Non whites were actually score modifiers for whites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Look, the Court had to do something. Once you hand out racial entitlements, you can't get rid of them through the normal political process. The Court has to save Congress from itself sometimes. After all, the last re-authorization passed 98-0 and if you have no votes in opposition to something, that actually means there's something wrong. Poe's Law is stumped me here - Scalia racial entitlements is a thing you can read about on /pol/ . Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:So... what happens if congress creates a brand new voting rights act in the future and it's contested all the way up to the SCOTUS? If they strike it out again, what will their justification be that time? False premise: Congress is incapable of passing legislation
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Poe's Law is stumped me here - Scalia racial entitlements is a thing you can read about on /pol/ . quote:And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. and quote:Two days later, at the argument in a big voting rights case, Justice Scalia seemed to violate his rule against citing foreign law. Expressing skepticism about the significance of the 98-0 vote by which the Senate reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, Justice Scalia said, “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
I like this one because doesn't this kind of turn the idea of a unanimous jury verdict finding someone guilty which will carry with it the possibility of the death penalty? Or any jury verdict for that matter really...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sam_baker/status/855411098555699205 Looks like the 5 Republican hacks on the Gorsuch court are ready to get rollin!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/855426734010896384
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
I guess it's better that they start on their batshit spree as soon as possible so that it becomes impossible for the next Dem government to not pack the court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:I like this one because doesn't this kind of turn the idea of a unanimous jury verdict finding someone guilty which will carry with it the possibility of the death penalty? Or any jury verdict for that matter really... Pretty sure he only meant it to apply to ancient Israelites and modern black people trying to vote. Because Scalia was a massive pile of wobbly afterbirth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I'm familiar. The poes law bit is my inability to tell whether you were actually sincere, because parroting American Hero Justice Scalia is something you'd think is mainstream if you consumed and believed in alt-right media. Rephrased: this poo poo pops up in the wild today and, instead of laughing, I flinched
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Poor ol' Alito's heart just isn't in it anymore...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:So... what happens if congress creates a brand new voting rights act in the future and it's contested all the way up to the SCOTUS? If they strike it out again, what will their justification be that time? The decision pretty explicitly said that singling out states run by the other party based on 40 year old data was unacceptable and the Dems could've passed universal pre-clearance to avoid that. It could've been done when they had the votes to get the ACA through unilaterally. But they just couldn't lower themselves to being in the same basket as the deplorables so now they got nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:52
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
This can almost be read as a threat. Maybe Thomas just wants to drive his RV around the country full time now? (It won't happen)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This can almost be read as a threat. It's probably Kennedy, just because that's the worst possible option and we live in the darkest timeline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The decision pretty explicitly said that singling out states run by the other party based on 40 year old data was unacceptable and the Dems could've passed universal pre-clearance to avoid that. It could've been done when they had the votes to get the ACA through unilaterally. But they just couldn't lower themselves to being in the same basket as the deplorables so now they got nothing. Which was weird because it wasn't 40 year old data, they looked at updated data and it was pretty much the same as the original data since racists gonna racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
It's a conspiracy to murder one of the liberal judges! Protect RBG!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
duz posted:Which was weird because it wasn't 40 year old data, they looked at updated data and it was pretty much the same as the original data since racists gonna racist. Which was immediately made evident by the actions of states that were previously under pre-clearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
If only the Dems had seen the future they could have passed universal pre-clearance 3 years before the VRA was struck down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/sam_baker/status/855411098555699205 Justice Alito posted:“Late at night when I was thinking about cases I would test out my ideas with Zeus. He generally agreed with me,” Justice Alito said. “But if I had a really hard case and I couldn’t figure out what to do,” he had a special way to reach a decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
The hackiest of hacks
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:08
|
|
