|
Mr. Nice! posted:This seems like a solid enough type of provision. Has wisconsin's law ever been challenged? I think it's still kicking around, but I think the 7th Circuit upheld it in 2014. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1043035160199030878&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr EDIT: there were some issues left over after SCOTUS denied cert, but I think they were cleared last year: [url]http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D04-12/C:15-3582  Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1736108:S:0[/url]ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 15, 2017 |
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Timby posted:The issue with Wisconsin is that essentially a day after the Voter ID bill was originally passed, the DOT began limiting hours at DMVs and closing DMV locations statewide. There are something like a dozen counties, at least, with DMVs that are open for like a day or two per month. That strikes me as onerous. See that's the kind of poo poo that needs to be challenged.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is why it doesn't pass constitutional muster. The appeals court okay'd it, and SCOTUS declined to review. Frank v Walker. There was another appeals decision on it last year but I don't know much. Timby posted:The issue with Wisconsin is that essentially a day after the Voter ID bill was originally passed, the DOT began limiting hours at DMVs and closing DMV locations statewide. There are something like a dozen counties, at least, with DMVs that are open for like a day or two per month. That strikes me as onerous. Yeah that sounds bad, did not know that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
The Wisconsin voter ID stuff was an extremely blatant gently caress You to specific groups of voters. Only the NCGOP has been more blatant in their actions and intent to explicitly make it harder for Democratic voters to vote.Timby posted:The Chief Justice felt it necessary to clarify that they only denied cert in the North Carolina voter ID law case because there was a concern over standing, not because they were affirming the lower court decision. Doesn't bode well for the Wisconsin case: I desperately, desperately want to believe that Wisconsin is going to lose that case. It pretty much relies entirely on Kennedy deciding "ok I asked for a reliable measurement of disenfranchisement and this is exactly it, and WI is wrong." It could happen, but we are in the darkest timeline so I'm worried it'll end up a 5-4 ruling and that Roberts will get to write some broad gerrymandering and disenfranchisement is 100% ok" opinion that the conservatives will all sign on to. I'm also hoping Kennedy doesn't retire with Trump in office because he knows full well it'll result in immediate nationwide rollback on LGBT rights, among other things he supports.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Without question, because we can disagree on the merits of outcomes and still have to live alongside one another. An internally consistent, logical, and fair process is the only way to achieve that, and we should always strive for perfection. "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Antonin Scalia, rest in piss e: oh i'm responding to The Iron Rose, lol
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." That's not actually what Scalia wrote, though. I'm not trying to defend the man, but that's not what he said.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
His concurrence amounts to the same thing. I fail to see how a paraphrase matters as applied to the ultimate opinion expressed in this specific instance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's not actually what Scalia wrote, though. I'm not trying to defend the man, but that's not what he said. The actual text isn't much better. Scalia posted:I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution [n.1] lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Without question, because we can disagree on the merits of outcomes and still have to live alongside one another. An internally consistent, logical, and fair process is the only way to achieve that, and we should always strive for perfection. Would you say that a system, one component of which directly states its intent to convict people of crimes because of the color of their skin, can be described as "fair"? Because it seems to me that convicting people for not being white enough is an unfair system, by definition. This is not an objection to the "outcome", it's an objection to the unfair process by which that outcome was reached. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
I actually think the law can, 100% accommodate unique historical and contemporary circumstances that require the application of strict scrutiny to certain types of discrimination claims and not others for much of the reasons you describe, but that doesn't detract from the general principle and you still have to justify it on process grounds.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:13
|
|
Cat Army 
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/864478380158332929
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Hmm yeah that's an excellent trade. Give up a life-time appointment to the DC Circuit in exchange for heading the FBI for two weeks until Trump fires him.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Bonfire Lit posted:Hmm yeah that's an excellent trade. Give up a life-time appointment to the DC Circuit in exchange for heading the FBI for two weeks until Trump fires him. Just have Garland ask for a leave of absence from the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Can't be an employee of two branches at once, no?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
The entire Garland to FBI thing was an incredibly obvious GOP ploy. Remember that the DC Circuit is the most important court after SCOTUS.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
This is stupid and Democrats who support it are even stupider.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Garland has publicly stated now that he's not leaving the bench so you can quit handwringing over a stupid GOP plot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
For some reason he looks like cupcake dog in this picture.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Can't be an employee of two branches at once, no? Can't be a member of Congress and an employee of the executive branch. quote:No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. Robert Jackson and Earl Warren both took leaves of absence from the Supreme Court to serve in executive roles.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Garland has publicly stated now that he's not leaving the bench so you can quit handwringing over a stupid GOP plot. It's a heads I win, tails you lose plot. Now they just get to crow about how their attempt to reach across the aisle was rejected as evidence that the Democrats don't want a fair and independent FBI at all. After all, he was good enough, according to them, for the SC... but he's not impartial enough for the Supreme Court? Nothing McConnel says is not part of a stupid (but somehow still effective sometimes) GOP plot. This is the dude that filibustered himself so he could accuse Democrats of obstructionism.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:If the court loses legitimacy under a Trumpian wave of kangaroo justices, that may actually be an irrecoverable loss. What does this mean? Even if people don't like it, SCOTUS rulings still have rule of law.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's a heads I win, tails you lose plot. Now they just get to crow about how their attempt to reach across the aisle was rejected as evidence that the Democrats don't want a fair and independent FBI at all. After all, he was good enough, according to them, for the SC... but he's not impartial enough for the Supreme Court? Dems: we didn't reject your attempt, Garland did. The end.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What does this mean? Even if people don't like it, SCOTUS rulings still have rule of law. If only their were an example in history of one of the political branches ignoring a Supreme Court ruling
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Yeah ultimately if supreme court rulings are seen as increasingly illegitimate you're gonna get a president actively running on the platform of ignoring the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Can't be an employee of two branches at once, no? Legislative + judicial and legislative + executive are forbidden, but there’s nothing preventing judicial + executive.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Legislative + judicial and legislative + executive are forbidden, but there’s nothing preventing judicial + executive. There are obvious ethical issues about being a judge and a member of law enforcement at once, though.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Can't be an employee of two branches at once, no? theoretically, but in practice he'd have to at least take a leave of absence, and that would be enough of a pretext for the Republicans to nominate an extra republican judge to that court. They've been wanting to add more right wing judges to the DC circuit for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:There are obvious ethical issues about being a judge and a member of law enforcement at once, though. You forgot that nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:There are obvious ethical issues about being a judge and a member of law enforcement at once, though. The two precedents we have didn't seem to have any problems. Robert Jackson took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court to prosecute Nazi war criminals. Earl Warren took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court to run the Kennedy assassination investigation. So no problem taking a leave of absence to run an investigation.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:theoretically, but in practice he'd have to at least take a leave of absence, and that would be enough of a pretext for the Republicans to nominate an extra republican judge to that court. They've been wanting to add more right wing judges to the DC circuit for a while. The size of the courts of appeal are set by statute. I guess congress could add a seat but 1) Senate Dems could block it 2) Just three years ago Senate GOP was arguing that the court has too many judges, scrambling to add more now would be a little transparent even for Senator Franklin.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The size of the courts of appeal are set by statute. I guess congress could add a seat but Ogmius815 posted:2) Just three years ago Senate GOP was arguing that the court has too many judges, scrambling to add more now would be a little transparent even for Senator Franklin.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:]2) Just three years ago Senate GOP was arguing that the court has too many judges, scrambling to add more now would be a little transparent even for Senator Franklin. Three years ago is ancient history. Last week is ancient history at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:2) Just three years ago Senate GOP was arguing that the court has too many judges, scrambling to add more now would be a little transparent even for Senator Franklin. hobbesmaster posted:You forgot that nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The size of the courts of appeal are set by statute. I guess congress could add a seat but "Because of the volume of litigation in the DC Circuit created by liberal challenges to President Trump's magnificent executive orders, the DC Circuit is now understaffed and we need to add at least three judges."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:If only their were an example in history of one of the political branches ignoring a Supreme Court ruling Yeah and what happened with that? I thought the US survived the presidency of Andrew Jackson and kept on keeping on with no real change at the governmental level. SCOTUS remained the final word on the law, popularly and legally, as it still is.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Is there any legal mechanism to initiate a special presidential election?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:What if the rules change? Well that would mean killing the legislative filibuster. Which I don't think Tip-tup is going to do over this. gohmak posted:Is there any legal mechanism to initiate a special presidential election? No.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Is there any legal mechanism to initiate a special presidential election? No. The Constitution and well-established law specify the line of succession and gaps in the line are filled by appointment from above or by Congress. haveblue fucked around with this message at 14:58 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Is there any legal mechanism to initiate a special presidential election? A constitutional amendment is the only possible mechanism.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
gohmak posted:Is there any legal mechanism to initiate a special presidential election? I can't wait for the people who are listening to Mensch and Taylor's every word to realize the horrible truth about their fantasies.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:43
|
|
