VitalSigns posted:I agree the supreme court should be removed from power for ignoring laws they find inconvenient, Shelby County was the essence of strongman rule Which part of the Shelby Country reasoning is not based on a widely accepted interpretation of the law as to call it "strongman rule" in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Which part of the Shelby Country reasoning is not based on a widely accepted interpretation of the law as to call it "strongman rule" in your opinion? What about it was "widely accepted interpretation" of the law? It was a purely partisan decision that ignored the language of the constitution and invented a questionable state's right to equal treatment, there was no broad legal consensus for that ruling. The senate reauthorized the VRA 99-0 under a republican president, there was broad legal consensus behind the law and overturning it was a reaction to Republican election losses and their fear of an approaching demographic irrelevancy of their party
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about it was "widely accepted interpretation" of the law? Shelby is a great case because it shows even if you amend the constitution itself the SCOTUS will be so partisian and political as to ignore it anyway on the flimisest of grounds. Vote tho.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Which part of the Shelby Country reasoning is not based on a widely accepted interpretation of the law as to call it "strongman rule" in your opinion? Shelby county was based on the notion that laws impacting voting rights need an "expiration date" or some means other than Congress itself for historically racist jurisdictions to prove that they've "un-racisted" themselves. The Court had no citations in support of these propositions, because none exist. Furthermore, the position is in fact contradictory to the Constitution. Although federalism normally gives states broad leeway in how they conduct their internal affairs, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 states clearly that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." As for the equal protection argument, it is a maxim of conflict of laws that the specific law controls the general, and the later enactment controls the earlier, and I'm pretty sure the 15th amendment came later than the 14th and deals specifically with minority elections. Finally, the last line of the 15th amendment reads "Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation," and the Supreme Court has just substituted its own judgment for Congress's on what legislation is appropriate. Is that enough to start with?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DouglasKBlair/s...umber%3D11pti25 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I can't believe Republicans are doing the exact thing that we've said for years they'd do the second that Roe was overturned. That bill's written with such a bad understanding of reproduction as a biological process that it would make most forms of contraceptive that aren't condoms arguably murder. Also, in a sane world, this would immediately see it stricken on 1A grounds: quote:Section 2. Acknowledging the sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
This is a dangerous thing, and I don't say that in the decorum sense of the argument, because I believe protests of this nature are undoubtedly justified. I think it's absolutely shameful that it's come to this. It is not right that people protest outside a judge's home to attempt to influence a decision; however, it is far, far more wrong for a single judge's decision to abridge the human rights of hundreds of millions of people without further recourse. This is a symptom of how broken the system is.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Counterpoint, it is good and right that people protest unjust decisions that will cause untold harm and suffering.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is a dangerous thing, and I don't say that in the decorum sense of the argument, because I believe protests of this nature are undoubtedly justified. I think it's absolutely shameful that it's come to this. It is not right that people protest outside a judge's home to attempt to influence a decision; however, it is far, far more wrong for a single judge's decision to abridge the human rights of hundreds of millions of people without further recourse. This is a symptom of how broken the system is. Actually protesting a lovely judge's horrible work is great and 100% should be encouraged
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is a dangerous thing, and I don't say that in the decorum sense of the argument, because I believe protests of this nature are undoubtedly justified. I think it's absolutely shameful that it's come to this. It is not right that people protest outside a judge's home to attempt to influence a decision; however, it is far, far more wrong for a single judge's decision to abridge the human rights of hundreds of millions of people without further recourse. This is a symptom of how broken the system is. Seems incredibly tepid and weak given what’s at stake. Why do you think it’s not right?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ProtestaBloc/status/1521328439759761408 I'd uh, say  has it easy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:48
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Actually protesting a lovely judge's horrible work is great and 100% should be encouraged If the US Supreme Court thinks it's inappropriate for people to protest at the doors of homes because it disrupts people, then perhaps they shouldn't have explicitly ruled that there shouldn't be any boundaries around protesting at the doors of medical facilities.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:48
|
|
|
If Brett Kavanaugh thinks he has a right to privacy in his own home, then maybe he should think women have a right to privacy in their own bodies.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is a dangerous thing, and I don't say that in the decorum sense of the argument, because I believe protests of this nature are undoubtedly justified. I think it's absolutely shameful that it's come to this. It is not right that people protest outside a judge's home to attempt to influence a decision; however, it is far, far more wrong for a single judge's decision to abridge the human rights of hundreds of millions of people without further recourse. This is a symptom of how broken the system is. If you really want judges to be free of protest then they would need to be fully detached from society, like a council of monks/nuns that lives in isolation reading legal briefs and nothing else. I think such a system would also be broken, but it is the only context in which one could sincerely say that peaceful protests that intrude on their isolation are dangerous in some way.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Seems incredibly tepid and weak given what’s at stake. Why do you think it’s not right? What I think is not right is that I think a judge should never be put/allowed to be in this position in the first place. It's a bastardization of the judiciary. To be perfectly clear: I completely support the protests, without qualification. I abhor the circumstances that have caused them to be necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:If you really want judges to be free of protest then they would need to be fully detached from society, like a council of monks/nuns that lives in isolation reading legal briefs and nothing else. I think such a system would also be broken, but it is the only context in which one could sincerely say that peaceful protests that intrude on their isolation are dangerous in some way. I completely disagree. As a Canadian, I can assure you that I, and all Canadians who are not involved in the legal profession, have a far better idea of who's on the SCOTUS and what their views are, than we have of who is on our own Supreme Court. Why? Because our justices are boring as gently caress and they make boring decisions based on law instead of their own personal desires and no one cares because it's insanely rare that they have a pissing match with the legislature. You don't need to be detached from society, you just need people who aren't completely out their loving gourds.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Strong disagree. The whole purported point of lifetime judicial appointments is that they are free from political pressure and influence. However the reality is that they are simply free from popular pressure and influence, but continue to live in social circles that exert social political pressure and influence, but it is limited to influence from a small class of people. In this reality judges deserve to have the populace they don't interact with intrude on their daily lives to remind them of the context of their actions. This would be true even if the roles were reversed and the protestors were people I disagreed with protesting a judge I agreed with, btw. The fact that this can happen at all is a sign that maybe there is some hope for the system still. A good first step might be to create federal locations in the central US and in the west, and distribute the legislative and judicial branches across the country. At least they would be in separate circles.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Not remotely. The people who get appointed to the SCOTUS already run in monied circles long before they're ever considered for the job, and the confirmation process is openly partisan.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Sydin posted:https://twitter.com/ProtestaBloc/status/1521328439759761408 This was the right and correct move. The evangelical right took over the politics of El Salvador and they didn't do this, which resulted in every miscarriage ending up being open to prosecution.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is a dangerous thing, and I don't say that in the decorum sense of the argument, because I believe protests of this nature are undoubtedly justified. I think it's absolutely shameful that it's come to this. It is not right that people protest outside a judge's home to attempt to influence a decision; however, it is far, far more wrong for a single judge's decision to abridge the human rights of hundreds of millions of people without further recourse. This is a symptom of how broken the system is. This kind of hand-wringing is exactly how we got here. Protest early, and protest often. A Justice doesn't get to just arbitrarily puts millions of lives at risk and strip rights and not face consequences for it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
Also, in response to that: https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1523346208164483072 If I were his neighbour, there'd be this support and also an open bar.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
Devorum posted:This kind of hand-wringing is exactly how we got here. Protest early, and protest often. A Justice doesn't get to just arbitrarily puts millions of lives at risk and strip rights and not face consequences for it. Did you read my later response or nah? The protests are unquestionably justified in this case. My issue is that this should not have been left to the Supreme Court, and the court should not be politicized as it is. I don't want a situation where judges' houses are protested, but more importantly than that: I don't want a situation where there is cause to protest at a judge's house, and that's the real issue here. What's happening is disgusting. It should not happen, but the reason it should not happen is because there should be no reason for it to happen. There should be no reason to protest in front of a judge's home. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it! I'm saying the fact that it's come to this, and very reasonably so, is evidence of a deep rot in the structure of the United States of America.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't want a situation where judges' houses are protested, but more importantly than that: I don't want a situation where there is cause to protest at a judge's house, and that's the real issue here. This is the key. Attempts by external actors to sway court decisions are almost always inappropriate, but in a situation such as this one where the court is dispensing with the law to impose an outcome it would instead prefer, it's completely understandable. Anyone who thinks court decisions should be reversible in general by making a big enough stink cannot be said to be standing for justice.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This is the key. Attempts by external actors to sway court decisions are almost always inappropriate Incorrect. In fact, external actors have always swayed the court, it’s just been in service of capital and the ruling class. It’s about time the people even the odds.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/the_law_boy/status/1523438142476341248?s=21&t=mP8MDISPFJ6uWTI7lK3kmw
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Incorrect. In fact, external actors have always swayed the court, it’s just been in service of capital and the ruling class. It’s about time the people even the odds. Feel free to cite a source to back up this claim.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Feel free to cite a source to back up this claim. Google the Federalist Society (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Feel free to cite a source to back up this claim. Where did trump’s three court appointments come from?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
They need to make Leonard Leo's life a living hell.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
This is just court intrigue and probably a lot of dot connecting but boy do the dots connect well https://twitter.com/edgeofsports/status/1523359141997080576?s=21&t=YQv4KmdpsOfFeHsVJBVBBQ
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Courts are not some ineffable font of justice they are groups of people entrusted with the instruments of society's violence in the name of justice. When they betray that trust they can and should have those instruments ripped from their hands, to fail to do so is to surrender society to injustice. There is nothing magical about the buildings they work in or the ridiculous wizard robes they wear that shields from corruption, nor any law degree that makes them immune from bigotry. Refusal to treat them as the fallible people given the power of life and death, the power to impoverish and utterly ruin, on the grounds of vague and lofty "ideals" is just cowardice hiding behind civic religion.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
If they didn't want to get protested at their homes they shouldn't have put up all that fencing around the Court. Reap what you sow and all that. It's laughable they can do that when the Court ruled clinics couldn't have a buffer zone.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Plus the Supreme Court is the most disconnected from the regular public (wealthy persons still have connections). There is no direct remedy for displeasure with the Court’s decisions. The public cannot recall a Justice like they can a governor. They cannot vote them out of office like Presidents or members of Congress/state legislatures. Impeachment does not happen and has been shown to be a useless option. The only options to directly voice concerns is through protesting. Since they have determined that a right to privacy does not exist for women to choose their medical procedures, then it can also be seen that there is no right to privacy at their own homes. As long as the protestors do not go onto private property (because property rights are the only laws to be always protected), then the Justices understand that they seeing the 1st amendment in action.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Incorrect. In fact, external actors have always swayed the court, it’s just been in service of capital and the ruling class. It’s about time the people even the odds. The "people" would need to coalesce around advocacy for a single issue as polarizing as abortion. And for any putative American left, abortion itself doesn't appear to be that issue, nor does campaign finance.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:This is just court intrigue and probably a lot of dot connecting but boy do the dots connect well I feel like this is going to be something that's painfully obvious by how quickly/aggressively they out who leaked it. If it actually was her, any talk of finding out who did it is going to disappear quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:This is just court intrigue and probably a lot of dot connecting but boy do the dots connect well Also, surely I'm not the only one who thinks the protests are not going to sway anyone?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is this why Kavanaugh is being targeted more in the protests? I was curious why he was getting more of it than Alito or Thomas, who have been more open and brazen for decades about abortion. i assume the fact that brett kavanaugh is a rapist probably also factors in to why he is getting more intense protests in a decision involving women's rights
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is this why Kavanaugh is being targeted more in the protests? I was curious why he was getting more of it than Alito or Thomas, who have been more open and brazen for decades about abortion. Who cares if they sway anyone the justices should not know a moment's peace.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is this why Kavanaugh is being targeted more in the protests? I was curious why he was getting more of it than Alito or Thomas, who have been more open and brazen for decades about abortion. Going to guess having a highly publicized confirmation hearing focusing on him being a rapist probably has some effect on people choosing to protest outside of his house. Also apparently his neighbors are fairly cool people. E: by rights they all should be being protested, but you get the picture.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
I apologize for the extremely dumb question, but do we know when we can expect the actual ruling to be released? All we have so far is a leaked draft – not that I have any optimism that the final ruling will be somehow better, but all of these trigger laws in red states don’t come into effect until it’s official.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:52
|
|
