|
Originalism, you know, original. Like before the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Originalism, you know, original. Like before the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:34
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Actually even before the Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation. Still not original enough. If it wasn't part of Roanoke, it's too new.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
Good enough for Jamestown, good enough for your town.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
The only legal precedents I acknowledge are handshake agreements with the local natives that we immediately reneged on
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Good enough for Jamestown, good enough for your town. Misread as Jonestown, blinked.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Misread as Jonestown, blinked. That's still not far off from how they feel.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Still not original enough. If it wasn't part of Roanoke, it's too new. I suspect they're on route of finding the Magna Carta as too limiting of executive power (for some values of the executive).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Good enough for Jamestown, good enough for your town. SCOTUS Rules Cannibalism Legal
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Incredible move from a guy appointed by an election thief:quote:After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Joe Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag. https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-alito-house-stop-steal-114910672.html
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I suspect they're on route of finding the Magna Carta as too limiting of executive power (for some values of the executive). The Twelve Tables and 10 Commandments is all we need. Stone law, only law.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Good enough for Jamestown, good enough for your town. I stand with Jamestown against the Martians.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:It is pretty much this. Just checking back in on this today https://x.com/AriBerman/status/1793645704445092129 https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1793645748657246485
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Praying that Thomas dies and somehow takes Alito with him. gently caress him and his "courts should have no say in how badly the GOP gerrymander districts to cement a permanent control over state and federal legislatures" garbage. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Praying that Thomas dies and somehow takes Alito with him. gently caress him and his "courts should have no say in how badly the GOP gerrymander districts to cement a permanent control over state and federal legislatures" garbage. would this be an appeal to seven, then
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Biden's 2nd term should be the Court Modernization plan with 15 SCOTUS seats. Just cut the circuits up in a 3x5 grid.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Biden's 2nd term should be the Court Modernization plan with 15 SCOTUS seats. Just cut the circuits up in a 3x5 grid. Expanding the SCOTUS to 13, one per circuit, would be the logical and least-impossible sell but any attempt to unfuck the courts is going to be met by shrieking from every corporation with interests in the US, to say nothing of the right who'd somehow become even more unhinged.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Expanding the SCOTUS to 13, one per circuit, would be the logical and least-impossible sell but any attempt to unfuck the courts is going to be met by shrieking from every corporation with interests in the US, to say nothing of the right who'd somehow become even more unhinged. Elections have consequences and all that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Praying that Thomas dies and somehow takes Alito with him. gently caress him and his "courts should have no say in how badly the GOP gerrymander districts to cement a permanent control over state and federal legislatures" garbage. The ruling that made partisan gerrymandering legal was actually written by Roberts a couple years ago, not Alito. That was Rucho v. Common Cause back in 2019, which ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional but that partisan gerrymandering was a-ok. Which, by the way, is a loving stupid ruling in several different ways, but it's the precedent we're working with now. Of course, that raises a fairly obvious issue: if black people heavily lean Democratic and white people heavily lean Republican, then a racial gerrymander and a partisan gerrymander are going to be virtually indistinguishable. Suddenly disparate impact is no longer necessarily enough to judge that a gerrymander is a racial gerrymander, because a perfectly race-neutral purely partisan gerrymander would still have a wildly uneven racial impact due to that partisan split. Today's ruling is pretty much just what naturally follows from that issue: in order to maintain that artificial split between partisan gerrymanders that are legal and racial gerrymanders that aren't, the court puts the burden on the plaintiffs to prove to the court's satisfaction that the motives behind the gerrymandering were purely racial and had basically nothing to do with partisanship. Which is, of course, a nearly impossible standard to meet.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
It's basically the "You gotta be handed bags with dollar signs painted on the sides for it to be bribery" of gerrymandering
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Biden's 2nd term should be the Court Modernization plan with 15 SCOTUS seats. Just cut the circuits up in a 3x5 grid. But he'll have to worry about re-election!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ruling that made partisan gerrymandering legal was actually written by Roberts a couple years ago, not Alito. That was Rucho v. Common Cause back in 2019, which ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional but that partisan gerrymandering was a-ok. Which, by the way, is a loving stupid ruling in several different ways, but it's the precedent we're working with now. Didn’t they already hand wave over this in Department of Commerce v. New York when that dudes daughter released her dead fathers hard drive that basically said yes we are 100% racially gerrymandering but calling it something else
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
The district system is fundamentally flawed. Are we just grouping people by proximity for some reason? Should a minority population spread along a high way be less politically powerful than one in a town? Having said all that, I think don't gerrymander by race is the one thing there's history and law behind
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
Just absolutely wild that congress can pass a law saying racial gerrymandering is illegal and the SCOTUS can say, "nah"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
But how does this decision square with their decision to strike down racial gerrymanders in Alabama and Louisiana this year!? What's the difference? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 04:29
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:But how does this decision square with their decision to strike down racial gerrymanders in Alabama and Louisiana this year!? What's the difference? Those aren’t competitive districts or states at risk of flipping Dem anytime soon (or have Dems who are pretty far right)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Didn’t they already hand wave over this in Department of Commerce v. New York when that dudes daughter released her dead fathers hard drive that basically said yes we are 100% racially gerrymandering but calling it something else Roberts sided with the liberals in that case, agreeing that the Department of Commerce was lying and blocking the Trump administration's action. StumblyWumbly posted:The district system is fundamentally flawed. Are we just grouping people by proximity for some reason? Should a minority population spread along a high way be less politically powerful than one in a town? The idea is that people in different areas have different political priorities specific to their particular community, and therefore they should be grouped together so that these communities can have their specific political priorities well-represented. For example, a rural community might have opinions on farm subsidies that aren't shared by a coastal resort community, which might in turn have opinions about tourism and beach policy which aren't shared by a major inland city, and so on and so forth. The judges all agree that racial gerrymandering is illegal, the question here is just "what qualifies as racial gerrymandering?". This is an issue that has been a constant struggle in discrimination law - in order to brand a policy discriminatory, is it enough to show that the policy disproportionately impacts a minority group, or is it required to prove that the policy was primarily motivated by discrimination? The former policy really punishes disparate impact, regardless of whether racial discrimination was the actual intention, but it's also a lot easier to enforce since intent is pretty easy to fake. The latter policy laser-focuses only on discrimination in particular, but it's really easy to manufacture race-neutral pretexts for doing something that they know full well will disproportionately impact minorities. Naturally, the left-of-center tends to prefer the former policy, while the right-of-center prefers the latter. And since the right-of-center owns the Court right now, it's not going to be enough to just point to a set of districts and say "hey, the minority population is way underrepresented here, this must be a racial gerrymander". Plaintiffs are going to have to prove that the gerrymander was specifically done with racist intent, and that's very difficult. Charlz Guybon posted:But how does this decision square with their decision to strike down racial gerrymanders in Alabama and Louisiana this year!? What's the difference? The conservatives thought that the state's argument for "it's partisan gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering" was better in this case, and that the defendants' argument for "it's racial gerrymandering, not partisan gerrymandering" was worse.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
Right of center  . This is white supremacy and nothing more. This is just allowing the descendants of the landed gentry that owned slaves in the south to continue to disenfranchise black people.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 12:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And since the right-of-center owns the Court right now, Who the gently caress is "right of center" in the current SCOTUS? The conservative justice closest to the "center" is Roberts and that's largely because he's trying to make the SCOTUS look legitimate while having lifelong goals that include the complete reversal of the Civil Rights movement. He wasn't in the minority for Dobbs because he wanted to protect abortion rights, he was trying to protect the GOP from itself because he knew that striking down Roe would be terrible for the GOP. And it was. It took what was shaping up to be a historic red wave and turned it into a tiny House majority and a net loss of a Senate seat due to the decision energizing people to vote against the GOP 2 years ago. And all 6 justices are FedSoc puppets but that's a given with right wing judges at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Didn’t they already hand wave over this in Department of Commerce v. New York when that dudes daughter released her dead fathers hard drive that basically said yes we are 100% racially gerrymandering but calling it something else As Main Paineframe said the leak actually got the census question struck down because Roberts couldn't pretend it had a non-racist basis. He likely votes in favor of keeping the question in if she hadn't done that since while it was obvious they were lying there wasn't a smoking gun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Just absolutely wild that congress can pass a law saying racial gerrymandering is illegal and the SCOTUS can say, "nah"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It's just more evidence that people who complain that Democrats could've protected abortion rights by making a federal law are not arguing in good faith, because SCOTUS doesn't care about federal law especially when it comes to Republican targets. Using "republicans might undo it" as a justification for inaction should rightfully be condemned as feckless
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ruling that made partisan gerrymandering legal was actually written by Roberts a couple years ago, not Alito. That was Rucho v. Common Cause back in 2019, which ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional but that partisan gerrymandering was a-ok. Which, by the way, is a loving stupid ruling in several different ways, but it's the precedent we're working with now. The easy defense for this case was to come up with a map that showed a roughly equivalent level of partisan gerrymandering but not racial gerrymandering, thus supporting the idea that there could be completely legal options and the current districting is using a potentially illegal option. While that isn't a slam dunk argument it seems like a pretty easy argument to make considering it's practically automated to make a district map these days. As far as I'm aware that wasn't a path chosen in this case although I'd love to be proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:02
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It's just more evidence that people who complain that Democrats could've protected abortion rights by making a federal law are not arguing in good faith, because SCOTUS doesn't care about federal law especially when it comes to Republican targets. I think the real reason is there is little the federal government can do with regard to abortion. Federal powers are limited in what they can order states to do, especially in a medical context. They can’t even force states to accept full funding to expand medicaid. They could try something like “no medicaid/medicare dollars if you don’t allow abortion” but that would just result in FL et al. closing up their medicaid/medicare programs.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
Partisan gerrymandering being non-justiciable was already ludicrous to begin with but this is a court that gutted the VRA without any legitimate basis so that's just how it goes.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
Well, elections have consequences. If you don’t like who gets to be a federal judge, there’s a political branch that is responsible for that with exactly one official at the top of it who appoints all the others and who is elected by the people. I guess we’d better choose that official carefully.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think the real reason is there is little the federal government can do with regard to abortion. Federal powers are limited in what they can order states to do, especially in a medical context. They can’t even force states to accept full funding to expand medicaid. They could try something like “no medicaid/medicare dollars if you don’t allow abortion” but that would just result in FL et al. closing up their medicaid/medicare programs. Florida of all places closing down all medicare programs would certainly be a choice.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Well, elections have consequences. If you don’t like who gets to be a federal judge, there’s a political branch that is responsible for that with exactly one official at the top of it who appoints all the others and who is elected by the people. I guess we’d better choose that official carefully. What about when the court chooses that official. Or when the people vote for the other candidate but the loser wins.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think the real reason is there is little the federal government can do with regard to abortion. Isn't that mostly due to the Hyde Amendment? Which is a piece of legislation and thus subject to modification by Congress
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
haveblue posted:Isn't that mostly due to the Hyde Amendment? Which is a piece of legislation and thus subject to modification by Congress Nah. It’s due to limited federal powers. Healthcare is not an enumerated constitutional power. All federal healthcare programs are opt-in. The feds cannot force states to accept free money for them. Dameius posted:Florida of all places closing down all medicare programs would certainly be a choice. FL is deep in the culture war. DeSantis would do it and his approval rating would go up in party.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:36
|
|