|
bird food bathtub posted:We do have massive partisan intervention in the makeup of the Supreme Court though? Like, we do. Huge amounts of massive partisan intervention. McConnel ratfucked his way in to stealing multiple seats by inventing long-held traditions out of thin air that he then immediately discarded when he could intervene some more. The "huge partisan intervention" in question is that he delayed the filling of one seat until after an election, giving voters a chance to decide which party that seat should go to. Crying about him "stealing multiple seats" is just sour grapes. Even if he hadn't done that, conservatives would still have a majority on the Court now, since McConnell didn't do anything new to get Kavanaugh's or ACB's seats. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Feb 8, 2024 |
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Kagrenak posted:How were Kav and Barrett stolen seats? Or is this just a novel (to me) relitigation of 2016 where McConnell's loving of the SCOTUS pick somehow cost Hillary the election? It was blatantly partisan, in a way that hadn't been done before... ...but if the American populace as a whole thought it was illegitimate in a way that demanded immediate judicial reform, presumably people would have voted against the party doing it in the 2016 elections. For as often as people complain about how the right are dirty cheaters, actual court-packing would be much more of a cheat than simply delaying an appointment till after the next election. Delaying a Supreme Court appointment like that is pretty unprecedented, sure, but the only post-Civil War precedent for court-packing is FDR trying to do it with 70+ Dem Senate seats and still failing. It's important to keep some sense of perspective, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Who the hell would enforce it then? Elections are managed by the states. Individual states deciding on their own whether someone is eligible to be president didn't really make any sense from the beginning. The actual determination of whether someone's allowed to be president pretty much fundamentally has to happen at the federal level, after which the states would use their own state laws to remove him for being an ineligible candidate. "Who would actually make that call?" is a pretty good question. The only answer that really makes any practical sense at all is "the federal courts", though there's always the chance the SC could throw a curveball and put that determination in the hands of Congress or something instead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:CREW was founded in 2003 by former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan and white-collar lawyer Norm Eisen, who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's chief ethics lawyer and later his ambassador to the Czech Republic. Liberal political consultant David Brock became CREW's chairman in 2014 and stepped down in 2016. He was replaced by Richard Painter, who went on to take a leave of absence to run as a Democrat in Minnesota's 2018 U.S. Senate special election. Under Painter's leadership, CREW pursued aggressive litigation against the Trump administration, which it called the "most unethical presidency" in U.S. history. CREW filed 41 lawsuits during George W. Bush's administration, 38 during Obama's administration and, by January 2018, 180 against the Trump administration.[6] This wiki summary leaves out a lot. For example, it doesn't mention that Richard Painter was a lifelong Republican who served in GWB's White House. He ran for office as a Democrat in 2018, yes, but that's because he was a Never Trumper in 2016 and was highly critical of MAGA. Till then, he was a diehard Republican - and also a career ethics lawyer. CREW generally does lean somewhat on the liberal side, but that's largely because there's already highly-motivated conservative groups dedicated to ethics investigations of Democrats, and also because there's more ex-Clintonites who've been pushed out of party politics than there are ex-Bushites.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:CREW was founded in 2003 by former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan and white-collar lawyer Norm Eisen, who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's chief ethics lawyer and later his ambassador to the Czech Republic. Liberal political consultant David Brock became CREW's chairman in 2014 and stepped down in 2016. He was replaced by Richard Painter, who went on to take a leave of absence to run as a Democrat in Minnesota's 2018 U.S. Senate special election. Under Painter's leadership, CREW pursued aggressive litigation against the Trump administration, which it called the "most unethical presidency" in U.S. history. CREW filed 41 lawsuits during George W. Bush's administration, 38 during Obama's administration and, by January 2018, 180 against the Trump administration.[6] What this Wikipedia snippet doesn't mention is that while Richard Painter later went on to run for election as a Democrat, when he chaired CREW he was mostly known for being George W. Bush's ethics lawyer. The fact that he signed up to run as a Democrat after spending several years openly blasting Trump wasn't really a surprise; despite being a lifelong Republican, he wouldn't exactly have much hope of running as a never-Trump Republican in 2018. And while the text describes David Brock as a "liberal political consultant", I'd rather describe him as a Clinton loyalist with no particular political views beyond his deep loyalty to Hillary, who personally wooed him away from conservatism when he signed up to write a hit piece on her. The Wikipedia snippet also leaves out that Mark Penn, who's now a big DeSantis guy, also spent time as a director at CREW. Does CREW lean a bit on the liberal side? I'm sure it does. That's a natural consequence of there already being a dedicated "anti-corruption" (self-proclaimed) group on the right-wing and no real equivalent on the left-wing. The right-wing people who mostly want to investigate Democrats are going to go to Judicial Watch, which in turn means there's fewer conservative donors or staffers looking to spend time with CREW. Caros posted:Does anyone here dispute that judicial watch is a republican org simply because it isn't literally run by the rnc? Judicial Watch thinks Hillary Clinton murdered multiple political opponents, claimed that the Obama DoJ was astroturfing protests against George Zimmerman, claimed that the Democrats were stacking the voter rolls with fake names in 2016 and 2020, and so on. Judicial Watch is a Republican org because it churns out misinformation and fake news on a regular basis for political convenience, not because it investigates Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:CREW is a liberal organization funded and staffed by current and former members of the democratic party. If you go to their website and search their legal complaints you have to go back to 2022 to find an issue that is not explicitly targeting Republicans, and which was a lawsuit against FINcen regarding money laundering. The last one targeting a Biden official was a hatch act lawsuit targeting Jen Psaki back in 2021. 2022 wasn't exactly that long ago, especially when you consider that CREW doesn't file all that many lawsuits in a year. Hell, let's actually look at their legal complaints section and see what they did in 2023:
Yeah, it's all against Republicans, but these are all real issues, most of them against figures who are well-known to be dirty as hell with ethics failings out the wazoo. Trump, Santos, Thomas, Scott...all of these are people who have done plenty to earn ethics investigations! Meanwhile, let's look at what Judicial Watch has been up to:  If you're wondering why I'm not listing these out with more detail, part of it is that they've already filed more lawsuits in 2024 than CREW did in all of 2023. Another part of it is that quite a few of their lawsuits have nothing to do with any sorts of ethics violations. For example, out of the nine lawsuits on the first page of their press releases:
I hope this explains why Judicial Watch is considered a conservative organization and CREW isn't considered a liberal organization. The reason Judicial Watch is seen as conservative isn't because it was founded by conservatives or because it files ethics complaints against liberals. While CREW confines itself almost exclusively to filing lawsuits about funding irregularities against Congressmen, Judicial Watch is out there targeting affirmative action policies and non-white get-togethers by city councilors and school districts. To CREW, "corruption" means bribery, campaign finance violations, and other ways in which politicians might abuse the power of their office for their own benefit. On the other hand, here's a sampling of what Judicial Watch thinks qualifies as corruption:  That is why Judicial Watch is seen as more partisan than CREW is. Because CREW pursues what ethics lawyers consider to be ethics violations and corruption, while Judicial Watch pursues what right-wing MAGA Twitter provocateurs consider to be ethics violations and corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:You don’t have to buy them at all if you set up a selection and filtering process to ensure only the ideologically pure make it on to the list to begin with. That's fine if you only want ideological purity. But "is Donald Trump immune to prosecution for crimes?" isn't really an ideological question. Ideologically-pure justices chosen off a Federalist Society list aren't going to have any particular attachment to Trump personally; they'd be just as happy with DeSantis or Haley or whoever else. Supreme Court justices, who hold lifetime appointments and whose power is mostly independent of the presidency, don't really have much reason to care who the president is
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The Federalist Society is a RICO case just waiting to be heard. The group charges members to be part of an influence-peddling gang that undermines confidence in the American judicial system. People who go along with the gang are bribed with cozy jobs and positions of power, while those who do not are threatened and blackballed. If they were in the field of construction contracts they’d already be in jail, but since they’re lawyers the judiciary prefers to look the other way. I'm not super familiar with RICO but I'm pretty sure there has to be actual crimes involved. Advocating for conservative policies and supporting lawyers who push for conservative rulings is not, generally speaking, a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I have another post that is more topic centric than the prior appeal for some more good faith. They handed down all the court rulings that are now being overturned by the right-wing judges that replaced them. Benefiting from decades of liberal courts willing to take an active hand in overturning long-standing conservative legal status quos, the left-of-center convinced themselves that all judges are perfectly nonpartisan and completely politically neutral, and that the only reason so many left-of-center court rulings were being handed down was because law and reality both perfectly agreed with their ideology. This left them ill-prepared to push back against the conservatives, who were extremely determined to replace those left-of-center judges with reliably ideological conservatives.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This also raises the question of who has standing to remove a person from the ballot for President and how. Congress can't pass a law targeting someone because that'd be a Bill of Attainder. Does someone have to sue in Federal court to block an insurrectionist candidate from the ballot in all 50 states? I suspect the actual answer is going to be "nobody will ever try to meaningfully enforce the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause ever." What they seem to suggest is that Congress should pass a law explicitly granting the the removal power to whoever they think is appropriate, laying out procedures and conditions for removal. Similar to the Enforcement Act of 1870, which specified who should initiate removal proceedings and how the removal proceedings should go.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Slaan posted:This literally cannot be the right reading. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He was never convicted of a crime. Your reading therefore does not bar him from holding office. A reading that lets the Arch Traitor into office is a reading that can't be right If Jefferson Davis had run for the presidency, then his disqualification from the presidency definitely wouldn't have been enforced through states unilaterally removing him from their ballots. There would definitely, absolutely be some kind of federal government action to officially declare him disqualified and make that disqualification absolutely clear and official to the many ex-Confederate states that wouldn't remove him from their ballots. In fact, even in the aftermath of the Civil War, many states openly ignored the 14th amendment and routinely appointed or elected ex-Confederates to positions that insurrectionists were definitely barred from holding under the Insurrection Clause. John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. The point of the 14th Amendment was to grant Congress substantial powers to pass laws covering things that it was formerly unable to legislate about. It was meant to give them free rein to pass whatever laws they thought might be needed to enforce Reconstruction, even if those laws would have been deemed blatantly unconstitutional in 1858. In particular, it was meant to give Congress considerable power to force their policies on ex-Confederate states by ensuring that Congress clearly had the constitutional authority to pass those laws. That's why the 14th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". The Supreme Court is saying that the 14th can be used, it just has to be used by passing appropriate legislation to enforce it, rather than relying on judicial calvinball or unilateral actions by other bodies to make up an enforcement procedure from scratch on the fly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Would there have been massive action by Congress to stop Davis from running and make sure literally everyone in the world knew it was because he was stopped by the 14th? Probably! Would it have been required though? No! The amendment only requires action to undo a disqualification, not affirm/create one. Somebody, at some point, has to take action to decide whether or not someone is disqualified and officially make that determination for the entire nation. This court decision is entirely about who that someone should be. Who possesses the power and responsibility to make that call? The Supreme Court ruled that "It sure isn't the individual states acting on their own" (which makes perfect sense) and "the rest of the 14th Amendment says that that enforcement power belongs with Congress, who can pass appropriate legislation to enforce it" (which is unfortunate, but legally reasonable enough). This issue was visible very early on, which is why Congress soon passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 for the express purpose of enforcing various clauses of the 14th Amendment, including the Insurrection Clause. It clearly laid out who has the power to enforce Insurrection Clause violations (federal prosecutors), how much responsibility they have to do so (they were tasked with actively seeking out violations to enforce it against), what the exact enforcement mechanism was (a specific kind of legal filing, with a special fast-track process created to speed it along and reduce judicial obstruction), and even established punishments for violations (aside from removal from office, it also made Insurrection Clause violations a federal crime punished by fines or jail time). As the Supreme Court pointed out: quote:Indeed, during a debate on enforcement legislation less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that “notwithstanding [Section 3] . . . hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626. The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid. The enforcement mechanism Trumbull championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, “pursuant to the power conferred by §5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” Unfortunately, those clauses of the Enforcement Act were later repealed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? That would be a pretty clear bill of attainder and possibly an ex post facto law, both of which are prohibited under the Constitution. All Congress needs to do is pass a law granting the power to disqualify and remove insurrectionists to someone. Just like the Enforcement Act, which tasked federal prosecutors with using a specific legal process to remove insurrectionists, while also making "holding office in violation of the Insurrection Clause" a federal crime by itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Javid posted:Given the extremely thin precedent, and the now-explicit ruling that "congress has sole authority to enforce this provision, specifically" why would "j6 was an insurrection" be any less constitutional for them to decree than "that war we just had was an insurrection" back in the day? As far as I'm aware, Congress never actually passed a law saying that the Confederacy or the Civil War was an insurrection. The fact-finding of who counts as an insurrectionist was done on a case-by-case basis (not that anyone actually had any doubts about who the Republicans meant when they referred to "insurrectionists" in 1868). Declaring a specific past event to be a crime by Congressional fiat, with no due process or ability to appeal, is the very definition of a bill of attainder. And those are very unconstitutional, specifically because that was something the British courts used to do all the time and the American founders hated it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Why does it make sense to have a patchwork on women's medical privacy but not on who gets to have their name on the ballot instead of being a write-in candidate? Because the Constitution says there's some things states get to have a patchwork on with no opportunity for the federal government to have a say at all, some things that have to be decided nationwide by the federal government with no opportunity for the states to get any say at all, and some things that fall somewhere in between those two extremes. Also, having the states disagree on who is the legitimately-elected president of the United States is a bad thing. Very very bad. Bel Shazar posted:The constitution gave authority for determining how electors work to the legislatures of the states and this ruling is a massive abrogation of states rights. The Supreme Court's ruling would not prevent Colorado's electors from refusing to cast their votes for Trump. This ruling is not about "whether states can remove someone from a ballot", it's about "whether states can declare someone constitutionally ineligible to be president of the US". Bel Shazar posted:So is the federal government determining who can be on a state's ballot, but here we are This isn't the federal government deciding who can be on a state's ballot. This is the federal government deciding whether someone is eligible under federal law to be president of the federal government. Colorado still has the ability to remove Trump from the ballot. They just need to find a legal reasoning that isn't "Trump isn't allowed to be president under the 14th amendment", because the 14th amendment is fundamentally a federal rule to be enforced by the federal government, not the states. If Colorado wants to remove Trump from the ballot, they have to do so under Colorado law, not US federal law.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:What? The case is literally about whether Colorado's allowed to remove Trump from their ballot (for violating the 14th) or not. The method of removal was his violation of the 14th amendment but if they were removing him because of any other reason it'd still be the same result. If Colorado had a law saying that dementia-riddled assholes couldn't be on their ballot for any office it'd still be struck down when they try to remove Trump or Biden. This is 100% false, easily and verifiably so. The case is about whether Colorado is allowed to determine that Trump has violated the 14th and enforce consequences against him for it. Since the Supreme Court ruled against that, they reversed all of the consequences that Colorado had imposed for that purported 14th-violation, including (but not limited to) removal from the ballot. Just look at the very first page of the Supreme Court's ruling, summarizing it: quote:A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him. Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse. The decision is almost entirely written about the 14th Amendment Section 3 specifically, with ballot removal only mentioned in the context of enforcement for that clause specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Stickman posted:What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? I think it should be fairly obvious why the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction to review interpretations of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not really sure why it matters whether they'd have jurisdiction over a case where a state law was used as justification, because even if they did, that would be a completely different case that the legal reasoning offered in this SCOTUS ruling would definitely not apply to. A substantial chunk of the Constitution is in fact dedicated to laying out specifically which entities get to uphold, decide, or enforce various parts of it. And it would be fairly unusual for the 14th Amendment, which was passed specifically as a grant of power to the United States Congress for the specific purpose of restraining the states and reducing their power, to be interpreted as giving the states the power to decide federal law for the federal government.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Everything I have found about the enforcement act of 1870 suggests its for the 15th amendment. Is this your understanding as well fron your reading of it? While the Enforcement Act of 1870 was primarily about enforcing the 15th Amendment, it also contained enforcement clauses for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: quote:Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, That whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office; and any writ of quo warranto so brought, as aforesaid, shall take precedence of all other cases on the docket of the court to which it is made returnable, and shall not be continued unless for cause proved to the satisfaction of the court. This clearly delegates Congress' power of enforcement to federal DAs and gives them a legal obligation to pursue federal lawsuits against people they believe are holding office in violation of the Insurrection Clause. Moreover, it specially privileges these lawsuits, fast-tracking them by giving them precedence over other cases on the docket. In addition, it makes it a federal crime to hold office in violation of the Insurrection Clause, punishable with prison time and/or a pretty significant fine (by the standards of the time). The obvious question is "if federal prosecutors could pursue Insurrection Clause violations in court back then, why can't they do so now?", and the Supreme Court's answer is "because Congress passed a law specifically granting this power to federal prosecutors". According to SCOTUS, the power to enforce the Insurrection Act was not an inherent power of the judicial branch - it was a power held by the legislative branch, which the legislative branch could delegate to other branches if they chose to and passed a law saying so. That isn't really unusual, by the way - Congress frequently does that kind of thing. Much of the modern regulatory state is based on exercises of Congressional power which delegated actual enforcement to various regulatory agencies. In the case of the Enforcement Act, Congress delegated that enforcement power to the judicial branch, handing the responsibilities of day-to-day enforcement down to federal prosecutors and judges. The problem is that the relevant clauses have since been repealed, and thus we no longer have a law delegating Congress's power of enforcement anywhere. This is not an uncommon problem either, by the way - there's a surprising number of constitutional bits and pieces where the writers clearly expected Congress to pass a law handling the details of actually enforcing it, but Congress either never actually bothered to do so or repealed it later. What happens in situations like that is up to the judicial philosophy of whichever Supreme Court justices we happen to have at the time, as "the Constitution says Congress is required to pass a law about this, but Congress didn't" is not really an issue with a clear-cut solution, since judges can't really force Congress to pass a law. Some SCOTUSes generally answered that question with "this clause requires a law, so if there's no law on the books, this clause is effectively powerless", while others answered it with "this is loving stupid, if Congress won't act then we judges will invent something". Personally, I don't think either stance is wildly unreasonable - the first stance is probably closer to what's actually correct from a pedantic law-interpreter POV, but the second stance worked to paper over what was essentially a serious flaw in our system. The Warren Court was especially prone to doing the latter, while our current court makeup leans a lot more toward the former. Unfortunately, the Warren Court's activism may have backfired in the long run, as stretching judicial powers to cover for the legislative branch's failings eased public pressure on our politics even as Congress continued to rot. The upshot of all this is that if the court passed something like the Enforcement Act now, empowering federal prosecutors to go after insurrectionists under the Insurrection Clause, then it would in fact be possible to sue for removal of insurrectionists including Trump. Of course, even if Congress got together and passed such a law tomorrow, that still wouldn't be able to get Trump disqualified before the election. Even with the expedited procedures available to federal prosecutors under the Enforcement Act, there were very few successful removals because most of the lawsuits managed to drag out until amnesty happened. But an eagle-eyed law-reader would notice that that doesn't really matter anyway - the relevant Enforcement Act clauses weren't actually about removing people from ballots, they were about removing people from office. By the time it was passed, the South had already been openly ignoring the Insurrection Clause, with both voters and legislatures putting plenty of ex-Confederates back in state government positions even before the Amnesty Act was passed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The real problem is that instead of just executing all of the Confederate leadership they allowed them to go home and then proceed to over time retake power once Reconstruction became politically toxic for the North Executing the Confederate leadership wouldn't have changed much; the problem was that the Confederate population still mostly sympathized with the Confederacy's ideals. The moment Southern voters regained the ability to vote in federal elections, Reconstruction's days were numbered.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Well there’s the answer then. Probably would have been better that way, but Northern political commitment to disenfranchising the South long-term was basically nonexistent, and even the people who subscribed to that position were willing to compromise it for political convenience. For example, Charles Sumner, the anti-slavery firebrand who was famously beaten half to death on the floor of the Senate by a pro-slavery senator. During the Civil War, he believed that the Confederate states had irrevocably dissolved themselves, and therefore they would revert to being territories directly under Congress, which could administer them as it pleased or chop them up into an entirely new set of states. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, he was a diehard Reconstruction advocate who cared very strongly about civil rights for African-Americans, and enthusiastically joined in on Johnson's impeachment. In 1872, he joined the anti-Reconstruction Liberal Republicans, who'd teamed up with the Democrats to try to unseat Grant. He believed that the southerners would obey their loyalty oaths and follow the Constitution, and therefore no longer needed to be disenfranchised. In fact, he got himself in political hot water for his strident opposition to any kind of commemoration of Civil War victories, as he thought it would be disrespectful to southerners. He still opposed the Amnesty Act, but only because he believed it should be accompanied with a civil rights act to guarantee that black southerners were just as enfranchised as white southerners.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The south should have just been allowed to break off and continue to be a failed state until eventually becoming a puppet vassal of some similar lovely empire like Nazi Germany. Allowing states to secede would have been the end of the US as a coherent entity. It would have basically destroyed the power of the federal government, because any state that didn't like a particular law or policy could threaten to secede over it at any time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Can someone ELI5 the mental gymnastics of this court? The majority's reasoning (or at least ACB and Kavanaugh's reasoning, since the rest of the majority didn't explain their reasoning) is extremely straightforward. Basically, regardless of whether the 5th Circuit's stay on the injunction makes any sense or not, it's an extremely temporary administrative stay that should be replaced by a longer-term ruling shortly, so ACB thinks it's a little early to bother the Supreme Court with something that should be mooted any day now. She advises the lawyers to come back in a week or two when the 5th Circuit has made their actual decision on the stay, and says that if the 5th Circuit drags their feet on that then the lawyers should come back anyway because this stay being very short-term is the sole reason she's punting it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:As this article on Vox explains, what ACB and the other Republican Supreme Court justices did in conjunction with the Republican 5th Circuit did is somewhat worse. You appear to have misinterpreted the article you linked to. In fact, did you even read the actual Supreme Court ruling at all? ACB didn't endorse that tactic. Just the opposite, in fact: her opinion explicitly and directly calls out the exact thing you're complaining about, and gives the Fifth Circuit a rather direct warning to stop loving around with administrative stays like this. From the very article you quoted: quote:But Barrett also says in her opinion that “an administrative stay should last no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal,” and that a court must apply the more stringent test that applies to stays pending appeal once this brief period has elapsed. She also indicated that, if the Fifth Circuit does not determine if a stay pending appeal is warranted soon, the case “may return to this Court.”
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 01:19
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The article was updated with the part you quoted: Sure, but the part that's referencing was right there in ACB's opinion: quote:The real problem—and the one lurking in this case—is the risk that a court will avoid Nken for too long. An administrative stay should last no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal. Once the court is equipped to rule, its obligation to apply the Nken factors is triggered—a point that some judges have pressed their Circuits to consider. The United States suggests that, on several occasions, the Fifth Circuit has allowed administrative stays to linger for so long that they function like stays pending appeal. Overall, that's a pretty clear message for the Fifth Circuit, and it's not surprising that they reacted promptly to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
duodenum posted:Obama didn't push back too hard against Turtle because it was a supposed-foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to win, right? Obama didn't push back because there wasn't really anything he could do to push back, and he probably figured that making a big deal about it would just motivate GOP voters even harder. If Obama really wanted to get that appointment in before Jan 20, he was poo poo outta luck, because there isn't really anything he could have done about it except "complaining more" or "sparking a constitutional crisis".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: Precedence has nothing to do with it. If Arizona law says both "it's illegal to perform an abortion after the 15-week mark" and "it's illegal to perform an abortion", well, there isn't actually any direct contradiction there. Both of those things can be true without any issues. It doesn't make a whole ton of sense for both of those things to be in the law, sure. But the legislature knew drat well that the old law was still on the books, yet didn't repeal it when they passed the new one. Although the law was originally passed in the Civil War era, the legislature had explicitly reaffirmed it as recently as the 1970s. If it was a mistake, it's up to the legislature to fix it. Absent any immediate pressing reason to do so, courts are going to naturally be reluctant to use "clearly the legislature couldn't have been stupid enough to do this on purpose" as the sole reason to overturn a law.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It’s also a bad decision because the Arizona constitution has an explicit right to privacy clause, so it would be extremely easy for them to supersede any terrible state law (Alaska SC did this). The Arizona Supreme Court explicitly did not rule on whether or not this law was constitutional, as that question wasn't before them at this time. The court case was only on about whether or not it was overridden by the newer law. The Arizona Supreme Court did put a stay on this ruling, to allow people to file cases challenging the law's constitutionality before it goes into effect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If they thought that they were allowing implementation of an unconstitutional (and obviously damaging) law, would they not have stayed enforcement for longer than two weeks? Not particularly, no. The two-week stay is just to give the lower courts time to see and address whatever further legal action is going to happen from here. One of those legal actions is almost certainly going to be a request to the lower court for a stay that lasts until the other legal actions get worked out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. The BLM organizer has not been held responsible yet. They have been accused of being responsible, but have not actually been held responsible. It's up to the lower courts to decide whether there was actually any illegal conduct on the part of the BLM organizer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Did Gorsuch get similarly upset about that Chud judge that decided to do a nationwide injunction against a drug that has been on the market for 20 years? Yes, in fact. While that case has not issued a final ruling yet, during oral arguments in that case, Gorsuch made many of the same arguments and complaints that he did in this ruling. He's been a longtime critic of universal injunctions, and has complained about them in a number of cases in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 04:05
|
|