|
Grouchio posted:Read back what you just quoted about decertification. Well, we just don't know. If this was five years ago I'd say maybe, but we have Thomas who's said that its his mission in life to make the libs cry, and we have 3 justices appointed by trump who are fight right extremists. Thats four justices right there who don't give two shits about Stare decisis. Peel off one more justice from either Roberts or Alito and then we got a really bad day in America. And there is NOTHING we can do about it once that happens.
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:They might not formaly adopt ISL but still say "well, you should listen to your elected legislature and if you don't like it, elect new ones. These maps are nonjusticiable except that they stand." "You don't like the maps that the hyperpartisan legislature drew up? Well, just vote them all out and vote in new people to redraw the maps!" "But....we can't vote them out since the hyperpartisan legislature drew up maps that is explicitly designed to keep them in power...." "Sucks to be you! This is non justicable! Don't like it, vote them out!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:I don't think we can take what they said in their confirmation hearings as truth. They can axe Chevron after they have finished off the judicial coup and ensured a permanent Republican majority for the next 100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Travic posted:Layperson here. So this Independent State Legiature thing. Is that the end? Because it feels like the end. Yeah, it could be the end. "oh, the state voted for someone we don't like? poo poo...well...there were a lot of irregularities in the vote, so we are going to wipe away the results and have the legislature vote on our own electors. Oh, we own a super majority? Well, if the people don't like it they can vote us out. Which they can't actually do because we are gerrymandered to hell. Oh, and the SC has also said that being gerrymandered to hell is a non justicable"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
I wonder, is the Dobbs decision going to gently caress with everyone who has embryos frozen for IVF?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:It's actually somewhat heartening to hear a middle of the road NYT's pundit, who wants very badly to believe in the good faith of conservative positions, unable to reconcile the actions of the court with anything other than the intentional enshrinement of minority rule. I was reading somewhere (I forget where) that the recent rulings were a mess philosophically, because while they were attempting to justify their decisions with historical precedent, they were in fact cherry-picking which historical precedent they wanted to follow that just supported the decision they already made. So they might pick decisions from 1500, 1720, 1792, 1850 as proof of historical belief, but would also ignore poo poo from 1600, 1735, 1800 and 1855 that didn't support what they were saying. This is causing a lot of confusion by professional jurists as they don't know what historical basis test would be legitimate and which would be overturned. It's so bad that the American Bar Association has had to put out a statement saying that all students taking the bar exam this summer are to disregard the decision rendered at the end of term 2021. https://abovethelaw.com/2022/06/taking-the-bar-exam-dont-worry-this-disastrous-scotus-term-wont-be-tested/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That is exactly what the interstate electoral college thing is trying to do, by the way. There would have to be states who vote GOP in the election turning electoral college votes to dems for it to work. *cough* Georga *cough*
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:
Or they are drunk and enjoying being outside on this 4th of July long weekend and don't give a drat about internet slapfights right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
And when they do try it they massively gently caress it up or shoot themselves in the foot. Look what happened when they tried to gerrymander NY's congressional seats. They got smacked down pretty hard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Are we just never going to hear again about the leak that the right called an “insurrection” ? No, we will never hear the result about it. Even if it was a flaming liberal clerk Robert's won't want to release it, because its one more thing that makes the court look bad. Correct me if I am wrong,but don't clerks only work for one year and then are released? And if it was a conservative justice or clerk that released it (or the wife of a justice, lookin' at you Ginni Thomas) there is double no way that would be revealed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
shades of eternity posted:https://openargs.com/?p=3122 It wasn't all that illuminating to me but I've been listening to Open Args since Stormy Daniels was a Legal Genius. That being said, if you get your average person to listen and pay attention it might very well be influential. Also Jill Stein voters got slammed. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Well well well https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul27.html#item-1
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I guess all 50 state supreme courts have sent an amicus brief telling SCOTUS to not rule in favor of the NC Republicans. You think they care? This is the culmination of a 30 year project. The GOP has to deal somehow with the uncomfortable fact that in every election except one since 1992 they have lost the popular vote. They could A) Change the party and become more acceptable to the people or B) change the system so they are always in power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They technically won it in 2004 but that was by leaning on some all-time-high patriotism highs for an incumbent (and ignoring Diebold's CEO openly talking about securing the election for Bush). Yeah, thats the one I was referring too. Every other election in the past 30 years the democrats won the popular election. Same for aggregate senate and house seats too if i remember correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The past 34 years! They lost the popular vote in 1992 by nearly 6 million. Clinton - 44M Bush - 39M Perot - 19M
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
So entities with sincerely held religious beliefs can decide a) What medicines an employee can take b) What treatments an employee can take c) What doctors an employee can see and soon up d) If they can legally descriminate against an individual based on their gender, sexual identity and perhaps even race.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If I were to incarcerate you, I'd be controlling you. Do you mind if i play devil's advocate here? While I am _strongly_ on the side of free choice for woman and their bodies, sometimes its good to steelman the other side of the argument. ok, here it goes: At what point does the segment of the population that is currently gestating within a woman get protections? 40 weeks? 30 weeks? 20? If the fetus would be viable outside the womb at say, 28 weeks, would those late term abortions _for purposes of birth control_ be in fact murder? (and going back to my normal PoV, I understand that hardly anyone has an elective abortion at that late date. The only reason to terminate the pregnancy would be in cases of risks to the mother, or severe birth defects of the fetus that would not make it viable outside the womb)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Oracle posted:
FWIW, the first three weeks don't even count, since the woman isn't pregnant at that point. They start counting weeks from day her menstral cycle ended. My daughter was born at 36 weeks 5 days by C-section, as my wife had issues with her cervix. Because she was considered 'premature' they wisked her off into the NICU as a matter of policy. She was fine, but we got hammered by hospital bills for specialist cost. Fun fact, our doctor and the hospital were in network, but the NICU doctor was out of network. hellloooooo 15,000 hospital bill.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Asking the question here as well. 1) The texas judge banned the FDA from approving mifepristone. 2) Just moments after, another judge blocked the FDA from taking it off the market. See https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1644474146716352512?t=HDbjV3GuXIFl3c0QLCu0Rw&s=19 3) These two judges are in conflict, so this needs to get sorted out by a higher level court. However, these courts are in two different appellate districts. Does this mean the case gets automatically sent to the SC?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This is just completely and verifiably wrong. The Constitution explicitly vests the "[t]he judicial Power of the United States...in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That power "extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Perhaps Op was referring to some beliefs about Madison V Marbury, where the chief justice 'granted' the power of judicial review to the courts?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Well, history has shown time and time again that when one faction starts bending the rules and doing things out of bad faith the other faction has to react. Specifically I'm thinking of the Late Roman Republic around the time of Marius and Sulla. Once the political norms started being broken each side was forced to do more and more extreme things to try to keep up. This ended with Sulla marching on Rome, installing himself dictator and proscribing his political enemies. I'd say the start of this turmoil began with the assassination of the Gracci. Are we starting to see the similar things now in respect to the US courts, and other actions by the GOP? McConnel blocking tons of Obama judges, the destruction of the 'blue slips', packing the courts with extremists and venue shopping by GOP activists? Its not a coincidence that the advocacy group that brought about this abortion pill ban chose to file in Amarillo. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge assigned to that town, so they knew they were going to get a judge who aligned with their beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Kacsmaryk was suggested for the role because he'd be the default selection there as well, iirc. The FedSoc's decades of work is entering its final stages and they know that the amount of effort (and strife) it'd take to stop them at this point is far beyond what any electable Dem is willing to consider. There was a Vox article about how right wing advocasy groups are forum shopping to get all sorts of rulings they want. I might have seen it here earlier. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...tice-department quote:But the case assignments process in Texas is not functioning properly. Texas federal courts assign 100 percent of all cases filed in Amarillo to Kacsmaryk. They assign virtually all cases filed in Victoria to Tipton. That means that right-wing litigants can guarantee their lawsuit will be heard by an allied judge simply by filing their suit in one of these two cities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Murgos posted:No, it’s actually not explicit at all. Article 1, Section 8 covers all those abilities of congress. Specifically Clause 1, 3 and 8
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:I too am a Mike Duncan fan, but eeeeh. Well, not to go too far down the Roman history rabbit hole, but as the land under roman control expanded, citizen solders had to travel further and further away from Rome to fight the wars, and were gone longer and longer. What might have been a few weeks during the early republic/late monarchy was turning into months or years away that the soldier was away from his farm. As more wars happened more sons and fathers died and the farms started failing, only to be purchased on the cheap by wealthy aristocrats. More and more people flooded into the city of Rome causing more and more urban issues. The Gracci's land reform bills tried to stop this, but this directly impacted the profits of the rich. So the Gracci had to go. The Optimates and the Popularies calcified, and more and more parliamentary tricks were being done that were unthinkable just a few generations before, ending with Marius serving an unheard of 6 consecutive Consulships. This (and other things I'm not getting into here) were a direct cause of a Optimate general named Sulla to take his troops and march on Rome. That had _never_ been done before. Is there a direct relationship to what happened 2100 years ago in Rome and today's GOP vs Dems? No, not at all, but the patterns are similar enough that it is alarming.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
Yeah, the dirt poor population for the most part. Have a few child credits, have a standard deduction of 25K and that household who took in 38K last year owes nothing. But they still pay medicare, social security and other withholdings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:pay and owe aren't the same thing! No, I'm saying they still pay those other taxes, as well as have federal income tax deductions withheld throughout the year. But after they file their taxes they would get whatever the FIT withholding back as a check. Which gets taxed as income the next year by the states.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Breaking: SCOTUS stays Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling in full pending appeal. I wonder how much arm twisting Roberts had to do to get them to issue this stay. The fact that they had to extend this by two days is not great. That tells me there was a lot of conversation behind closed doors that really should not have need. It was a pretty open and closed case of standing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1651001749765775360?t=T8EbHDI1nPvEtbyvLOtiLA&s=19 No surprise there. He doesn't want to face a grilling and be forced to publicly defend Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Is the attached ethics statement available? quote:We, the supreme court of the United States, being nominated by president and confirmed by the senate, and holding lifetime appointments, do solemnly declare that our ethics are as follows:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Congress Fixed it for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:and lol if anyone thinks Dems would kill the filibuster to do so. But but...if we do something to fix the court system, expand the SC, make tons of judges and fix the electoral system in this country the next time the Republicans have the trifecta they might do bad things we don't like if we keep the filibuster!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
In a nutshell, Chevron Deference says that when congress created a regulatory agency the statute did not need to spell out everything that the agency could regulate. So if the statute creating the EPA said "The EPA shall have the power to regulate clean air and water", that was the end of the story If the statute does not specifically spell out the powers of that agency, and instead said "The EPA shall have the power to pass regulations furthering protection of the environment", then per Chevron Deference the courts don't have the power to strike down regulations as long as that regulation seems to fall into the agency's area of specialty. So a random judge can't just say "Nope, the EPA can't call CO2 a dangerous gas and regulate coal power plants because congress didn't give them that power". Getting rid of this doctrine would make it that any right wing judge can remove any regulation he sees fit if the statute is vague enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:When she was in a lower court she heard the case previously I'm sure taking the moral high ground helps.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655993723866738688?s=46&t=TBi_iSImUmzjTxXAKsMEHw More likely its a way to show that the Dems are 'doing something', even though they are powerless. Perhaps if there was enough pressure the DOJ might investigate for financial crimes, but thats doubtful. Garland has enough on his plate already.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
So since the USSC said that courts do have the right to review congressional maps (among other things), how long until the NCSC reviews the matter of controversy?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Never - the case is in fact moot. However the problem there is that if the Supreme Court always had to dismiss a case when the current specific controversy becomes moot they wouldn’t actually decide anything so they often just gloss over that sometimes. Well, the case was made moot because the NCSC said "Oh, we don't actually have the right to review this stuff." The USSC said "Yeah actually, you do have the right, don't listen to those legislators talking out their asses."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
So the more I'm reading about Moore v. Harper, the more interesting it gets. Apparently a non partisian map has been stayed from implimentation while they wait for the USSC decision. Now that it's out does that mean NC is going to get redistricted again in a neutral manner? Could this be the end of the Republican House?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Oracle posted:But the previous election, held under the now found unconstitutional map, stands, I assume? I don't see how they could reverse the prior election and no way in hell we want that sort of thing to happen. Take the lump for 2 years with a republican house and watch them eat themselves alive, then hope in 2024 the non crazies take over congress again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:He would have needed to live in texas I think at some point in his involvement. Gentleman worked for Norfolk Southern, moved to pennslyvania for sometime while employed with them, Oh, I thought the ruling meant that anyone could sue a corp anywhere the corp had a business dealing. So the plaintiff would still need to live in the district they file in and not in some other friendlier district?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:11
|
|