|
Main Paineframe posted:Talking about what McConnell or Trump would do as a hypothetical doesn't make much sense, considering that they spent time in power where we saw exactly what they would do. The GOP won a federal trifecta in 2016, yet we didn't see either Trump or McConnell carrying out corruption investigations into liberal Supreme Court justices, and we didn't see Trump rolling in the US Marshals to jail them on some shoddy pretext. Trump eagerly appealed to the courts to intervene in the 2020 election, and none of them played along. The fact that even Donald Trump failed to overturn the election, despite his total lack of respect for decorum and his openly expressed intention to overturn the election, suggests that the ability of the executive branch to intervene in the result of a presidential election after the fact is actually extremely limited after all. These overturns have tended toward granting rights or upholding protections. The pushback now is using the court to withdraw rights and break protections. Roe was weak but using a government job to promote religion directly breaks an explicit protection. It's literally allowing people to use state power to establish religious practice. Timeless Appeal posted:
Some of these people literally do do that when their kids get sick. Reject all care but faith healing for the kid. Occasionally basic nursing slips through. It's basically child abuse but lots of states let it happen. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jul 8, 2022 |
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Cimber posted: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? That company would have to do business in that state in a manner that requires jurisdictional consent i.e. more than just normal interstate commerce, typical being physically present at an endpoint of that kind of transaction. What would you even sue over though? Lawsuits are very expensive and any cause of action you choose is likely going to be considered spurious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Since we're talking about SCOTUS' ruling on student loan forgiveness... You can spend way to much money, even making a lot. Also her income probably went way down when she ran for office and did a ton of campaign work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
haveblue posted:None of the financial instruments or transactions involved existed in the 18th century, so clearly none of them can be banned under the Constitution thread title
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
Cimber posted:For kicking him off the ballot I'm betting they'll come up with some bullshit that 'congress has to pass a law to declare someone insurrectionist', and call it a day. Because this court is the benchmark for moral courage. That would literally be a bill of attender so no, they won't do that. That kind of legislative finding of guilt was a major part of complaints against the crown leading up to the English civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Arguably it's going to boil down to 'the courts do not want to be a venue for reversing presumption of innocence'. Essentially, that it would be an immediate court clogger that would have negative effect and further make partizan the courts as a political beatstick, you can just imagine the last second drama of a hack state judge issuing an order right at the ballot printing deadline. Disqualification is likely to now be found to require a conviction, an actual war, or an objection in the joint session or be a question posed after the actual election once the issue is truly germane. The states not being obligated to enforce the constitution section by section seems like dubious precedent itself however.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
I expect the government to appeal that, based on it being both lies and irrelevant to the case in front of the judge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Unfortunately its unlikely 14 would ever apply to trumps conduct under this ruling and the firm precedent on ex post fact law. New federal law could be passed defining acts as insurrection and carrying the disqualification, though I suspect such law would be held with deep scrutiny. Its trivially easy to use simple definitions to say, mass disqualify protestors because someone beaned a cop with a rock. The court wants this to go through the whole process. Essentially, as they understand it, all 14 does is make disbarment from office exempt from cruel or unusual punishments. Actually applying it needs new sentencing guidelines, and thus new laws.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
E: off topic Back on the court, a couple of interesting cases coming up. Biggest one I expect something rotten out of is Starbucks vs McKinley. NLRB injunctions are important for being able to operate the process in a timely fashion and prevent skulduggery. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 15:16
|
|