|
FAUXTON posted:weird that this keeps happening despite california having open primaries like that I mean isn't that exactly what open primaries are intended to do? They prop up candidates that appeal to both major parties but are loved by neither. Open primaries are a terrible system, particularly since we only implement them in liberal states.
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Ranked choice voting is definitely the way forward for modern election reform. It allows people to clearly indicate their political support without being encouraged to participate in "tactical voting".whydirt posted:The obvious counterargument is why should states be running elections for private organizations? Public administration of party primaries is the result of 100 years of progressive reform. Peeling that back, whether in the form of open primaries or jungle elections, is a mistake and a return to the old days of party bosses choosing candidates for the voters. https://ivn.us/2015/07/30/story-behind-pay-party-primaries Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 30, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Has there never been a lesser official who lost their office while litigation continued? The Supreme Court already threw out the idea of legal precedent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? At the end of the day, it's pretty clear that the American judiciary is in dire need of reform after four decades of Republican ideological takeover. The system simply wasn't built to resist politicization, and it has been fundamentally corrupted by the Republican Party. You can see this everywhere at this point, from legal journalists to politicos to the judges themselves, we don't really bother talking about points of law, particularly since precedent probably won't be honored either now or in the future, simply who has the votes. Republican judges need to be replaced with Democratic ones in the name of democracy and popular sovereignty, and the rest is merely the window-dressing of power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I already said I don't support that, and neither do most conservatives, and for danced sure the Scotus judges you mean won't support that either. Nor am I in any way religious. Those Republican judges have openly and repeatedly supported torture and prison beatings, defended Christian exceptionalism at every turn, and routinely rejected women's civil rights. There's no reason to believe they are suddenly going to pivot on that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Slaan posted:One of the problems is that the court doesn't have actual legal arguments. There is no way to reconcile Hawaii v Trump and Masterpiece Cakeshop, for instance, based on the stated rationales. The actual, undeniable reason for those is Christian good, Muslim bad. Its all just window dressing for whatever the preferred conservative policy position is. Absolutely agreed. It's difficult and somewhat pointless to talk about legal arguments when the judges don't really rely on them for rendering their orders, and those orders won't constitute meaningful precedent moving forward. Tandon v. Newsom would constitute a massive blow against the legal concepts of ripeness and mootness, except that the Republican majority doesn't actually care about the legal principles involved so it won't change anything. The opinion was four pages and wasn't even signed, it's not like it was a detailed take on the issues involved. We fundamentally have a Calvinball court where the only way to accurately predict the outcome of their opinions is by knowing which political party each judge is affiliated with. Major opinions are routinely issued with specious or even non-existent justification. Just as political science arguments are largely academic compared to the actual composition of the legislative government, the legal arguments involved are fairly tertiary compared to who holds the votes on the Supreme Court. Silver2195 posted:I think the way to reconcile them based on the stated rationales is that immigration policy is basically exempt from the constitutional and even statutory restrictions that apply to other kinds of government policy. Which is a bad approach to law in its own right, of course I don't think that argument is ever really articulated or defended, largely because then it would lead immediately to questions like, "If we are arbitrarily lifting constitutional and statutory authority over areas of law, what prevents me from doing that to other areas like property ownership?" and "If immigration policy is exempt from such restrictions, can I simply declare all the borders open forever?" While these sorts of "where does it end?" concerns are typical for legal debate, it's fairly clear that the answer is, "It ends wherever the Republican Party wants it to end," rather than being an enduring legal principle. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm assuming what what said was fine and dude is misquoting her. Yeah that seems like a very safe assumption.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So how do we get out of it this time. Or will there be unexpected in a 5-4 decision. Personally I'm a fan of Congress ordaining the current court as an inferior court and establishes a new supreme court that has a veneer of legitimacy. They don't even need to worry about the filibuster! One little trick that Breyer hates.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Can the court be stacked before they vote on it? Congress can do whatever they want so long as they declare it constitutional. Something important to remember when considering judicial reform.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Realistically the Republicans are only taking this up so they can reduce women's civil rights, and they won't take up a case to challenge that unless there's a change in court composition.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:I dunno if you came up with it or not but I had never heard this before and it owns. It's actually the name that was chosen by the DC city council and used in the admission act that was passed by the US House. Personally I find "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" to be kind of a gimmicky mouthful, but some of the supporters love it and it's just a name.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:My state is literally named "Massachusetts" and we get by just fine Like I said, it's just a name. If Massachusetts was determined to be appropriative and officially renamed "Maine's Accidental Super Small Ally Could Help Us Sell Enormous Tanks To Ships" then you'd ultimately just wince at the meagre ambition and move on with life.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Stephen Breyer is going to give me an ulcer. Breyer is a third-way Democrat who has been sitting on an un-elected ruling council for decades and is accountable to no one but God.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
It's difficult to have too much sympathy for an un-elected leader who gets affronted at the idea of sharing power or concerns about societal stability after their death. Americans are rightfully opposed to foreign statesmen who are only concerned with maintaining their own status and power, but we tolerate it from our own "ruling council" so long as we call them judges rather than lords. The whole institution is a disgrace to democracy. Congress should disband it and start it afresh.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The Court isn’t going to declare cameras in the court to be unconstitutional; they won’t even challenge it. They might not want to do it but they recognize what fights are worth having. Hah, that seems like a wildly optimistic perspective on how sagely rational our ruling priests are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Actually, it's even simpler than that. Congress can't destroy SCOTUS because its existence (like that of Congress) is mandated by the Constitution. Judicial power is vested in a supreme court, but Congress has the sole power to ordain and establish which court that is. If they wanted to pick a different committee to rule America by fiat they could do it with 50 votes. Congress can also freely define the jurisdiction of the court to widen or narrow its scope. And they can change its membership, or redefine the meaning of good behavior or the duration of the continuance. Congress has complete oversight over the courts. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
All of the judges, and particularly the Republican ones, get bribed all the time. They're constantly being offered trips and vacations and conferences and opportunities by various lobbyists, all with the express intention of getting them to change US policies in a certain way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Seems legit Rutherford Hayes and his fellow Republicans straight up stole the 1876 election from Samuel Tilden, and the election was never remedied. Looks like everything since then gets rolled back to when people debated whether to legalize Mardi Gras.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste If anything the headline undersells it, in my opinion. The doctor doesn't have admitting privileges at the hospital, and doesn't even practice in Cincinnati. A hospital has no requirement to fulfill a prescription from a third-party doctor that they disagree with on medical grounds, much less administer it. This is no different from when pharmacists have to put their foot down when people show up with some random doctor's prescription for pain-meds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They absolutely should be able to reject unverified bullshit treatments (and in fact they can do this in Ohio as an ethical objection, but didn't make that arguement for some reason), especially when you can find a garbage quack doctor to sign off on literally anything. The doctor who signed off on the prescription should have their medical license revoked but it's Ohio so they'll probably get a medal instead. I would assume they didn't want to support the ethical objections law, and didn't want to dilute their legal argument which is that their objection is medical rather than philosophical. A hospital does not have to poison a patient three times a day just because the patient's spouse found a doctor 60 miles away that is willing to write a prescription.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Honest question. No, the hospital could be held liable for negligence in any number of ways. I'd assume they'll require the patient's spouse (who I believe is making all the medical decisions at this point) to sign all sorts of waivers, and they'll be careful to document everything. But any time there's a death there's going to be the chance of getting sued. The surviving family would likely argue that the hospital made some sort of mistake in the treatment that would penetrate the medical waivers. Or perhaps there'd be objections to the delay in treatment, or the validity of the guardianship, or the failure to sufficiently contest in court. I'm sure lawyers will be all over this regardless of the outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Who would be saying this? Apparently "constitutional sheriffs" are a thing now, so apparently whomever declares themselves to be the local county warlord.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do most people actually view SCOTUS as illegitimate? I would bet a vast majority of people still think they're less political and more "fair" and "Constitutional" than the other branches, because most people don't pay attention to anything. If the public at large doesn't see the court as legitimate (and frankly they would be right to) then they also would support Congress simply firing them for cause with a majority vote, which they absolutely could do. The court is highly dependent on being seen as legitimate and a valid arbiter of the Constitution and the law. You'll notice that while the liberal media and politicians might be complaining about the political bias of the justices, they are not rejecting their oversight or their role. But if you look around the world at other judicial systems, that is not guaranteed. Roberts has lit a torch to the root of his own power here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Democrats: the supreme court is super illegitimate. Pretending that kangaroo court is legitimate isn't magically going to make it be so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
I think there's a point for any institution where they can transition from "flawed but worth parsing or fixing" to "too broken and false to accept or divine". And to my mind the Supreme Court under Roberts has passed that point. I'm not interested in looking into the tea leaves to try and sort out whether their latest verdict is slightly more driven by conservative jurisprudence than Republican politics. The group is illegitimately constituted, the opinions are reckless and unreasonable, the members are corrupt and false, and the institution is broken and unnecessary. Much like listening to Fox pundits or wading through the swamps of conservative Twitter, the Robert's Court opinions don't offer any actual insight beyond the latest display of right-wing power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And a majority of the court were appointed by presidents who lost a popular election. (Yes, I know, Bush’s appointments technically came after he “won” one) It's certainly pretty indefensible that only four of the nine supreme judges for life were installed by presidents who had democratic legitimacy. What else can you call that but a kangaroo court? vyelkin posted:Since 1968 (53 years ago now!), there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 21 years of Democratic presidents. In that time, Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 4. Yeah, and if you discount the years for Republican presidents who lost the popular vote it's more like 20 years of Republicans out of 53.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Fifth circuit put a stay on the district court’s decision. Texas abortion ban is back on the books. Can't really expect justice or public benefit from American courts these days.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
I'm sorry there are no Supreme Court decisions that directly reference a San Antonio police officer named John B. Quincy committing that specific tort against a woman in a blue Kia at 5:43 pm. Since there's no legal precedent for their case, Quincy's claim of legal immunity is denied. America's Politburo seems to be fully embracing the sovereign citizen movement.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:There’s another decent argument that governmental funds should only be paid out according to the democratically elected legislature and not allocated by the judicial branch. I mean, only if your argument is that courts shouldn't be reviewing any civil governmental cases whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:Those civil cases are permitted because the government has created private causes of action. The default would otherwise be Sovereign Immunity. That's simply acknowledging that courts only have legitimacy when subject to the legislature, it has nothing to do with financial allocation. A court acting outside the law is unauthorized and illegitimate by definition. There's no special case here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Devor posted:In the absence of statutes waiving Sovereign Immunity, no, courts should not be conducting civil cases that would simply be dismissed due to Sovereign Immunity. That is simply a prejudgment. If a court should not be conducting civil cases at all, then it doesn't matter whether they would dismiss or not because they would lack authority. Devor posted:I'm talking about the "is" rather than the "ought". The earlier argument appeared to be saying there's One Weird Trick to ignoring SCOTUS' QI interpretation, which I don't think is feasible. I mean the "is" here is that courts are run by mostly Republican judges, and are only answerable to mostly Republican justices, and they are not going to support action against mostly Republican cops - regardless of any legal argument levied. There is no One Weird Trick because the people involved aren't robots and they are fully capable of simply interpreting things as they please. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:No court can get rid of SI Sure they could, they just choose not to. There is no reason that a judge cannot look at the law and decide that qualified immunity doesn't apply in a particular case, or that such immunity exists but was waived by local authority. The possibilities are certainly extant. It's absurd to look at the state of modern law and declare that something as nebulous as QI is somehow hard and fast law with no flexibility.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Household use: 100 gallons Cattle uses more than twice as much water as almonds do, and has half the economic value. The only reason we focus on one and not the other is because Americans love meat and hate almond eating / drinking liberals. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-up-more-of-california-s-water-than-almonds
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Does Roberts even have much influence over the court any more? Roberts' influence has been to discredit the court entirely. It's clearly a governing body without any accountability, and the public recognizes that. The details of the votes and the reasoning get ignored by the courts themselves, so all that matters is the outcomes and how they impact the media perception.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
There certainly was no luck involved in how the court was packed with Republicans. It was very much an intentional work by the people involved.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They've lucked out with RBG and Breyer having huge egos and not willing to step down. The Republicans also spent 30 years convincing them to do exactly that. Scalia in particular did everything he could to ensure Ginsburg maintained distance from the Democratic Party and spurned any "judicial activism" such as timing the political ramifications of her retirement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:It's been posted about in this thread several times that bush did win Florida and the only thing the court did was confirm it. As I'm sure you're quite aware, Bush v. Gore definitively did not confirm whether Bush or Gore won Florida in 2000. The entire argument was founded on the idea that individual counties shouldn't be allowed to recount according to independent standards, and that a statewide recount according to a single standard was infeasible. There was no real justification made for any of this, and the party line vote fundamentally delegitimized both the election and the court. Later research indicated that if the court-ordered statewide recount had not been halted, Gore would have been declared the victor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:They shouldn't be counting by whatever standards they feel like. The methodologies should be standardized, and shouldn't end in different results (so that different groups counting should still end up with the same results). But I'll concede that 2000 was not as black and white as I thought. I certainly agree with all the electoral best practices that you're talking about here. Standardized, audited, transparent elections should be the right and expectation of every American. In the moment of the 2000 election, everything was quite a bit more murky, and probably the best thing to have done would have been for the US Supreme Court to back up the Florida supreme court - both because SCOTUS didn't have any particular legal insights to offer that hadn't already been explored at the lower level, and because the best remedy for the systemic electoral machine problems was clearly to conduct to a manual state-wide recount (which was already underway due to the Florida Supreme Court order). At the end of the day, it was very clear to everyone that SCOTUS interjecting itself into a state election and halting a court-ordered recount - in a patently partisan manner and without any real legal jurisdiction or reasoning - would have the effect of delegitimizing the integrity of the court and the outcome of said process. And that's exactly what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush v Gore wasn't just bad because they installed the guy who lost they also claimed in the decision that it only applied to this single case which is insane. Yeah that was very much an admission that there was no real legal reasoning involved - they couldn't defend their action, and didn't want to be held to account in the future. It was a real shark jumping moment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
JordanKai posted:Gun possession is protected under the constitution *Only according to Republican judges.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 15:22
|
|