SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 612
  • Views: 22K
  • Politics 
none of this, I repeat, NONE OF THIS would have been possible without the air cover provided by John Roberts. Not "the Robert's court" or anything as amorphous as that. The man. The single human being who had it in his power all along to put a stop to this at any time he pleased, and instead enabled EVERY SINGLE STEP down this path.

John Roberts, bears so much more of the blame for this mess than even Trump. The constitution imagined a wanna be despot as president. What it did not imagine was a chief justice that would spend 20 years paving the way in advance for, and running interference for, a wanna be despot in our presidency.
 
none of this, I repeat, NONE OF THIS would have been possible without the air cover provided by John Roberts. Not "the Robert's court" or anything as amorphous as that. The man. The single human being who had it in his power all along to put a stop to this at any time he pleased, and instead enabled EVERY SINGLE STEP down this path.

John Roberts, bears so much more of the blame for this mess than even Trump. The constitution imagined a wanna be despot as president. What it did not imagine was a chief justice that would spend 20 years paving the way in advance for, and running interference for, a wanna be despot in our presidency.
💯
 
If the Supreme Court holds as we fear it will, it will have overturned the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. Kagan called the Voting Rights Act one of the great statutes in our country' history, the best of America. Hard to argue that.

It will also make it very difficult for any opposition party ever to win a majority in the house.

I can't understand liberals who say that we should have to endure this tyranny. Six assholes in black robes will have overturned the Civil Rights Movement. At what point do we get to say, enough! You are not a court, and you have forfeited your power!

Where is the line? Does Roberts have to crown Trump as Emperor? Eh, I mean, we wouldn't want a response to cause disunity in the country . . .
 

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Upend Key Provision of Voting Rights Act​

In a dispute over a Louisiana voting map, the conservative majority signaled it might prohibit using race as a factor in creating election districts. Resulting redistricting could let states cement Republican control of Congress


“… During the oral argument, several of the court’s conservative justices appeared focused on whether there should be a time limit for allowing race to be used as a factor in congressional maps, a requirement that stemmed from civil rights era protections aimed at undoing generations of efforts to suppress the power of Black voters.

“This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time — sometimes for a long period of time, decades, in some cases — but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is expected to be a key vote on the issue.

“What exactly do you think the end point should be?” Justice Kavanaugh then asked a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who argued to uphold the Voting Rights Act.

That question — whether there should be a time limit on using race-based remedies — appeared to be at the heart of the oral argument….”
 
That question — whether there should be a time limit on using race-based remedies — appeared to be at the heart of the oral argument….”
This infuriates me SO VERY MUCH. Let me quote from Rucho v. Common Cause, which said that the Supreme Court can't be involved in political gerrymandering:

"‘Fairness’ does not seem to us a judicially manage- able standard. . . . Some criterion more solid and more demonstrably met than that seems to us necessary to enable the state legislatures to discern the limits of their districting discretion, to meaningfully constrain the discretion of the courts, and to win public acceptance for the courts’ intrusion into a process that is the very foundation of democratic decision-making"

"The initial difficulty in settling on a “clear, manageable and politically neutral” test for fairness is that it is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context"

"There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral. Any judicial decision on what is “fair” in this context would be an “unmoored determination” of the sort characteristic of a political question beyond the competence of the federal courts."

*

Fast forward five years and there are judicially manageable standards for deciding when it's been long enough for racism to go away? Where's that in the constitution? See, we have one-person, one-vote, which is a standard of sorts for partisan gerrymandering, or at least the beginnings of one. For "it's long enough"? O'Connor pulled the number 25 out of her ass. Did it have any justification? Of course not.

In fact, the constitution DOES provide a way of determining the time limits. Section 5 of the 14th and Section 2 of the 15th state that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The definition of a political question is one where there exists a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department." That is easily satisfied by section 5 and it is not at all satisfied for partisan gerrymandering.

As I have been saying, they aren't even a court any more. They bear closer resemblance to an Islamist "Judicial Council" than a court in English and American jurisprudence.
 
This isn't directly relevant, but I came across this sentence reading Rick Hasen's election law blog. This is the opening sentence to the post, unedited.

Given all the discussion in today’s oral argument about the “congruence and proportionality” test under Boerne for assessing the scope of congressional enforcement power under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (an issue I addressed in my first SCOTUSblog post on Callais), it seems to me worth considering whether, as applied to congressional districting (which is what Callais itself involves), the analysis of the Shaw-based constitutional challenge to the district created to avoid a VRA section 2 violation changes at all if one views section 2 in this context as an exercise of Congress’s power under Article I, section 4 to determine the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections–rather than as an exercise of Congress’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement powers.

Hegel, eat your heart out.
 
If the Supreme Court holds as we fear it will, it will have overturned the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. Kagan called the Voting Rights Act one of the great statutes in our country' history, the best of America. Hard to argue that.

It will also make it very difficult for any opposition party ever to win a majority in the house.

I can't understand liberals who say that we should have to endure this tyranny. Six assholes in black robes will have overturned the Civil Rights Movement. At what point do we get to say, enough! You are not a court, and you have forfeited your power!

Where is the line? Does Roberts have to crown Trump as Emperor? Eh, I mean, we wouldn't want a response to cause disunity in the country . . .
Overturning this will be a travesty.
 
Why must you insult travesties?
True. It just saddens me so much.

I was recently showing a clip from the movie Selma to students. Almost all of them had heard of the march on Selma, but hardly any knew that the march was about voting rights.

I'm sure the SCOTUS will claim that racism is over so no need for these provisions. Yet, we have already seen states trying to enact laws to suppress minority vote. It happens more every year.

It is truly sad. More than that, it is infuriating.
 
This country is so cooked. No matter how many safeguards you put in place, the democratic system is inherently dependent on good faith norms. When one side creates a Supreme Court majority by refusing to confirm justices and that same court allows permanent legislative power through arbitrarily districts we no longer live in a functioning democracy. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say our country isn’t coming back from this.
 
This country is so cooked. No matter how many safeguards you put in place, the democratic system is inherently dependent on good faith norms. When one side creates a Supreme Court majority by refusing to confirm justices and that same court allows permanent legislative power through arbitrarily districts we no longer live in a functioning democracy. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say our country isn’t coming back from this.
The danger is real. But also the danger from giving in to pessimism and creating a self fulfilling prophesy is real too. Keep up your spirits, we can get thought this if we stick together.
 
The danger is real. But also the danger from giving in to pessimism and creating a self fulfilling prophesy is real too. Keep up your spirits, we can get thought this if we stick together.
It feels like we're just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic at this point. For years, the Democratic party has been playing by an archaic set of rules that the MAGATs abandoned a long time ago. I'm so pissed and utterly disappointed in the Dem ability to rise to this moment. Chuck Schumer is the biggest waste of space. I'm pretty sure you guys have heard of Graham Platner. He's the Maine oyster farmer who's entered the race to unseat Olympic Champion Pearl Clutcher Susan Collins. I find him engaging and communicating a message that seems to resonate with the working class. Hell, I'd vote for him. So what's the Dem establishment doing? Friggin Schumer has convinced the current Gov of Maine, Janet Mills to enter the race. She's SEVENTY SEVEN. I'm so sick and tired of Dems running geriatric candidates. It's hard to keep spirits up. WHEN they gut the Voting Rights Act and the MAGA states redistrict accordingly, that will add 20-30 seats for them in the house (a conservative estimate). That pretty much guarantees that the Dems will never regain power. How are we supposed to keep our sprits up when the MAGATs have cemented the levers of power in their favor?
 
It feels like we're just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic at this point. For years, the Democratic party has been playing by an archaic set of rules that the MAGATs abandoned a long time ago. I'm so pissed and utterly disappointed in the Dem ability to rise to this moment. Chuck Schumer is the biggest waste of space. I'm pretty sure you guys have heard of Graham Platner. He's the Maine oyster farmer who's entered the race to unseat Olympic Champion Pearl Clutcher Susan Collins. I find him engaging and communicating a message that seems to resonate with the working class. Hell, I'd vote for him. So what's the Dem establishment doing? Friggin Schumer has convinced the current Gov of Maine, Janet Mills to enter the race. She's SEVENTY SEVEN. I'm so sick and tired of Dems running geriatric candidates. It's hard to keep spirits up. WHEN they gut the Voting Rights Act and the MAGA states redistrict accordingly, that will add 20-30 seats for them in the house (a conservative estimate). That pretty much guarantees that the Dems will never regain power. How are we supposed to keep our sprits up when the MAGATs have cemented the levers of power in their favor?
This is why, next time we get power, we cannot squander the opportunity. That's what I've been saying and will continue to say. We will have a short window to fix everything.

1. First step: neuter the Supreme Court and replace it with a new appellate court. Perfectly constitutional under Article III. Requires nothing more than a statute.

2: Hold a constitutional convention. Tell certain Southern states that they can participate in negotiating it and hopefully we can come to an agreement that all can live with, but if they don't agree, the president will use his unitary executive power to deregister some states so that the we can get 2/3 and 3/4. In the alternative, we can create 50 new states and use them to write the new constitution.

The new amended constitution must address issues like: executive authority (none of this idiotic unitary executive), the judiciary (no life tenure), gun rights (sorry, gun owners), and so on. It doesn't have to be a so-called liberal Christmas tree. It just have to have the provisions necessary for ordered liberty, which was the goal the first time around but that was a very, very long time ago.

3. If we cannot do that, then all will be lost. Is that a Chuck Schumer thing to do? It is not. But we would need the president and hopefully the president will learn how to keep Congress in check long enough to create the conditions for Congress to flourish.

4. As for Janet Mills, I don't really care. We need to run the candidate with the highest chance of winning. That's all that matters -- we need a (D) in that seat. Mills is apparently very popular in Maine. Yes, she's too old, but again -- we need to win and that's all that matters. Same in NC, which is why Roy Cooper is in the race.

Gutting the voting rights act is not necessarily a death knell. Especially if it happens in June, there won't be enough time to redraw districts. So we can take the house in 26. 28 would not be great, but who knows -- the future is hard to predict.

5. The House and the Senate were ready to pass the John Lewis voting rights act, which as I understood it, included provisions to combat gerrymandering. And then Sinema. I wouldn't say that she alone bears responsibility, of course, but she was presented the opportunity to cast a vote for justice and instead she cast a vote for her own relevance. And then she pissed everyone off anyway and so became unelectable. She was like a suicide bomber.
 
But they will.
Probably, although I'd like to see how they are going to write the "racism has ended because we say so" part of the opinion, and there's also the not-insignificant issue that originalism clearly mandates the VRA be upheld. I don't think that latter one will be an insuperable barrier; they are already backing away from originalism when they discovered it wasn't as helpful to them as they thought. But the "because we say so" part might cause some of them some indigestion.

Overturning is definitely the favorite right now, but it's not 100%.
 
It feels like we're just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic at this point. For years, the Democratic party has been playing by an archaic set of rules that the MAGATs abandoned a long time ago. I'm so pissed and utterly disappointed in the Dem ability to rise to this moment. Chuck Schumer is the biggest waste of space. I'm pretty sure you guys have heard of Graham Platner. He's the Maine oyster farmer who's entered the race to unseat Olympic Champion Pearl Clutcher Susan Collins. I find him engaging and communicating a message that seems to resonate with the working class. Hell, I'd vote for him. So what's the Dem establishment doing? Friggin Schumer has convinced the current Gov of Maine, Janet Mills to enter the race. She's SEVENTY SEVEN. I'm so sick and tired of Dems running geriatric candidates. It's hard to keep spirits up. WHEN they gut the Voting Rights Act and the MAGA states redistrict accordingly, that will add 20-30 seats for them in the house (a conservative estimate). That pretty much guarantees that the Dems will never regain power. How are we supposed to keep our sprits up when the MAGATs have cemented the levers of power in their favor?
Janet Mills would only be SEVENTY-NINE when sworn in IF she wins.
 
Back
Top