SCOTUS Catch-all |

[nycfan]

—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...7?st=KZ2Yit&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

 

[nycfan]

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

“… Despite the nominally temporary nature of the decision, Justice Elena Kagan in dissent criticized the majority for using “shortcut procedures on the emergency docket” to essentially resolve a complex legal question without full briefing or arguments.

“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction,” she wrote, adding: “The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”

For months, the justices have been weighing other petitions involving similar policies in school districts in other states. Those petitions asked the justices to hear oral arguments and definitively resolve a key burgeoning dispute about young people who identify as transgender.

On one side of the dispute is the well-established right of parents to control how their children are raised. On the other side is the reality that some minors don’t want their parents to know about their gender identity, sometimes because they fear for their safety. Some public schools have policies that honor students’ desire for privacy. …”

 

[nycfan]

“… Despite the nominally temporary nature of the decision, Justice Elena Kagan in dissent criticized the majority for using “shortcut procedures on the emergency docket” to essentially resolve a complex legal question without full briefing or arguments.

“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction,” she wrote, adding: “The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”

For months, the justices have been weighing other petitions involving similar policies in school districts in other states. Those petitions asked the justices to hear oral arguments and definitively resolve a key burgeoning dispute about young people who identify as transgender.

On one side of the dispute is the well-established right of parents to control how their children are raised. On the other side is the reality that some minors don’t want their parents to know about their gender identity, sometimes because they fear for their safety. Some public schools have policies that honor students’ desire for privacy. …”

“… California says the challengers have mischaracterized the state’s rules about student privacy. The state says its actual policy is that individual schools should decide whether to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents by balancing the parents’ interests with the needs and well-being of the student.…”

 

[heelinhell]

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

So SCOTUS is just doing its job...

Protect GQP Nicole Malliotakis, who would have been all but doomed had the redraw moved forward this year.
Require schools to betray and out transgender students that have chosen not to inform their parents that they have adopted pronouns and new names.

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

Not only is that an idiotic way of thinking, it doesn't even address the question posed by the case. Everyone agrees that:

"this is the day in which everything is going to take place"

The only question is what it means for something to "take place." The government's case -- as advanced by [checks notes] the State of Mississippi WAIT WTF AM I ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH MISSISSIPPI? -- anyway the government's case is that a ballot is cast when the voter places it in the mail. The counting of ballots does not affect whether they have been cast.

And the only thing required by the statute is that all ballots be cast by election day.

The contrary position is incoherent. For one thing, there can't be a single day with so many time zones. The polls don't even close in HI until it's after midnight in EST. Ballots take a long time to count, so states in the West can't possibly count them before midnight EST.

But more importantly, the counting process is not complete until the results have been certified which doesn't take place until a week later. If Alito was correct, then that would be disallowed as well.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[Ddseddse]

We have lots of two word phrases that end in court, traffic court, divorce court, basketball court, so if we start from that, there's noting more to hear from you so you can just stop flapping your trap.

 

[superrific]

The hilarious part is that 33% of his examples of "two word phrases where the second word is day" are not two word phrases. I mean, that's not the main thing wrong with the point, but it is the chef's kiss.

Alito's brain is mush.

 

[finesse]

Not only is that an idiotic way of thinking, it doesn't even address the question posed by the case. Everyone agrees that:

"this is the day in which everything is going to take place"

The only question is what it means for something to "take place." The government's case -- as advanced by [checks notes] the State of Mississippi WAIT WTF AM I ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH MISSISSIPPI? -- anyway the government's case is that a ballot is cast when the voter places it in the mail. The counting of ballots does not affect whether they have been cast.

And the only thing required by the statute is that all ballots be cast by election day.

The contrary position is incoherent. For one thing, there can't be a single day with so many time zones. The polls don't even close in HI until it's after midnight in EST. Ballots take a long time to count, so states in the West can't possibly count them before midnight EST.

But more importantly, the counting process is not complete until the results have been certified which doesn't take place until a week later. If Alito was correct, then that would be disallowed as well.

But back in colonial days, votes were compiled for each state immedia... well come to think of it vote by mail might be faster than that was. Kinda looks like the Founders thought it was up to the government to get their shit together.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[BlooVooDoo]

We have lots of two word phrases that end in court, traffic court, divorce court, basketball court, so if we start from that, there's noting more to hear from you so you can just stop flapping your trap.

Somehow you forgot kangaroo court which seems an egregious oversight in this context.

 

[superrific]

This Mississippi case is basically an IQ test. There isn't a strong partisan or ideological dimension here. The Republican Party is on one side; the state of Mississippi on the other. This interpretation affects red and blue states alike. It's not clear which classes of voters would be more effective.

The case turns on the following logic, as expressed in the GOP's brief:

An “election” is thus the State’s public process of selecting officers. The result of that process “is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed.” App.10a. Until all ballots to be counted in that election are in the State’s custody, the election remains ongoing. The election-day statutes reflect “the longstanding general rule that the federal Election Day is the singular day on which the ballot box closes.” App.22a.

Can everyone spot the illogic? There is no way to hold for the GOP in this case without an assumption that the election is ongoing until all ballots are received. And it shouldn't have to be explained why this is utter stupidity, but this is our world, I suppose. An election is over when votes can no longer be cast. No votes can be cast after election day after election day. Who cares when they are received?

So that's why the low-IQ justices have to focus on idiotic hypotheticals about voters casting ballots by giving them to a friend to mail. That's literally their argument -- that if "receipt" is not part of "casting" a ballot, then people could say they "cast" their ballot when giving it to a friend to mail. It's true that the ballot would be cast if "giving to a friend" was a valid method of voting, but it is not. Nor is psychically sending your vote over ESP channels. Nor announcing your intentions on social media. No, if the statute says "in-person and absentee by mail are valid methods of casting a vote," then completion of those tasks completes the vote casting.

It's really shocking how stupid these people are. nycfan once chastised me for saying they were stupid, when in fact (she says) they were simply groomed to be corrupt. Both are true. That they were groomed doesn't mean they are smart. It just means they lack integrity in addition to lacking logical reasoning ability.

 

[donbosco]

Groomed and performing for the stupid and the voices backed by the stupid.

 

[superrific]

Gorsuch's argument expressed today is literally this. Mississippi's statute allowing a 5 day grace period for ballot receipt so long as the ballot is postmarked by election day is invalid because -- and here I will quote:

And if that's okay, why can't a state say: How about a time-stamped video showing that I voted on election day. Here I am filling out my ballot and then my brother brings it in a week or three weeks later.

He's not just a stupid man -- he's a stupid man and a bully. The real answer to this question is: rule on the facts presented here. If that other case ever happens, then you can deal with it then; right now, you can drop a footnote to say that you aren't blessing every single possible theoretical hypothetical that might arise. Or another answer is: I can't answer that question without knowing why the state would do that. Maybe there will be a reason for it that would be in harmony with the federal statute; in the meantime, I'm not going to defame fellow state officials by imputing to them a positive likelihood of them passing completely idiotic regulations.

But the advocate can't say that, because Gorsuch will get offended by the truth. Gorsuch will get angry and say that the advocate is telling him how to do his job (he's done this before) and that he just wants an answer to his question. It's simple bullying. Even though the question itself is the problem.

Gorsuch really is just that kind of asshole. He's usually wrong, but he can't deal with that so he shamelessly pulls out whatever bullshit he can think of and expects other people to prove him wrong. What if a state passes a regulation requiring people to stand on their heads while casting a ballot? Would that violate their due process rights? Who the fuck knows?

 

[superrific]

Groomed and performing for the stupid and the voices backed by the stupid.

But also stupid. Guy couldn't even graduate Harvard Law magna cum laude. Getting magna at Harvard is not difficult. It's about the top 10-15%. Normally being outside the top 15% wouldn't get you a clerkship, unless your mom was friends with one of the justices . . . but anyway, I would hide my head in a bag if I graduated from Harvard with less than magna.

 

[superrific]

Gorsuch and Barrett also went with this hypothetical: suppose people deposit their ballots on election day, and the day after election day some important piece of information about one of the candidates comes out. Then the other candidate urges all voters to go to the Post Office and recall their ballots so they aren't received and counted. And because this might be possible, he says, the ballots must all be received by election day. Funny he doesn't account for hypotheticals like, "what if the post office loses ballots."

Literally, this is what he said.

So --so here's the hypo: Let's say you have a state where a large portion of the electorate mails in their ballots on or close to Election Day. Not far-fetched. Many states are like that. Then the day after the election, a story breaks that one of the lead candidates engaged in an inappropriate sexual escapade or perhaps is colluding with a foreign power. Again, not far-fetched, I think. And the competing candidate immediately goes on the airwaves and urges voters to recall their ballots and --and --and to tell the common carriers not to deliver them.

It isn't far-fetched, he says, for dirt on one of the lead candidates to come out at precisely this time: after election day, but before the ballot has been delivered. So basically, if election-changing dirt comes out on one of those two days, and a whole bunch of voters do actually recall their ballots (most of whom do not know that you can do such a thing, and also they probably do not have time during the day, which is why they are voting by mail), and that swings the election -- he says that's not far-fetched.

That's a stupid man, folks.

 

[Calheel]

But also stupid. Guy couldn't even graduate Harvard Law magna cum laude. Getting magna at Harvard is not difficult. It's about the top 10-15%. Normally being outside the top 15% wouldn't get you a clerkship, unless your mom was friends with one of the justices . . . but anyway, I would hide my head in a bag if I graduated from Harvard with less than magna.

So you are saying that if you don’t finish in the top 15% of a top 3 law school (which in itself probably has the top 1% IQ in the country) then you are stupid?

Basically you are saying that 99.9% of people in America are stupid.