Author Topic: Law / Court thread  (Read 35142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #630 on: June 30, 2022, 03:37:18 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #631 on: June 30, 2022, 04:02:57 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have constituents.  They’re only supposed to be concerned by what the law says, not how it affects people.

Thus, why multiple conservative justices just made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #632 on: June 30, 2022, 05:43:50 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1060
  • Tommy Points: 189
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have constituents.  They’re only supposed to be concerned by what the law says, not how it affects people.

Thus, why multiple conservative justices just made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
The Supreme Court does not have voting constituents (unless you count Senators) but the SC has pretty much become another political body. In 2016 I said that Trump was the most dangerous candidate of my lifetime and I tried warning the Hillary hating Dems that talked about sitting out the election that SC was in the balance.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #633 on: July 01, 2022, 05:10:17 AM »

Offline ozgod

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12285
  • Tommy Points: 908
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have constituents.  They’re only supposed to be concerned by what the law says, not how it affects people.

Thus, why multiple conservative justices just made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
The Supreme Court does not have voting constituents (unless you count Senators) but the SC has pretty much become another political body. In 2016 I said that Trump was the most dangerous candidate of my lifetime and I tried warning the Hillary hating Dems that talked about sitting out the election that SC was in the balance.

Idealism vs pragmatism. This is generalizing, but I feel like Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, are more idealistic than Republicans. They feel like they can change the world and they don't want to settle for anything less, because to them, progress through history has been made by bold moves. Remember that Hillary fought a difficult battle against Bernie, where she was painted as an old guard establishment swamp member who wouldn't do groundbreaking things and when Bernie conceded the nomination he was booed when he asked his supporters to back Hillary. I can understand why a lot of those folks felt they were going against what they believed if they voted for her, and maybe they felt they wouldn't be able to live with themselves and the hypocrisy. Idealism.

Meanwhile, Trump had a lot of his supporters who just loved his personality, but also there were a lot of Republicans who didn't like him personally based on his reprehensible personal history and behavior but held their noses and voted for him, because of things like the SCOTUS and all the things he said he would do. That's probably the case for a lot of single issue voters, like evangelicals and Second Amendment folks. And once he did all that hopefully he would go away and never come back. Pragmatism.

As for the conservatives on the court...they're making decisions that are based on their belief system. These are judges that over their history have interpreted the constitution the way that the people who nominated and voted for them wanted them to. It would be more of a surprise if they voted differently, because that's who they are. I think they're just making judicial decisions the way they always have, and if that means their ideology is forced onto the country, so be it. Tigers don't change their stripes. It really goes for both sides of the court. Just so happens the conservative side has a 6-3 majority now.

What's sadder to me is that two sides can have such a gulf in interpretation of the legal principles espoused in the same document.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 05:16:24 AM by ozgod »
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #634 on: July 05, 2022, 02:26:33 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #635 on: July 05, 2022, 02:34:35 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.
Quick, who is going to benefit most by not going with status quo?

My guess is Republicans in swing states who control the legislature and who could then control the slate of electors being sent to Washington, possibly against the will of the voters.

So, of course, Thomas and his clowns will overturn how the Constitution has been interpreted, enacted and enforced for 246 years.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #636 on: July 05, 2022, 02:47:20 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.
Quick, who is going to benefit most by not going with status quo?

My guess is Republicans in swing states who control the legislature and who could then control the slate of electors being sent to Washington, possibly against the will of the voters.

So, of course, Thomas and his clowns will overturn how the Constitution has been interpreted, enacted and enforced for 246 years.

My guess is that Republicans would benefit most, but it's really any state where there isn't uniformity between the legislature / governor / courts.  Ultimately it would just lead to more polarization:  whoever controlled the state legislature could create maps however they liked.

For instance, in NY, the state once upon a time had the good sense to require commission to review legislative maps.  Unfortunately, they didn't make adopting the maps mandatory.  So, Dems made a hyper-partisan map this past cycle, which was rejected by the state courts.  The commission's map was adopted by the courts, and the Dems lost several Dem-leaning seats.  This is a good thing for the people of NY, similar to how court overrides to partisan gerrymanders in NC, etc., are good things.

These are the potential consequences for Republicans who want to push this through.  You'll see political minorities lose whatever power they have through bi-partisan commissions / the court system, and the majorities in the state legislatures will just do whatever benefits the party in the short term.  Maybe the GOP sees that as a good thing, because they control something like 30 legislatures.  But ultimately, those 30 legislatures are largely in smaller states, and getting almost no representation in California, NY, Illinois, etc. will hurt more than anticipated.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #637 on: July 05, 2022, 03:24:26 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5290
  • Tommy Points: 272
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have constituents.  They’re only supposed to be concerned by what the law says, not how it affects people.

Thus, why multiple conservative justices just made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
The Supreme Court does not have voting constituents (unless you count Senators) but the SC has pretty much become another political body. In 2016 I said that Trump was the most dangerous candidate of my lifetime and I tried warning the Hillary hating Dems that talked about sitting out the election that SC was in the balance.

Then maybe the Dems should've promoted a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #638 on: July 05, 2022, 04:07:04 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1290
  • Tommy Points: 114
  • International Superstar
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?

So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.

Well, see, they weren't able to overturn the inconvenient number of electors assigned to Biden in 2020, so the various instigative activists have been looking for ways to make sure the results don't have to be beholden to silly things that might interfere again in 2024.

To the bolded: there's a much higher likelihood that the court cares more about the power politics in play rather than an honest legal evaluation of the question.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #639 on: July 05, 2022, 04:14:11 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?

So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.

Well, see, they weren't able to overturn the inconvenient number of electors assigned to Biden in 2020, so the various instigative activists have been looking for ways to make sure the results don't have to be beholden to silly things that might interfere again in 2024.
And I am guessing Thomas is leading the charge trying to get this case in front of the court to make his election denying wife happy.

Thomas is so compromised. His need to create political change through the court is extremely obvious and his not recusing himself from the Trump case is blatantly against what should be allowable for a judge.

He should step down. But he won't until his agenda at moving America backwards by decades and his plans to rid the country of sexual contraceptives, gay marriage, and gun control and move the country to a more religious state is complete.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #640 on: July 05, 2022, 04:22:58 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5290
  • Tommy Points: 272
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?



Ruth Bader Ginsberg saw Roe v Wade being on shaky ground and encouraged the Dems to codify for years. They did nothing.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #641 on: July 05, 2022, 04:24:33 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5290
  • Tommy Points: 272
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?

So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.

Well, see, they weren't able to overturn the inconvenient number of electors assigned to Biden in 2020, so the various instigative activists have been looking for ways to make sure the results don't have to be beholden to silly things that might interfere again in 2024.
And I am guessing Thomas is leading the charge trying to get this case in front of the court to make his election denying wife happy.

Thomas is so compromised. His need to create political change through the court is extremely obvious and his not recusing himself from the Trump case is blatantly against what should be allowable for a judge.

He should step down. But he won't until his agenda at moving America backwards by decades and his plans to rid the country of sexual contraceptives, gay marriage, and gun control and move the country to a more religious state is complete.

Meh Gay Marriage is safe under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. If anything, abortion is just going to be up to the states. 

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #642 on: July 05, 2022, 04:27:44 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20182
  • Tommy Points: 2164
I didn't get into reading the specifics of the decision, but the Supreme Court's decision that now makes it harder for the EPA to fight climate change through curtailing emissions seems outright STUPID given the ongoing rise in heat year to year, rivers, lakes and water reservoirs disappearing, wildfires raging all across different areas of the country and the strengthening of hurricanes year to year that hit this country.

This Supreme Court seems he'll bent on forcing their ideology onto this country and could care less how badly it affects the lives of it's constituents.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have constituents.  They’re only supposed to be concerned by what the law says, not how it affects people.

Thus, why multiple conservative justices just made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
The Supreme Court does not have voting constituents (unless you count Senators) but the SC has pretty much become another political body. In 2016 I said that Trump was the most dangerous candidate of my lifetime and I tried warning the Hillary hating Dems that talked about sitting out the election that SC was in the balance.

Then maybe the Dems should've promoted a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Interesting logic. Blame the dems for not providing a better candidate and not the republicans who actually nominated and confirmed the justices who who made the decision. 

No question Rondo you are correct that Hillary was not the correct candidate.  Shame on the Dems for being unable to defeat the charlatan.  But bigger shame to the republicans who actually voted for him.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #643 on: July 05, 2022, 04:28:46 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?

So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.

Well, see, they weren't able to overturn the inconvenient number of electors assigned to Biden in 2020, so the various instigative activists have been looking for ways to make sure the results don't have to be beholden to silly things that might interfere again in 2024.
And I am guessing Thomas is leading the charge trying to get this case in front of the court to make his election denying wife happy.

Thomas is so compromised. His need to create political change through the court is extremely obvious and his not recusing himself from the Trump case is blatantly against what should be allowable for a judge.

He should step down. But he won't until his agenda at moving America backwards by decades and his plans to rid the country of sexual contraceptives, gay marriage, and gun control and move the country to a more religious state is complete.

Meh Gay Marriage is safe under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. If anything, abortion is just going to be up to the states.
Thomas would vehemently disagree with that interpretation and it's possible he might convince 4 others to acquiesce to that interpretation and get rid of gay marriage. He has already said it needs to be addressed and the Texas Republican Party agrees with him. They will send a gay marriage case before the Court before long. Watch.

Re: Law / Court thread
« Reply #644 on: July 05, 2022, 04:29:50 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1290
  • Tommy Points: 114
  • International Superstar
Quote
This is their fault why Roe v Wade was deemed unconstitutional in the first place.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. How did we not see it before?

So, has anybody heard about this "independent State Legislature" case going before the Court next term?

To me, it's fascinating, in terms of interpretation.  The Constitution provides the following:

Quote
“The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.”

Quote
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Up for review is, what is meant by "Legislature"?

The plain language is pretty clear, in my opinion.  A state Legislature is a state's legislative body, whether that be a House of Commons, a bi-cameral legislature, etc.  What's not included:  governors, secretaries of state, citizen's referendums, etc.

But, precedent has disagreed.  Legislatures have had their decisions challenged in state court, have been vetoed by governors, have divested their authority to commissions, etc.  And, pretty much every time this has happened, the Court has upheld the authority of a non-legislative body to weigh in on -- and sometimes block -- the legislature's decision.

Many conservatives / textualists thinks this line of cases has gotten it wrong.  What's particularly interesting to me is that the Court is considering a North Carolina case where the state court overturned the Legislature's writing of a state electoral map, *where the legislature had granted the courts that authority*.

It's law nerd stuff, but if only legislatures can determine election laws, can they delegate the right to determine that authority to state courts?  To commissions?  To citizen referenda?  Can governor's veto their decisions?  What happens if a state constitution limits the legislature?  Does the Federal court find that the State constitution is invalid / overridden?

This is either going to preserve the status quo, or is going to be a major shift.  The media coverage, of course, is going to focus on the power politics of it.  But, for Justices who approach interpretation by looking at the words on the page first and foremost, I think there's a good faith question here.  But, there's another key question:  even if the Court has gotten it wrong in the past, does respect for precedent determine that we live with the current status quo?

For whatever it's worth, Scalia / Thomas / Rehnquist raised this at least 20 years ago, and now Gorsuch / Thomas / Alito / Kavanaugh seem to be on board.  Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and presumably KBJ are against.  It could come down to ACB as the swing vote.

Well, see, they weren't able to overturn the inconvenient number of electors assigned to Biden in 2020, so the various instigative activists have been looking for ways to make sure the results don't have to be beholden to silly things that might interfere again in 2024.
And I am guessing Thomas is leading the charge trying to get this case in front of the court to make his election denying wife happy.

Thomas is so compromised. His need to create political change through the court is extremely obvious and his not recusing himself from the Trump case is blatantly against what should be allowable for a judge.

He should step down. But he won't until his agenda at moving America backwards by decades and his plans to rid the country of sexual contraceptives, gay marriage, and gun control and move the country to a more religious state is complete.

Meh Gay Marriage is safe under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. If anything, abortion is just going to be up to the states.

If you can't be bothered to read the telegraphed ways that active Supreme Court justices have telegraphed exactly how they would go after "Gay Marriage being safe", I can see how you would come to this opinion.

At a certain point, if it quacks like a duck for long enough, it becomes less credible to claim that it's actually a rabbit.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.