Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

^ I like the grilling Alito gave this guy on page 40:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1435_f2ag.pdf

 

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?

 

MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would -- yes, it would be -- it would be permitted unless there was -- unless there was an issue on the ballot that -- that related somehow to -- to gay rights.

 

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says "Parkland Strong"?

 

MR. ROGAN: No, that would -- that would be -- that would be allowed. I think -­ I think, Your Honor -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?

 

MR. ROGAN: To the extent -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.

 

MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the -- the -­ the line that we're drawing is one that is -­is related to electoral choices in a -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what's the answer to this question? You're a polling official. You're the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?

 

MR. ROGAN: The -- the Parkland?

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.

 

MR. ROGAN: I -- I think -- I think today that I -- that would be -- if -- if that was in Minnesota, and it was "Parkland Strong," I -- I would say that that would be allowed in, that there's not -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?

 

MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that's a clear indication -- and I think what you're getting at, Your Honor -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?

 

MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I -- I -- I think that that could be viewed as political, that that -- that would be -- that would be -­

 

JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?

 

(Laughter.)

 

MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't -­ I don't think the First Amendment. And, Your Honor, I -

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No -- no what, that it would be covered or wouldn't be allowed?

 

MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?

 

That line of questioning makes it really obvious the law in question was too broad and was applied way too subjectively. It required poll workers to determine if something was or wasn't political speech, and they were apparently doing it inconsistently and likely with bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

THis was the right decision. There are too many nuances to speech to let individuals at polling places decide what is ok and what is not ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

THis was the right decision. There are too many nuances to speech to let individuals at polling places decide what is ok and what is not ok.

 

I agree.  I just wonder if laws restricting political activity near polling places could be challenged on 1A grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm wondering what would have to be done in order for a plaintiff to demonstrate standing in a gerrymandering case like this.

 

 

They problem is that the argument was on a statewide basis the voter was harmed because there were candidates from other districts that were GOP and could have been Dem and would have made the makeup of the state house more favorable to Dems, which would better serve their interests. They live in a heavily Dem district, so their interest is harmed with there are more GOP members in the legislature.

 

The Court said that they do not have standing to challenge the gerrymander in other districts because they don't live there. What this is saying is that a Dem voter in those counties must challenge the makeup as to the extent of their particular county only and not looking at it from the state legislature as a whole.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm wondering what would have to be done in order for a plaintiff to demonstrate standing in a gerrymandering case like this.

 

From my understanding after briefly reading some analysis, the court indicated that the plaintiff would have standing to challenge the district they live in but not every district in the state. So this won't be the end of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will need to find someone in a purple county who can show they are aggrieved on this. Should not be too hard. But it would only apply to that county only not the whole state. They would need multiple plaintiffs bringing different cases in each county. This is doable but will get expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that no one has mentioned the Lucia case. That is probably the most significant opinion today, written by Justice Kagan, said that many of the ALJs for the various agencies, who issued opinions on government regulations are not unconstitutional. This throws into flux a lot of the administrative rule writing that was done under the Obama administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Four justices disagreed, which is pretty amazing.

 

The "constitutional" conservatives disagreed. 

 

I disagree with the dissenters here. And I'm not certain how protecting location data is allowed under any narrow interpretation of due process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Four justices disagreed, which is pretty amazing.

 

The "constitutional" conservatives disagreed. 

 

Sort of/mostly, but the opinion was by Roberts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Four justices disagreed, which is pretty amazing.

 

The "constitutional" conservatives disagreed. 

 

Sort of, but the opinion was by Roberts.

 

Opinion by Roberts joined by the liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way... we were all lazy.

 

Gorsuch's dissent argues that this decision didn't go far enough to protect the 4th Amendment. So, it was essentially 6-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fits that Alito, Thomas and especially Kennedy would disagree on this issue. All tend to be more protectionist and big on police powers. Gorsuch, who is a Scalia acolyte would be expected to come down on the side of privacy. Criminal rights was an area where Scalia often sided with the liberal justices so you would expect that from Gorsuch. If you look at where Scalia and Ginsburg came together, most often it was on criminal rights matters. Part of the reason why they were such good friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fits that Alito, Thomas and especially Kennedy would disagree on this issue. All tend to be more protectionist and big on police powers. Gorsuch, who is a Scalia acolyte would be expected to come down on the side of privacy. Criminal rights was an area where Scalia often sided with the liberal justices so you would expect that from Gorsuch. If you look at where Scalia and Ginsburg came together, most often it was on criminal rights matters. Part of the reason why they were such good friends.

 

I think they were good friends because Scalia, form what I've heard, was a very personable guy.  I think he had developed a friendship with Kagan too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fits that Alito, Thomas and especially Kennedy would disagree on this issue. All tend to be more protectionist and big on police powers. Gorsuch, who is a Scalia acolyte would be expected to come down on the side of privacy. Criminal rights was an area where Scalia often sided with the liberal justices so you would expect that from Gorsuch. If you look at where Scalia and Ginsburg came together, most often it was on criminal rights matters. Part of the reason why they were such good friends.

 

I think they were good friends because Scalia, form what I've heard, was a very personable guy.  I think he had developed a friendship with Kagan too.

 

I heard him speak shortly before he passed. He thought Kagan was an intellectual giant, and often would petition her to write for the opposing side when their votes didn’t align, as he knew his reasoning would be challenged and therefore that much better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is SCOTUS our only functioning branch of Federal Government at this point?

 

*If you ignore that Gorsuch's seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (not the fault of SCOTUS, of course)


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, are we going down the Garland road again?  The seat was never his; therefore, it was not stolen from him.  End of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate shirked its responsibility in order to pack the court.  End of story

 

Constitutional conservatives like Ted Cruz even threatened to keep tge seat open forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had no responsibility to hold a vote.  The president does not get to tell the Senate how to run the Senate.  Sorry.

 

EDIT: And holding the seat open forever would have been a perfectly constitutional thing to do.  There have been times in our history when the Supreme Court had other than nine members.  The Constitution does not require nine members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when a democrat is elected and expands the court to 15 justices you won't conplain, right?

 

It's the constitution that compels the Senate not the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Constitution compels no such thing as a vote on a presidential nomination.  A refusal to hold a vote and a nay vote stand on equal footing, because the Constitution is silent between them, on how to signal that a nominee does not have the constitutionally-required "consent" of the Senate.

 

When the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices I will definitely complain.  But I will not use the word "stolen," nor will I charge that it is unconstitutional or that the justices are illegitimately appointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is SCOTUS our only functioning branch of Federal Government at this point?

 

*If you ignore that Gorsuch's seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (not the fault of SCOTUS, of course)

 

Dude, get over it already.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is SCOTUS our only functioning branch of Federal Government at this point?

 

*If you ignore that Gorsuch's seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (not the fault of SCOTUS, of course)

 

Dude, get over it already.

 

You guys can pretend this is fine because your side won.  But you both know that it is BS. This is just party tribalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had no responsibility to hold a vote.  The president does not get to tell the Senate how to run the Senate.  Sorry.

 

EDIT: And holding the seat open forever would have been a perfectly constitutional thing to do.  There have been times in our history when the Supreme Court had other than nine members.  The Constitution does not require nine members.

 

Holding the seat open would not be constitutional technically unless congress voted to change the size of the court. The constitution allows congress to set the size of the court which was last formally set at 9.  To leave a seat open is in violation of that act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more we allow our customs and norms to ne destroyed so that our side wins, the weaker the Republic becomes.  The constitution requires parties to act in good faith.  McConnell is a cancer to the Republic and his behavior should be condemned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell acted in good faith.  He violated no duty to the Constitution and had no duty to the president.  He and his caucus believed that Garland should not be on the Supreme Court.  The Democrats were not denied a seat on the Court; they were denied an opportunity to make a media spectacle of the hearings that would have resulted in the "no" vote.

 

I’m actually with the liberals on this one. A vote should’ve been had.

 

This is not something you can be "with the liberals" in good faith on and still call yourself a conservative.  Maybe you can say that as a political or ethical matter, a vote should've been had.  You cannot say it as a legal matter.  There is, quite frankly, no good faith legal argument that McConnell was constitutionally obligated to hold a vote.  If there way, you know very well that someone (quite possibly Obama's solicitor general) would have advanced it, and appealed it to the Supreme Court.  There are some law professors who made the attempt, but anyone can get something (especially something that flatters progressive sensibilities both as to bareknuckle results and their own self-perceived intellectual superiority) published in a law review or an editorial page.  As best I can recall, no one, or at least no one serious, tried to push that argument in a forum actually governed by Rule 11 (i.e, where they could be sanctioned for a frivolous argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell acted in bad faith by his own admission don't whitewash the stain he has placed on our republic. He had no issue with Garland he admitted that we were in an election. Don't defend this bad faith effort by McConnell.  You and I both know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that is bad faith?  "We're in an election and we could get someone better by waiting" is a good faith reason to wait.

 

Remember, checks and balances work in both directions.  The appointment power is one of the executive and legislature's checks on the judiciary.  There is no bad faith in saying that electoral politics played a role in the appointment decision.  Appointment is a political power.  It is shared by the executive and legislative branches as a check on the judiciary.  It is, in fact, the primary check on the judiciary, since impeachment is vanishingly rare and simple defiance (i.e., the Andrew Jackson strategy, premised on the fact that the judiciary does not command or fund an army, as the executive and legislature do) actually is a bad faith means of "checking" the judiciary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or rather, to set a new norm- that a party must hold the Presidency and the Senate in order to appoint judges.  This will be unworkable in the long run, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its because of the VRA allowing this that people like Maxine Waters have jobs and continue to get re-elected every year. I am sure she breathed a sign of relief at this decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't like it, either, but at the same time, this kind of thing was inevitable when the Right chose to start supporting "religious freedom" bills to discriminate against specific minorities patronizing businesses, or in putting people in office that would radically change the way we all draw lines in the sand.  Conservatives never seem to quite grasp the potential consequences of their extremism.

 

Except of course that it's apparently OK for leftists to just go ahead and discriminate (because they're so holy and righteous and anything they discriminate against must by definition deserve it); conservatives somehow need to get a statute passed first (to legitimate their bigotry and hatred, of course).

 

I can both disagree with it and still think it's a pretty predictable result of that kind of legislation.  Once you open to door to be able to discriminate against people you don't like, you don't get to feign outrage when it happens against people you do.  Call it the law of unintended consequences. 

That said, I still see a pretty clear distinction between discrimination against immutable characteristics (sexuality, race, gender) and mutable ones.  If I had a business, I don't know that I would think twice about kicking out a KKK member or a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention, of course, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, separating the baker from the bakery is an exercise in deliberate blindness

 

 

Such as fan of corporate personhood as you should know that the bakery is indeed separate from the baker, except in the highly unlikely case that it's a sole proprietorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

 

(1) I actually think much of the left here, and in America generally, wouldn't even concede freedom of conscience on the part of a ring-maker.  Some wouldn't even concede it on the part of clergy, and those people may well have included Obama's solicitor general, and quite possibly also at least one of the Supreme Court justices he got confirmed.

 

(2) Who are you to judge whether a cake is or is not part of the sacrament?  Should courts and judges get into the business of deciding what is and isn't sufficiently associated with the sacrament to be considered part of it?  Note that judges have already shied away from doing so when faced with contracts that expressly incorporate elements of Islamic law.  Why should it be different when faced with Christian religious questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

 

(1) I actually think much of the left here, and in America generally, wouldn't even concede freedom of conscience on the part of a ring-maker.  Some wouldn't even concede it on the part of clergy, and those people may well have included Obama's solicitor general, and quite possibly also at least one of the Supreme Court justices he got confirmed.

 

(2) Who are you to judge whether a cake is or is not part of the sacrament?  Should courts and judges get into the business of deciding what is and isn't sufficiently associated with the sacrament to be considered part of it?  Note that judges have already shied away from doing so when faced with contracts that expressly incorporate elements of Islamic law.  Why should it be different when faced with Christian religious questions?

 

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...