Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

The Virginia House, unlike the entire General Assembly (distinguishing a different case) did not have standing to appeal the ruling on the constitutionality of the redistricting maps passed by the General Assembly but later found unconstitutional by a federal district court.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-throws-out-legislators-appeal-in-racial-gerrymandering-case/

 

Also, the case was 5-4, but this was anything but a traditional lineup:

 

Majority: Ginsburg (opinion), Thomas, Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor.

 

Dissent: Alito (opinion), Breyer, Roberts, Kavanaugh.

 

Standing cases (and by the time this reached SCOTUS, this was actually primarily a standing case, not a substantive redistricting case) are wonky and arcane, and I'm not surprised to see, for example, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on opposite sides here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:12 PM, DarkandStormy said:

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/11/02/curtis-flowers-supreme-court-appeal

 

I am invested (personally) in the outcome of this case, thanks mostly to listening to season 2 of In The Dark, an investigative podcast.  Curtis Flowers has been tried six times by one man - Grenada County (MS) District Attorney Doug Evans - over 21 years.  Evans has a history of both Brady and Batson violations, but to my knowledge has suffered no professional repercussions.  Curtis Flowers, meanwhile, has spent 21 years in prison while four of his convictions have been overturned and 2 of his trials ended in a mistrial.  He has been found guilty by all-white or nearly all-white juries in every trial.

 

There is also an apparent Brady violation uncovered at the tail end of the podcast series - another suspect who claims he was interviewed for hours and held in county jail for 11 days.  In turning over evidence, he was mentioned one time on investigators' notes.  The suspect claims all of his questioning was recorded.

 

It is cases like these that still get to me - an open racist violating his duties as an attorney and public prosecutor who receives little to no consequences for his actions, while a potentially innocent man spends over half his life in prison precisely because of that prosecutorial misconduct.

 

By a 7-2 opinion, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Curtis Flowers - that there was a Brady violation.  Flowers now awaits, potentially, a seventh trial.  Of course, there's no recourse for Flowers to get out of prison and no consequences for the D.A. who has continually been found to have violated Brady.

 

EDIT - Link: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/732159330/supreme-court-strikes-down-conviction-of-mississippi-man-on-death-row-for-22-yea

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another wacky lineup.  Maybe of some potential relevance down the road to issues such as sports team names like the Washington Redskins, though that's questionable (I don't know if their trademark itself was ever actually being challenged on legal grounds, vs. whether it was simply a regular marketing/political campaign to get them to change the team name ... AFAIK there was no Lanham Act challenge): 

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/iancu-v-brunetti/

 

Holding: The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.

 

Kagan writes for the 6-3 majority, Alito concurs separately, then two separate concur-in-part/dissent-in-part opinions, one Breyer-Roberts and one Breyer-Sotomayor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racial gerrymandering claims are still cognizable.  It's the political gerrymandering claims that the Court held present a political question and are therefore nonjusticiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Kagan's closing paragraph:  "Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.  Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.  With respect but deep sadness, I dissent. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Census ruling in. 5-4 Roberts joins liberal justices to block adding citizenship question. Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question.  So the remand may prove to be a temporary, and limited, victory.

 

From Soctus Blog:

Here's how I would characterize the bottom line on the census:  The Court has rejected the proposition that it is impossible for Commerce to add a citizenship question, but it has also held that it does not believe the voting-rights related justification that Commerce offered.  That means Commerce could get another chance to justify its decision.  Whether it has the time to do that is a practical question, not a legal one.

 

Pulled quote from the liveblog they had running: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_27_2019

Edited by cincydave8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Shorter John Roberts (on gerrymandering): Only the political process can fix the political process of suppressing votes in the political process.

 

Cool, cool.

Whimp.  Like Kagan said, why should the court punt just because the upholding the constitution would be just too difficult. 

 

Clear that Roberts is just hiding his true intent with such garbage.  That is to protect an increasingly irrelevant Republican party.  The backroom boys who have been crafting this strategy for the past 30 years to protect the national GOP at the state level are giggling and high fiving each other.  And the complacent Dems have nobody  to blame but themselves.

 

I cannot believe I live in a democracy where the two major parties get almost an equal share of the vote but often one gets less than a third of the seats.  It is practically vote nullification.

Edited by Htsguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, congratulations Republicans. Representative democracy is now dead in America.  You've ensured that voting has no power.  And with that, I can't think of any reason left to be there or participate in a process that is now inherently rigged against any voter who might disagree with you or want to hold you accountable.  I also want to think all those Democrats and liberals that stayed home or voted 3rd Party.  I hope it was worth it, because aside from president, you just voted yourself out of influence altogether.

 

"'I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,' explained David Lewis, a Republican member of the General Assembly’s redistricting committee. 'So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.'”

Just as the Founders intended.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country is truly screwed. Every day it gets worse and worse, and it becomes more clear that the system is rigged at all levels. I don't see this country lasting another 50 years, to be honest. Time to start learning Mandarin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, edale said:

This country is truly screwed. Every day it gets worse and worse, and it becomes more clear that the system is rigged at all levels. I don't see this country lasting another 50 years, to be honest. Time to start learning Mandarin!

 

Truly a depressing day.  The Democrats cave and SCOTUS rules against fair democracy.  There are fewer reasons every day to even bother voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Truly a depressing day.  The Democrats cave and SCOTUS rules against fair democracy.  There are fewer reasons every day to even bother voting. 

 

This is exactly what the Republicans want - even the non-Trump members here admit it. The stolen SCOTUS seat was worth the racism and hatred of Donald Trump because of decisions like today.  They want a majority on the court via any means necessary so they can continue to hold on to their power via any means necessary. If that means your vote counts less or makes you less inclined to vote, even better for them.

 

Republicans hate democracy and continue to display their contempt for it.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nullifying a voters' voice is constitutional as long as it is for the minority party in your ward or district? In other words, SCOTUS is going to pick and choose when the US Constitution is supreme over states' rights? "Your vote shall not be abridged except when your ward or district is designed to deny competitive elections and to protect the party in power."

 

When the party in power denies competitive elections, and the majority of the voting public (Democrats and Independents) is forced to be represented by the minority, we used to call that tyranny in this country. Seems we fought a war or two over it. Maybe we need fight another?

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, the Voting Rights Act effectively protects majority-minority districts.  This means it de facto protects political gerrymandering.

 

Let's say there's 100 voters in a district.   If 51 of them are black, and 90% of them vote Democratic (historically common), that's 46 votes.

 

Split the 49% 50-50 and you get 24 additional Democratic votes.   For a total of 70%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hardly describe any of them as bigots. I would hardly describe Kavanaugh as even extreme. In all likelihood, based on much of his past judicial philosophy, he will turn out to be the most moderate one on the Court. 

Gorsuch is hardly a bigot either. He was one of the better written judges in the originalist philosophy. He would be hard to consider a right winged judge either. Yes, most of his opinions will skew conservative similar to Alito and Thomas, but his philosophy will cause him to side with the liberal wing quite frequently too, as Scalia often did while he was on the Court.

 

I would hardly consider a hit piece in the Nation especially by Elie Mystal who is long known to have his own left wing agenda to be anything beyond a waste of space.

 

All of those judges were qualified and the Senators of each state where the district is located get to offer some vetting of them. It is not like these individuals are the bottom of the legal profession, they all come from prestigious firms. Jones Day is one of the top firms in the world. He mentions the team of lawyers from there that went to the White House, well guess what, there are a hell of a lot of Democrats who work there too.  Hell John Boehner is employed by the same firm that employs Eric Holder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I would hardly describe any of them as bigots. I would hardly describe Kavanaugh as even extreme. In all likelihood, based on much of his past judicial philosophy, he will turn out to be the most moderate one on the Court. 

Gorsuch is hardly a bigot either. He was one of the better written judges in the originalist philosophy. He would be hard to consider a right winged judge either. Yes, most of his opinions will skew conservative similar to Alito and Thomas, but his philosophy will cause him to side with the liberal wing quite frequently too, as Scalia often did while he was on the Court.

 

I would hardly consider a hit piece in the Nation especially by Elie Mystal who is long known to have his own left wing agenda to be anything beyond a waste of space.

 

All of those judges were qualified and the Senators of each state where the district is located get to offer some vetting of them. It is not like these individuals are the bottom of the legal profession, they all come from prestigious firms. Jones Day is one of the top firms in the world. He mentions the team of lawyers from there that went to the White House, well guess what, there are a hell of a lot of Democrats who work there too.  Hell John Boehner is employed by the same firm that employs Eric Holder.

 

You're kidding, right?  You're aware that Mitch McConnell killed this "blue slip" rule just as Republicans took over the Senate and White House?  You're not...actually that dense, are you?

 

Quote

In one tweet, Willett, a fierce opponent of marriage equality, joked that he could “support recognizing a constitutional right to marry bacon.” In another, he called a transgender woman allowed to play on a girls’ softball team “A-Rod.”

 

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision protecting same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, Willett refused to extend full faith and credit to same-sex marriages performed in other states. He dissented from an opinion that allowed a same-sex couple to be divorced in Texas. After Obergefell, he did everything he could to delay the implementation of same-sex marriage in Texas by lodging purely procedural objections. He ruled, again post-Obergefell, that the spouses of public workers in same-sex marriages can’t receive employment benefits through their partner.

 

Quote

"I resist the proclamation’s talk of “glass ceilings,” pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk), the need to place kids in the care of rented strangers, sexual discrimination/harassment, and the need generally for better “working conditions” for women (read: more government)."

Brutus - "not a bigot"

 

Quote

Plaintiffs persist in ignoring the fact that the separation of a purported family unit is a Government action or decision that does not occur in a vacuum, but rather occurs as an incident of lawful immigration and criminal enforcement, and thus it does not violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment or the Administrative Procedure Act.

Brutus - "not a bigot"

 

I'm curious as to what constitutes a "bigot" for you, if not these folks who you clearly did not read about in the article?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

The GOP is cool with this? Guess we'll find out when they vote him through. (Sorry, not directly SCOTUS related but close.)

Why are these white supremacists always clear genetic failures?  

 

Wait... yes... I answered my own question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent treatment for tumor on pancreas

 

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-underwent-treatment-for-tumor-on-pancreas/2019/08/23/546fdeb8-c5d5-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg completed radiation treatment for a malignant tumor found on her pancreas, the Supreme Court disclosed Friday. It is her second treatment within a year for cancer.

 

The court said the treatment began earlier this month, and no additional treatment is planned.

 

“The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” the court’s spokeswoman said in a statement. “Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans. No further treatment is needed at this time.”

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go figure, the Federalist Society that bills itself as advocates of an interpretation of the legal system of the United States in accordance with a textualist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is exposed as a fraud and nothing more than a partisan political hack organization masquerading as a legal think tank.

 

The Federalist Society Says It’s Not an Advocacy Organization. These Documents Show Otherwise.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/31/federalist-society-advocacy-group-227991

 

Despite what appears to be an obvious political valence, the Federalist Society and its high-profile members have long insisted the nonprofit organization does not endorse any political party “or engage in other forms of political advocacy,” as its website says.

 

Federalist Society documents that one of us recently unearthed, however, make this position untenable going forward. The documents, made public here for the first time, show that the society not only has held explicit ideological goals since its infancy in the early 1980s, but sought to apply those ideological goals to legal policy and political issues through the group’s roundtables, symposia and conferences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the source of the advisory opinion should have given the professor pause.  Does she really think that the U.S. Supreme Court, with its current composition, would put forth an advisory opinion actually intended to bar federal judges from Federalist Society events?  (The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference), and the presiding officer is the Chief Justice of the United States, i.e., John Roberts.  The other members are the chief judges of each of the circuits, one district judge from each circuit, and the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade.)  I suggest that someone who rejects textualist arguments, as this professor can be reasonably assumed to do if she wants to kneecap the Federalist Society, ought to have taken a moment to examine the source and intentions of this advisory opinion.

 

Second, what position has been "made untenable" by these new documents?  The article itself is a bait-and-switch on this point, even within the part you quoted.  The organization does not endorse any political party or engage in other forms of political advocacy.  That is correct.  The article then goes on to say that it has "ideological goals," as if that's the same thing.  Of course FedSoc has goals "based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, especially concerning economic or political theory and policy" (first definition of "ideological" I just Googled).  Ideological does not equal political or partisan; in the current political climate, the two major American political parties are becoming increasingly ideologically segregated, but that was not always the case and is not destined to be the case for eternity.

 

The author's definition is broad enough that it could prevent sitting judges from being members of any faith group or even going to church or synagogue--those organizations have "ideological goals," too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might you help you see the light.

 

Top Donors of the Federalist Society

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/19/us/politics/document-ConservativeDonors-DocCloud.html

 

Top Donors include: 

 

The Judicial Crisis Network - An American conservative activist political campaign organization based in the United States. It has been run by Carrie Severino, a former law clerk for supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/conservative-judicial-group-top-donor-gop-state-elections-arm

 

The Mercer Family: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/07/who-are-trump-donors-bob-and-rebekah-mercer/98812284/

Among the biggest beneficiaries of Mercer donations: the Media Research Center, which received nearly $9 million from 2012 to 2014, a USA TODAY tally shows. The group touts its “unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture.” Other big recipients include the conservative Federalist Society, which took in nearly $3.7 million during that three-year-period, and Citizens United, which received $3.6 million. Citizens United, run by Bossie, is perhaps best known for its attempt to distribute a 2007 anti-Clinton movie that gave rise to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that opened the door to unlimited corporate and union money.

 

Koch Brothers and Koch Foundationhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/we-now-know-how-the-koch-brothers-and-leonard-leo-buy-special-favors.html

Koch has long insisted that his donations come with no strings attached and do not allow him to exert undue influence over GMU’s internal affairs. The emails indicate otherwise. By far the most damning correspondences are between Leo and various GMU officials, including those who oversee the student admissions and faculty hiring processes. Leo heads the Federalist Society, a lavishly funded conservative legal group that currently serves as a pipeline to the Trump administration.

 

It appears from these emails that Leo functioned as a kind of emissary between the Kochs and the university. In 2015, the dean of GMU’s law school, Henry N. Butler, sent Leo his five-year plan. Leo promptly set up a call to discuss “a number of questions,” after which Butler thanked him for his “wise counsel.” The next year, Leo coordinated the donation of $10 million from Charles Koch and $20 million from an anonymous donor to rename the law school after Scalia. That anonymous donor was later revealed to be the “BH Fund,” a tax-exempt group of which Leo is president.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by stpats44113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...