The Supreme Court

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

I'm pretty bummed that it sounds like there's a good chance that SCOTUS is going to find independent redistricting commissions unconstitutional--including the fact that Idaho's going to be one of the states that's affected.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/indep ... n-english/

To me, the mentioning of "Legislature" should also include the fact that legislatures have actively ceded some of their power via the initiative and referendum process that resulted in the Arizona law in question. Thus, at its roots, the legislature was still responsible for the law that came to be.
User avatar
B
Troglodyte
Posts: 24953
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Twitter: https://bsky.app/profile/rectormsw.bsky.social
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by B »

Green Habit wrote:To me, the mentioning of "Legislature" should also include the fact that legislatures have actively ceded some of their power via the initiative and referendum process that resulted in the Arizona law in question. Thus, at its roots, the legislature was still responsible for the law that came to be.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Sounds like there's several ways the Court could rule against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell (if they wanted) that weren't expected. I'll just point to SCOTUSblog to try to sort it all out.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/will- ... n-english/
User avatar
tommymtcom
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4306
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: there all is aching

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by tommymtcom »

Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
E.H. Ruddock wrote:What a great post, tommy
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
User avatar
tommymtcom
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4306
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: there all is aching

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by tommymtcom »

Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
If there was an RM supreme court who would you like to see on the bench?
E.H. Ruddock wrote:What a great post, tommy
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

tommymtcom wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
If there was an RM supreme court who would you like to see on the bench?
PD and Chris would easily be the most qualified candidates.
User avatar
Chris_H_2
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 15498
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Location: An office full of assholes

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Chris_H_2 »

Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
If there was an RM supreme court who would you like to see on the bench?
PD and Chris would easily be the most qualified candidates.
What is this "supreme" court of which you speak: is it just a regular court, except with sour cream and tomatoes added?

If I was a justice, I'm not sure how active I would be during oral arguments. I think some days I would very "hot," while others I would essentially be Justice Thomas. That way, it would be very difficult for jurists to prepare.
User avatar
E.H. Ruddock
Guys, I am not a moderator! I swear to God! Why does everyone think I'm a moderator?
Posts: 51788
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by E.H. Ruddock »

Chris_H_2 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
If there was an RM supreme court who would you like to see on the bench?
PD and Chris would easily be the most qualified candidates.
What is this "supreme" court of which you speak: is it just a regular court, except with sour cream and tomatoes added?

If I was a justice, I'm not sure how active I would be during oral arguments. I think some days I would very "hot," while others I would essentially be Justice Thomas. That way, it would be very difficult for jurists to prepare.
Would you hire your babysitter as a clerk?
Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG
User avatar
Chris_H_2
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 15498
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Location: An office full of assholes

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Chris_H_2 »

E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tommymtcom wrote:Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?
I think someone on here once asked me who was my least favorite, and my answer will be the same for both: I change my mind on that all the time. All of them seem to find ways to please me and piss me off regularly.
If there was an RM supreme court who would you like to see on the bench?
PD and Chris would easily be the most qualified candidates.
What is this "supreme" court of which you speak: is it just a regular court, except with sour cream and tomatoes added?

If I was a justice, I'm not sure how active I would be during oral arguments. I think some days I would very "hot," while others I would essentially be Justice Thomas. That way, it would be very difficult for jurists to prepare.
Would you hire your babysitter as a clerk?
Oh God no. With my luck, her first opinion would be on sexual harassment.
User avatar
E.H. Ruddock
Guys, I am not a moderator! I swear to God! Why does everyone think I'm a moderator?
Posts: 51788
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by E.H. Ruddock »

So the Supreme Court will be hearing a case as to whether or not Texas can have specialty vehicle plates for the organization, Sons of Confederate Soldiers, which uses the Confederate Flag as their logo. Living in South Carolina we already have this plate. I never understood how it was allowed, but it is. If the SC rules against the plates, will this apply to other states as well?
Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Looks like Roberts crossed the campaign finance restriction line to allow it against elected judges from soliciting funds for a campaign:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 9_d18e.pdf

I think the Court got this wrong, but I also don't think judges should be subject to elections in the first place, so I'm not that heartbroken.
simple schoolboy
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by simple schoolboy »

Green Habit wrote:Looks like Roberts crossed the campaign finance restriction line to allow it against elected judges from soliciting funds for a campaign:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 9_d18e.pdf

I think the Court got this wrong, but I also don't think judges should be subject to elections in the first place, so I'm not that heartbroken.
I had the same reaction as your last line when I read your first.

Expanding the topic a bit, wouldn't it tend to be even worse for District Attorneys to be elected than Judges? In some ways the DA can pervert the course of justice more easily than the judge, and they have no incentive to avoid false convictions. (at least of the sort that don't get corrected before they reach higher office)
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Looks like Roberts crossed the campaign finance restriction line to allow it against elected judges from soliciting funds for a campaign:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 9_d18e.pdf

I think the Court got this wrong, but I also don't think judges should be subject to elections in the first place, so I'm not that heartbroken.
I had the same reaction as your last line when I read your first.

Expanding the topic a bit, wouldn't it tend to be even worse for District Attorneys to be elected than Judges? In some ways the DA can pervert the course of justice more easily than the judge, and they have no incentive to avoid false convictions. (at least of the sort that don't get corrected before they reach higher office)
I agree. DAs and attorneys general are the most powerful people that people don't think about, especially since they have prosecutorial discretion.
simple schoolboy
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by simple schoolboy »

Green Habit wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Looks like Roberts crossed the campaign finance restriction line to allow it against elected judges from soliciting funds for a campaign:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 9_d18e.pdf

I think the Court got this wrong, but I also don't think judges should be subject to elections in the first place, so I'm not that heartbroken.
I had the same reaction as your last line when I read your first.

Expanding the topic a bit, wouldn't it tend to be even worse for District Attorneys to be elected than Judges? In some ways the DA can pervert the course of justice more easily than the judge, and they have no incentive to avoid false convictions. (at least of the sort that don't get corrected before they reach higher office)
I agree. DAs and attorneys general are the most powerful people that people don't think about, especially since they have prosecutorial discretion.
A bit OT, but related to prosecutors:
Was Loretta Lynch just trolling civil libertarians when she highlighted police morale as an area of concern? It's as if congressional republicans had a reason to oppose her confirmation...
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

I forgot to mention this earlier, but you should know about a case the court recently agreed to hear. It's called Evenwel v. Abbott, and the petitioners are asking the Court to interpret "one person, one vote" not as the total population, but as eligible voters. Suffice to say, if they win that's going to give the GOP yet another way to manipulate Congress in their favor. Here's an explainer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/upsho ... crats.html
User avatar
B
Troglodyte
Posts: 24953
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Twitter: https://bsky.app/profile/rectormsw.bsky.social
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by B »

I think I've gotten dumber over the years, because that explanation doesn't make any sense to me. :cry:
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

The Court finally ruled in the Zivotofsky case, saying that it's unconstitutional for Congress to write a law forcing the State Department to issue passports that list someone born in Jerusalem as being from Israel. Scalia is dissenting from the bench, so he must be pissed about this.
simple schoolboy
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by simple schoolboy »

The Courts refusal to hear Jackson v San Francisco seems to indicate the court has no intention to apply Heller v. District of Columbia or McDonald v Chicago to other jurisdictions.
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

simple schoolboy wrote:The Courts refusal to hear Jackson v San Francisco seems to indicate the court has no intention to apply Heller v. District of Columbia or McDonald v Chicago to other jurisdictions.
Regardless of how certworthy that case was, Thomas's dissent from that denial was kind of pathetic. He complained about the Court granting cert to other cases without a circuit split...and most of the those he cited were famous cases he dissented in.
Post Reply