Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:Here's the census opinion, but I'm going to have to leave soon, so I'll let others dissect it for now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_bq7c.pdf

Sounds like the Court says that the Commerce Department has the right to add a citizenship question to the census, but that their reasoning for doing so is shady, so for the time being there's no citizenship question. But the Commerce Department will get another chance to justify that choice, so maybe there will be a citizenship question after all.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Here's the census opinion, but I'm going to have to leave soon, so I'll let others dissect it for now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_bq7c.pdf

Sounds like the Court says that the Commerce Department has the right to add a citizenship question to the census, but that their reasoning for doing so is shady, so for the time being there's no citizenship question. But the Commerce Department will get another chance to justify that choice, so maybe there will be a citizenship question after all.

Let's hope so.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Here's the census opinion, but I'm going to have to leave soon, so I'll let others dissect it for now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_bq7c.pdf

Sounds like the Court says that the Commerce Department has the right to add a citizenship question to the census, but that their reasoning for doing so is shady, so for the time being there's no citizenship question. But the Commerce Department will get another chance to justify that choice, so maybe there will be a citizenship question after all.

Barring a total defeat for the government, this is probably the best result foes of the question could have hoped for. Maybe they can run out the clock for 2020.

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:so maybe there will be a citizenship question after all.

Let's hope so.

What's your reasoning as to why?

i'm so depressed about the gerrymandering decision.

Chris_H_2 wrote:i'm so depressed about the gerrymandering decision.

Me too. I knew this was going to happen the instant Kennedy retired, but it still hurts to see it actually happen. And like I said, I'm also worried that the Court is going to reverse itself after only a few years on redistricting committees, and then we're going to really be fucked.

Someone in the SCOTUSblog chat made an important, though even more depressing point:

Isn't the argument in every racial gerrymander case now going to be: "This isn't a racial gerrymander, it's a permissible political gerrymander."?

SCOTUSblog tried to softly respond by saying the reverse could also be argued, but good luck on that with this Court.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:i'm so depressed about the gerrymandering decision.

Me too. I knew this was going to happen the instant Kennedy retired, but it still hurts to see it actually happen. And like I said, I'm also worried that the Court is going to reverse itself after only a few years on redistricting committees, and then we're going to really be fucked.

I really thought the formula thing was right up Kennedy's alley last year. I was very disappointed they punted on it and then he retired.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:i'm so depressed about the gerrymandering decision.

Me too. I knew this was going to happen the instant Kennedy retired, but it still hurts to see it actually happen. And like I said, I'm also worried that the Court is going to reverse itself after only a few years on redistricting committees, and then we're going to really be fucked.

I really thought the formula thing was right up Kennedy's alley last year. I was very disappointed they punted on it and then he retired.

Kennedy really should have known that he was going to get replaced by someone who was going to disagree with him on this. Maybe he did and thought that he was just going to get overruled next year, so he didn't want to rock the boat.

Green Habit wrote:Yikes, this opinion won't get much attention today but it's a real bad one: warrantless unconscious blood draws for BAC tests are allowable under the Fourth Amendment under the exigent circumstances doctrine.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_2co3.pdf

Going back to this case, I forgot that they addressed this case just six years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely

The Court suffered a double whammy of turnover, with both Kennedy and Scalia joining the Mitchell dissenters in that case. The plurality seems to have sidestepped McNeely, and the reason it wasn't a majority was because Thomas concurred in the judgment by saying McNeely should be overruled.

To echo others I'm disappointed in the Maryland verdict too; it's only going to get worse after the upcoming census.

North Carolina state Representative David R. Lewis, when asked about the partisan gerrymandered districts approved by the state legislature, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats…so I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country. I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

Wonder if that's B's representative.

4/5 wrote:North Carolina state Representative David R. Lewis, when asked about the partisan gerrymandered districts approved by the state legislature, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats…so I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country. I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

Wonder if that's B's representative.

Reminds me of the old Woody Hayes "because I couldn't go for three" remark. At least he's being honest.

4/5 wrote:North Carolina state Representative David R. Lewis, when asked about the partisan gerrymandered districts approved by the state legislature, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats…so I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country. I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

Wonder if that's B's representative.

It is not.

I'm the little blue spec to the west of Raleigh.

Chris_H_2 wrote:i'm so depressed about the gerrymandering decision.

So are all the Democrats who live on I-85.

The Court just granted cert on a hot button issue:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... f-revenue/

trag, you heard anything about this? Here's Espinoza's argument from the Missoulian:

https://missoulian.com/opinion/columnis ... fdbba.html

A linguistics professor takes Breyer to task for his terrible opinion in the FUCT case.

I'm sure this is well known now, but:

Not entirely related, but has there been a criminal case where someone has claimed a video is a "deep fake" (AI generated)?