Red Mosquito

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.

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.

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/

Hey GH, who is your favorite Supreme court member?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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...

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

I think I've gotten dumber over the years, because that explanation doesn't make any sense to me.

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.

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.

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.