Nina Totenberg wrote:But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 02, 2017 11:50 pm
by Simple Torture
Green Habit wrote:This would make some high stakes for the 2018 midterms.
Nina Totenberg wrote:But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.
If I remember correctly, most people think the Dems will easily take the House in 2018 but not the Senate; only the latter matters in this case. Would Dems prevent a vote for 2 years as payback?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 02, 2017 11:58 pm
by The Argonaut
At this point, yes, they would. The system as it stands right now is broken.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 03, 2017 12:51 am
by Green Habit
Simple Torture wrote:
Green Habit wrote:This would make some high stakes for the 2018 midterms.
Nina Totenberg wrote:But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.
If I remember correctly, most people think the Dems will easily take the House in 2018 but not the Senate; only the latter matters in this case. Would Dems prevent a vote for 2 years as payback?
The Senate map is brutal for the Dems in 2018. Even under ideal conditions, after Heller and Flake the third seat to attack may very well be Ted Cruz for any chance to take control. If they fail, they'll have to try to influence the likes of Susan Collins or Lindsey Graham to prevent the Court from lurching heavily to the right.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 11:25 am
by B
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 3:32 pm
by Green Habit
Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:
It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 4:14 pm
by malice
Green Habit wrote:Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:
It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.
they can view the tweets, but they can't reply, according to the article... public dissent of the government, etc.
Seems pretty unconstitutional, doesn't it?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 5:11 pm
by Green Habit
malice wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:
It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.
they can view the tweets, but they can't reply, according to the article... public dissent of the government, etc.
Seems pretty unconstitutional, doesn't it?
They can tweet their thoughts about Trump's tweets all they want, they just can't tweet directly to Trump. The right to speak does not translate into a right to an audience. And with Twitter, that's potentially a big deal given its recurring problem with policing harassment. It could be a headache for public officials much weaker than Trump.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 6:00 pm
by malice
Ok, so trump just doesn't want to see dissenting replies when he tweets
I guess i don't get the point of his tweeting about everything because by nature, it's a public medium, unlike say, a press release, and part of that would have to include dealing with the dissent his chosen public venting of his opinions brings.
nm, it's not relevant to the topic, and there's a good chance he doesn't have the presence of mind to put out an intelligible press release.
Can you elaborate on what the ramifications are of the plaintiffs losing their suit? Or what the big picture could look like?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 6:47 pm
by Green Habit
malice wrote:Ok, so trump just doesn't want to see dissenting replies when he tweets
I guess i don't get the point of his tweeting about everything because by nature, it's a public medium, unlike say, a press release, and part of that would have to include dealing with the dissent his chosen public venting of his opinions brings.
nm, it's not relevant to the topic, and there's a good chance he doesn't have the presence of mind to put out an intelligible press release.
Some would argue that his tweets should be press releases!
malice wrote:Can you elaborate on what the ramifications are of the plaintiffs losing their suit? Or what the big picture could look like?
A few things that go through my mind:
--Are all accounts run by public officials considered to be public information? Or are they allowed to have personal accounts in which they can determine who can and cannot participate?
--If personal accounts are allowable, do you have to set the default to private view if you want to block people? In other words, does the 1A demand that you either have to let everyone in the public comment, or no one, but not only some?
--Are there certain types of content that can be blocked (i.e., harassment, threats--and how are those defined) while still passing 1A muster?
Maybe I'll think of more later.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri August 11, 2017 6:59 pm
by malice
Yeah, i read about the tweets as official press releases. It's mind boggling his staff can't stop him from tweeting, im rather scared this guy is actually going to start a military conflict as a result of his tweets.
Re - you comments: the part about allowing some but not all reply... That's a good one. Meaning, what possible criteria for 'who gets to reply and who doesn't' can be used that would be uniform or equally applied to everyone without being discriminatory.
You don't have to answer that, it was just something that came to mind
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue October 03, 2017 6:40 pm
by Green Habit
Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:
Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed October 04, 2017 3:54 pm
by digster
I still feel a bit murky on what the potential implications of a ruling against political gerrymandering would be. Would that mean what's basically happened since 2010 would be deemed illegal? I understand the problem, just not what the potential solution could be from the Court.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed October 04, 2017 5:10 pm
by 4/5
digster wrote:I still feel a bit murky on what the potential implications of a ruling against political gerrymandering would be. Would that mean what's basically happened since 2010 would be deemed illegal? I understand the problem, just not what the potential solution could be from the Court.
It would depend how sweeping any anti-gerrymandering ruling is. I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence. What Kennedy wrote in a previous gerrymandering case was that there would need to be a workable test to determine whether the redistricting/gerrymandering in question was too extreme. The claimants in this case essentially presented their version of the test they think the Supreme Court should use:
1. Was the intent of the new map to benefit one party over the other?
2. Does the map significantly discriminate against one party over a sustained period of time?
3. Is there any reason other than partisan gerrymandering that one party is continuously at a disadvantage?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed October 04, 2017 6:36 pm
by Green Habit
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:
Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?
Only Kennedy knows for sure. I wouldn't mind Trump launching a few angry tweets in his direction if he votes in favor of a result Trump doesn't like. The travel ban case would have been perfect but it sounds like they're going to moot that one.
4/5 wrote:I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence.
I really dislike that line of thought that Roberts used. The entire job of the courts is to address litigation.
