What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Serves the left properly for murdering a justice in order to try to take control.

5150 or fight.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The possibility of sanity.

The attorneys for the state, who are defending the maps, got plenty of questions from Kennedy, while the Wisconsin Democrats, who want the maps struck down, got none. Kennedy spoke 10 times during the state of Wisconsin’s arguments. He asked five questions and made five statements.

“If you get a lot of questions, you’re going to lose,” Adam Liptak, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter, told FiveThirtyEight in 2015.

Justices aren’t just asking questions to get information from the lawyers arguing their cases. In some ways, the questions aren’t meant for the lawyers at all. The justices ask questions to signal their positions to their fellow members of the court, and to potentially sway other justices to their side. If they’re skeptical of one side’s argument, they often pepper that side with queries. Chief Justice John Roberts has even described the lawyers as a “backboard” — the questions bounce off them and come right back to the bench.
 

I wonder if the Maryland Ds are siding with Wisconsin or with their party? If the W Ds prevail, then the Maryland gerrymander would also be consigned to the dustbin.

I am of two minds. I prefer a legislative solution to political problems, but, on the other hand, Maryland Rs are unfairly excluded in the drawing of congressional districts.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I wonder if the Maryland Ds are siding with Wisconsin or with their party? If the W Ds prevail, then the Maryland gerrymander would also be consigned to the dustbin.

I am of two minds. I prefer a legislative solution to political problems, but, on the other hand, Maryland Rs are unfairly excluded in the drawing of congressional districts.

I believe Wisconsin just won the coin toss, as both Maryland (R's) and North Carolina (D's) were also going to court for the same thing
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I wonder if the Maryland Ds are siding with Wisconsin or with their party? If the W Ds prevail, then the Maryland gerrymander would also be consigned to the dustbin.

I am of two minds. I prefer a legislative solution to political problems, but, on the other hand, Maryland Rs are unfairly excluded in the drawing of congressional districts.

Both parties are guilty of partisan redistricting and it's long past time when the Court took it out of the crooks' hands. It might be possible to get a bipartisan solution on this one since both sides are equally culpable and the long term effect is a wash (but a win for democracy). Unlike vote suppression, this isn't the GOP f-cking over the Dems, it's the incumbents f-cking over the challengers. (In that it is much like finance bribery.)
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I wonder if the Maryland Ds are siding with Wisconsin or with their party? If the W Ds prevail, then the Maryland gerrymander would also be consigned to the dustbin.

I am of two minds. I prefer a legislative solution to political problems, but, on the other hand, Maryland Rs are unfairly excluded in the drawing of congressional districts.

This isn't legislation from the bench, this is the bench telling the legislation that they are doing it wrong and do it again to satisfy the law as the court does.

I wish people would stop calling it "legislating from the bench" because it's not. They are just saying that the legislation is does not have legal backing with the constitution.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I wish people would stop calling it "legislating from the bench" because it's not.

LFTB is just another thought-terminating cliche used by knucks to squawk when things don't go there way. As we've seen, when they want to they are perfectly fine with inventing stuff out of wholecloth.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Trump cabinet meeting.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

From all accounts it sounds like Kennedy and Sotomayor shredded the Sconnie lawyer. Hell Notorious RBG shredded Gorsuch when he was on one of his "Strict Constitutionalist" rants :D
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Potus radio said don't read too much into questions. At least one of the court experts said that.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I think they secretly like to shred lawyers like a college hockey student section would the penalty box.

Except Thomas, obviously
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Potus radio said don't read too much into questions. At least one of the court experts said that.

I have read it both ways. Kennedy is definitely tipping his hand though he wouldnt be throwing out the questions he is if he wasnt looking for a reason to apply the standard. Betting odds on his vote would lean heavy to the librul side.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This isn't legislation from the bench, this is the bench telling the legislation that they are doing it wrong and do it again to satisfy the law as the court does.

It would be "legislating from the bench" if the Court told them what the "solution" was. If they merely say, "go back and try again," that's one thing. If they say "here's how to go about it" that's entirely different.

There is a really intriguing legal conundrum here. Isn't it okay to gerrymander on the basis of race? Doesn't the Court say it is okay to produce "majority minority" districts? What next in that universe? is it thereby okay to gerrymander based on sexual orientation, or gender, or ethnic affiliation?

And if most people of the "minority" consistently vote only for one party, how is a (legal) gerrymander based on race different in outcome than a gerrymander based on political affiliation?


What makes the situation even more interesting is that Milwaukee's map has contiguous districts that aren't all that unusually shaped.
 
Isn't it okay to gerrymander on the basis of race?

No. It's illegal to dilute minority votes to thwart them being given proper representation. You can't take an area that would naturally be majority minority and turn it into 3 different districts that elect white people because of southern racism err heritage.

But your concern trolling is noted.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No. It's illegal to dilute minority votes to thwart them being given proper representation.

There is no doubt that you knew that I was asking the opposite question, and pretended not to. How much Pepto must you take each day to manage your dyspepsia?

By "gerrymander on the basis of race" in the context of "majority minority" districting, it was abundantly clear that I obviously meant that it is legal gerrymandering to concentrate minority voters in a single district to make sure that they are represented.

So, it is legal to gerrymander to make sure enough minorities are placed in a district to make them a majority in that district, even if "coincidentally" they all happen to vote for one party over the other every single time in the last 50 years, yet it is not legal to make sure there are enough of any other kind of person in a district. That seems a bit inconsistent. I'm sure there is a special exception of one sort or another.....
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There is no doubt that you knew that I was asking the opposite question, and pretended not to. How much Pepto must you take each day to manage your dyspepsia?

By "gerrymander on the basis of race" in the context of "majority minority" districting, it was abundantly clear that I obviously meant that it is legal gerrymandering to concentrate minority voters in a single district to make sure that they are represented.

So, it is legal to gerrymander to make sure enough minorities are placed in a district to make them a majority in that district, even if "coincidentally" they all happen to vote for one party over the other every single time in the last 50 years, yet it is not legal to make sure there are enough of any other kind of person in a district. That seems a bit inconsistent. I'm sure there is a special exception of one sort or another.....

Forget it, FF. Argue religion or politics with uno if you wish, but not law. Nobody here wants to witness a beheading.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Forget it, FF. Argue religion or politics with uno if you wish, but not law. Nobody here wants to witness a beheading.

It's been awhile so why not?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Forget it, FF. Argue religion or politics with uno if you wish, but not law. Nobody here wants to witness a beheading.

I, for one, enjoy it when uno ruins everyone's hypothetical legal fun. :)

Knowing he used to vote Republican, and isn't a complete libtard, makes it all the sweeter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top