What's new
By:
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

joecct said:
There bad words (write new law) in your post, but otherwise I agree. Courts can't write laws. Only a legislature may.

However, that doesn't stop the courts from trying and doing.
Click to expand...

So, in the spirit of full disclosure I'd like to see the court set a standard that curbs gerrymandering. Having said that, I'm counting on Kennedy's seeming desire to be known as the most influential justice of the century to help guide his ruling. Do nothing = no legacy building. Bring gerrymandering to a heel and the accolades start writing themselves. One way or the other he's coming to the end of the line (wasn't he nominated by Reagan a lifetime ago?). Adding this as a capstone to his career (saving Roe v Wade, gay marriage, etc) might be a little too tempting to pass up. He also seems to want to end solitary confinement as well but that doesn't quite have the pizzazz of this potential ruling.
 
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

joecct said:
There bad words (write new law) in your post, but otherwise I agree. Courts can't write laws. Only a legislature may.

However, that doesn't stop the courts from trying and doing.
Click to expand...

You think John Marshall got it wrong in Marbury v. Madison?
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-gerrymandering.html

Supremes tell GOP to **** off on Pennsylvania redistricting because of gerry mandering by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but:

“Granting review of this case,” lawyers for Mr. Wolf wrote, “would represent an unprecedented encroachment on the rights of state courts to delineate the boundaries of state law.”

Lawyers for the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, which challenged the state’s congressional map along with several voters, were even more direct. “There is no partisan gerrymandering exception to federalism,” they wrote.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but if the Court accepts that then I read that as them saying you can cheat as much as you want assuming you control the entire state apparatus. That would be an overall win for Republican voter suppression and gerrymandering.
 
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 gist of it is the Pennsylvania supreme court overturned the GOP's congressional maps based on state, not federal law. Under the guise of federalism that tied the SCOTUS hands to intervene. Most court cases such as WI, TX, etc were argued in federal court, hence the stay that the SCOTUS keeps imposing on those rulings.

So, the basic idea would be to get a favorable ruling in state court, sorta how Florida worked out (citizens initiative banned incumbent protection, then GOP map lost in state court). Off the top of my head Dems control NC court while GOP has WI court. Not 100% sure about VA, OH, or MI to name a few.

EDIT: But yes to Kep's question. Provided the maps didn't violate federal law (as in if GA drew a map that produced zero minority-majority districts for example) if you have control of all 3 branches of government in a state for an extended period of time you could certainly get creative. North Carolina for example has taken this to the extreme.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Yeah, but:



I could be wrong but if the Court accepts that then I read that as them saying you can cheat as much as you want assuming you control the entire state apparatus. That would be an overall win for Republican voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

States can always offer more individual protections than the feds. They can't offer less.

Take the death penalty, for instance. States can ban it outright, even though the Federal Constitution allows it. But they can't extend it to juveniles, because SCOTUS has says that's unconstitutional.

Here, the Pennsylvania court relied on the state constitution rather than the federal one, so SCOTUS can't overrule them unless it believes the state constitution violates the federal one. Even Alito wasn't going to buy that one.
 
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

unofan said:
Here, the Pennsylvania court relied on the state constitution rather than the federal one, so SCOTUS can't overrule them unless it believes the state constitution violates the federal one. Even Alito wasn't going to buy that one.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I did see the note "wrote for the majority" and thought "was there a dissent?" Apparently 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

It's been a pleasure watching you quietly educate us on the law on these threads, uno.
 
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

Well, it's a plan, anyway.
 
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

But remember, he was looking forward to sitting down with Mueller. :rolleyes:

Of course, Trumptards will claim he's making the right move because this is all a witch hunt, or something.
 
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

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
But remember, he was looking forward to sitting down with Mueller. :rolleyes:

Of course, Trumptards will claim he's making the right move because this is all a witch hunt, or something.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hannity tells all his viewers every night over and over again that it's a witch hunt. I imagine Rush does the same thing. That's why the carve out of 33% of the population needs to be the number one campaign priority for Democrats.
 
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

McConnell wins again. Get used to thinking that for the next 30 years.
 
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

bronconick said:
McConnell wins again. Get used to thinking that for the next 30 years.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was 5-3. With Garland it would have tied and went back to what the lower Court decided. We are finished as a nation. Done. It's over.
 
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

We're next
 
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

bronconick said:
We're next
Click to expand...

Did you notice in the article that the Trump administration is backing the City for arresting a man exercising his first amendment rights? Wow.


The city of Riviera Beach declined NPR's request to discuss its case, but in written briefs filed with the court, the City Council, backed by the Trump administration, contends that the police officer was justified in arresting Lozman, even if Lozman's speech was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
Did you notice in the article that the Trump administration is backing the City for arresting a man exercising his first amendment rights? Wow.
Click to expand...

Very much points out the issue with defending the 2nd for those kind of people. If they are not willing to stand up for all of them, I'm not willing to stand up for them.
 
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

bronconick said:
We're next
Click to expand...

We have to fight this stuff whenever and wherever it happens. People with power -- whether that's the rich or politicians or cops or whoever -- will always try to intimidate people without it. The whole basis of government is the weak banding together to protect their rights from the attempts by strong to enslave them. Well, right now we have a government devoted to the strong crushing the weak, but we still have our rights and our principles. America is stronger than these f-cks, whether they are some rinky dink local criminals or the POTUS.
 
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

Kepler said:
We have to fight this stuff whenever and wherever it happens. People with power -- whether that's the rich or politicians or cops or whoever -- will always try to intimidate people without it. The whole basis of government is the weak banding together to protect their rights from the attempts by strong to enslave them. Well, right now we have a government devoted to the strong crushing the weak, but we still have our rights and our principles. America is stronger than these f-cks, whether they are some rinky dink local criminals or the POTUS.
Click to expand...

Can't fight the Supreme Court without new legislation. The Court is gone cause we all loved Bernie. New legislation is impossible unless the Republicans change the 60 rule and they won't now cause they know the Senate might flip. And if the Dems do it they will relish in running it into the ground.
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
Can't fight the Supreme Court without new legislation. The Court is gone cause we all loved Bernie. New legislation is impossible unless the Republicans change the 60 rule and they won't now cause they know the Senate might flip. And if the Dems do it they will relish in running it into the ground.
Click to expand...

The Court is gone because the DNC ran a lump of feces for president. Dump is so bad the lump of feces still nearly won.

But the Court is really gone because we haven't done what was necessary to end the plutocracy, now going on for 38 years -- that means run them out of the party and then run them out of politics completely by hammering money out of politics. We can either have gross inequality or democratic government; there is no way to have both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top