SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Can't wait to be told the Courts don't matter again.

 

[unofan]

Gubmint overreach?

Was Scalia the one who wrote the blistering opinion on cops using infrared to look inside homes for pot growing?

Yep.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Roberts still talking about gerrymandering. Likely Kagan will read from her dissent.

It also means Roberts has the citizenship question case, and the Indian case is either his or is going to be affirmed by an equally divided court.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

So, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?

This also means Michigan is screwed for 2020. New maps won’t go into effect until 2022 by the independent committee, so the current maps get to stay, locking Whitmer into a solidly red Congress for her term, essentially meaning nothing will get done.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kagan now reading from her dissent.

 

[unofan]

So, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?

Racial gerrymandering is still prohibited by the 14th Amendment. But partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of the federal courts. In theory, you could go to state court and argue a violation of the state constitution, like what happened in Pennsylvania.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

So, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?

Basically your political party affiliation is not a suspect class. Which... come on, son. That's the heart of democracy. It underlies freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right to assemble.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

So, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?

That's sorta how I read it. What I also read is Roberts saying that states or Congress are free to enact their own anti gerrymandering legislation which indicated that Lizzy Warren's voting rights proposal would pass Constitutional muster. The SCOTUS would basically stay out of it. That's good news in the here and now as both ballot initiatives and state supreme court rulings redrawing the lines should then be upheld. BUT, its puts more onus on the Dems to win state supreme court majorities.

EDIT - looks like uno beat me to it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

He was on the Court when they decided Corporations were people, right?

This is bad.

Mitch earned his pay. Just think: if Russia doesn't steal the election both of these cases go the other way. 2016 might turn out to be as big and bad a watershed as 1980 and 2000. Stepping stones towards the death of our nation.

 

[joecct]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kep

For the record - I'm a Roman Catholic who is very skeptical of the Jesuits. VERY SKEPTICAL. If they're for it, I don't take it as gospel they're right. I'm also very skeptical of the government. I believe it needs to be limited in its intrusion beyond "life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness (emphasis mine)". I believe in strong states and the 10th amendment. I believe in a Congress and an Executive Branch working together with the SCOTUS playing umpire. The Voters are VAR.

So with that, while disappointed in the gerrymander case, I think the SCOTUS was right. Leave it to the voters (who in my state, are disgusted with everyone's gerrymander but their own). As to what level the disgust has to rise to in order to replace the political inertia is something we have to watch. I'm not optimistic for Maryland.

 

[unofan]

Kep

For the record - I'm a Roman Catholic who is very skeptical of the Jesuits. VERY SKEPTICAL. If they're for it, I don't take it as gospel they're right. I'm also very skeptical of the government. I believe it needs to be limited in its intrusion beyond "life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness (emphasis mine)". I believe in strong states and the 10th amendment. I believe in a Congress and an Executive Branch working together with the SCOTUS playing umpire. The Voters are VAR.

So with that, while disappointed in the gerrymander case, I think the SCOTUS was right. Leave it to the voters (who in my state, are disgusted with everyone's gerrymander but their own). As to what level the disgust has to rise to in order to replace the political inertia is something we have to watch. I'm not optimistic for Maryland.

Bless your heart.

 

[joecct]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Bless your heart.

you forgot pea pickin'

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

We could probably eliminate the whole federal gerrymandering problem by changing it so that each state gets just one representative.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The citizenship census question opinion is out, and it's a giant cluster of concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I think it ultimately sides with the liberals, but can't tell for sure at a glance.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The reason provided by the commerce secretary was contrived, and under these particular circumstances, the district court was correct to remand to the agency.

Opinion does not categorically bar the question, but acknowledges that this one was done seemingly in bad faith.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The reason provided by the commerce secretary was contrived, and under these particular circumstances, the district court was correct to remand to the agency.

Opinion does not categorically bar the question, but acknowledges that this one was done seemingly in bad faith.

So, they allow the question then?

That's 0-2 for the big ones. Was that 5-4 too?

 

[unofan]

So, they allow the question then?

That's 0-2 for the big ones. Was that 5-4 too?

No. Question is a no-go for now, but it's possible it could still be added.

Basically, the department needs to explain why it wants it without lying. And that reason has to be legal under the APA.

Here, the departments reason was a lie, so it couldn't satisfy the APA. But it could presumably try to add it again.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

No. Question is a no-go for now, but it's possible it could still be added.

Basically, the department needs to explain why it wants it without lying. And that reason has to be legal under the APA.

Here, the departments reason was a lie, so it couldn't satisfy the APA. But it could presumably try to add it again.

Ok. Roberts saved us again.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The 5-4 ruling is from Chief Justice Roberts who is joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Haven’t seen a ruling this big with that lineup since the ACA ruling.</p>— Kimberly Atkins (@KimberlyEAtkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/KimberlyEAtkins/status/1144254268192542720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

On the ultimate decision, it was 5-4 ideological lines, with Roberts siding with the liberals. But just barely.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

We could probably eliminate the whole federal gerrymandering problem by changing it so that each state gets just one representative.

Or eliminating the states.