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.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
MissThundercat said:
SCOTUS rules 5-4 that the administration can deny green cards to anyone who might need gov't aid.

Cue Scoobs.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to grant the government's request for a stay of a lower court ruling pending appeal.

While I would tend to side with the 4 personally, meh.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

unofan said:
SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to grant the government's request for a stay of a lower court ruling pending appeal.

While I would tend to side with the 4 personally, meh.
Click to expand...

What is the standard that SCOTUS typically uses in granting or refusing a stay? I (naively) thought it might be "choose the least intrusive, dislocating, human tragedy-inducing option," but in this case that was clearly against the government's case.

My god it will be a good day when SCOTUS is no longer majority sociopath, whether that's 2021 or 2071.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Kepler said:
What is the standard that SCOTUS typically uses in granting or refusing a stay? I (naively) thought it might be "choose the least intrusive, dislocating, human tragedy-inducing option," but in this case that was clearly against the government's case.

My god it will be a good day when SCOTUS is no longer majority sociopath, whether that's 2021 or 2071.
Click to expand...

Come on, man. Susan Collins would never vote for a sociopath. She has concerns.
 
Kepler said:
What is the standard that SCOTUS typically uses in granting or refusing a stay? I (naively) thought it might be "choose the least intrusive, dislocating, human tragedy-inducing option," but in this case that was clearly against the government's case.

My god it will be a good day when SCOTUS is no longer majority sociopath, whether that's 2021 or 2071.
Click to expand...

Typically it would be to preserve the status quo. A person asking for the stay would also need to show a reasonable likelyhood of prevailing on the merits.

The issue here is that the rule is new, but technically was in place before the court challenge and thus is the status quo.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The creeps just lost a round but are going to take it to SCOTUS.

Appeals Court Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the divided court that Arizona’s practice of discarding ballots cast in the wrong precinct and criminalizing the collection of another person’s ballot “have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic and African American voters in Arizona” in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling also said the ban on what Republicans have called ballot harvesting was enacted with “discriminatory intent.”

Four of 11 judges on the panel dissented, saying the panel struck down duly enacted policies.

The lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and state Democratic Party has been working its way through the courts since shortly after the 2016 law was passed.

The law made it a felony to return someone else’s ballot to election officials in most cases. Republicans pushed House Bill 2023 through the Legislature over objections from Democrats, arguing that so-called “ballot harvesting” can lead to election fraud. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed it, saying it would ensure a chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box.

Attorneys for the state argue the new law ensured the integrity of elections and called it a reasonable step to prevent voting fraud. The state Republican Party joined the defense.

Both parties used ballot collection in Arizona to boost turnout during elections by going door to door and asking voters if they have completed their mail-in ballot. If they had not, they urge them to do so and offer to return it to elections offices. The ballots are inside sealed envelopes, with voters signature on the back.

Democrats used the method aggressively in minority communities and argued their success prompted the new GOP-sponsored law.

The appeals court concluded that a trial judge erred when ruling in favor of the state and Republicans who joined the lawsuit. The ruling by an 11-judge appeals court panel also overturned a decision by a smaller appeals court panel.

Fletcher was clear that he didn’t think all Republicans who backed the measure “harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group.” Instead, Fletcher said, Arizona’s long history of race-based voting discrimination and the “the false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud used to convince Arizona legislators to pass” the bill and other factors “cumulatively and unmistakably reveal” that racial discrimination was a motivating factor.

He noted “false allegations” of fraud by former state Sen. Don Shooter and a “racially-tinged” video of a Latino man dropping off ballots distributed by A.J. Lafaro, former head of the Maricopa County Republicans.
Click to expand...

The thugs will be back, of course, and perhaps Roberts will judge the Nazis need AZ to keep those sweet heists rolling, but for now at least one court isn't full bore fascist quite yet.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Yep, and I've seen it. Gotta go during the offseason, because it's not part of the standard tour.
Click to expand...

I went on a tour with a staffer from my congressman’s office and saw it. Very cool.

A scheduled vote in the house was also canceled so I got to go in and sit. I would have liked a picture of me on the floor of the house but we weren’t allowed to bring phones in.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

WhenI was in DC the Capitol Dome was being renovated so we got a very abbreviated tour. I plan to go back and get a full tour next time.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Her husband Clarence Thomas is already part of one. <a href="https://t.co/uWybznRSVm">https://t.co/uWybznRSVm</a></p>— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1231767421242966016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Sounds like Roberts may side with the liberals on abortion, basically on precedent grounds. I.e. "We just decided this exact case 4 years ago, and no, we didn't stutter. Knock it off."
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

unofan said:
Sounds like Roberts may side with the liberals on abortion, basically on precedent grounds. I.e. "We just decided this exact case 4 years ago, and no, we didn't stutter. Knock it off."
Click to expand...

Roberts gets the game...legal abortion = booku bucks for GOP campaigns!
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Handyman said:
Roberts gets the game...legal abortion = booku bucks for GOP campaigns!
Click to expand...

Exactly. The end of abortion as a boogeyman is the last thing in the world the Republican Party wants.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Roberts can eff off. Did he see what dump tweeted about two of his colleagues last week??

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Oh? Well maybe Senator Schumer should call those justices a "terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace," like Trump said about the 9th Circuit. Or maybe talk about how their heritage makes them biased, like Trump did about Judge Curiel. Roberts was fine with those. 👨*⚖️🤷*♂️ <a href="https://t.co/hrf73A6eCe">https://t.co/hrf73A6eCe</a></p>— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1235326460153520128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">John Jay braved public fury at his treaty with Britain. John Marshall defied Jefferson to give Burr a fair trial. Earl Warren led the Court during desegregation. John Roberts? He’s in hiding. <a href="https://t.co/vnmftmJngg">pic.twitter.com/vnmftmJngg</a></p>— Prof. Garrett Epps (@Profepps) <a href="https://twitter.com/Profepps/status/1247863664041959425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top