The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[joecct]

This was the wingers' answer to our Hail Mary a few years ago to use weighted census projections instead of raw data for seat allotments. The theory being that a lot of people are missed (the homeless, people who are not the sort of guys who have a post box, etc).

Same idea as voter suppression laws: use a scintilla of rationale to try to rig the system to favor your side. Unfortunately, the orcs have been getting away with those, but a sane Court will probably give them the old heave ho (and hopefully reinstitute the full VRA). Mortality has consequences, Nino.

As I read it, states MAY use total population as opposed to registered voters. So, in effect, the SCOTUS deferred to the state legislatures. Good.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

As I read it, states MAY use total population as opposed to registered voters. So, in effect, the SCOTUS deferred to the state legislatures. Good.

SCOTUS said it wouldn't rule on the issue, because all 50 states use total population and there was no need to rule on it right now. While there's the one case from Hawaii out there from decades ago, if the situation actually arose again, I wouldn't put money on it being a certain outcome either way. Especially when the Founding Fathers made sure that certain ineligible voters still counted for apportionment, albeit for only 3/5ths as much...

But then you probably think the justices were being tyrants when they forced state senates to be apportioned by population rather than geography.

 

[joecct]

SCOTUS said it wouldn't rule on the issue, because all 50 states use total population and there was no need to rule on it right now. While there's the one case from Hawaii out there from decades ago, if the situation actually arose again, I wouldn't put money on it being a certain outcome either way. Especially when the Founding Fathers made sure that certain ineligible voters still counted for apportionment, albeit for only 3/5ths as much...

But then you probably think the justices were being tyrants when they forced state senates to be apportioned by population rather than geography.

The Constitution says population. At one time it was white men + 3/5(slaves). It has since been changed, via legislation and a lot of blood, to be more inclusive.

What I was driving at was if State X used census population of US citizens and State Y counted everyone within the borders as reported on the last census, I don't think the court would intervene.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I get why the superficial logic seems ok with using eligible voters vs. total population. To limit the extent to which a voter is over represented. But in the end, its the representation that matters in running a government...equal legislative representation makes the use of total population necessary.

 

[unofan]

The Constitution says population. At one time it was white men + 3/5(slaves). It has since been changed, via legislation and a lot of blood, to be more inclusive.

What I was driving at was if State X used census population of US citizens and State Y counted everyone within the borders as reported on the last census, I don't think the court would intervene.

And I'm saying I wouldn't lay odds on that. Because the federal government has an interest in making sure a non-voter in State X is treated the same as a non-voter in state Y.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And I'm saying I wouldn't lay odds on that. Because the federal government has an interest in making sure a non-voter in State X is treated the same as a non-voter in state Y.

Jesus, I would hope so.

Why did they grant cert? Do they ever say "this is so dumb we are going to hear it just to spike it so hard nobody will ever try this again"?

Or was it that they had enough winger votes when Scalia was still upright to grant cert?

 

[unofan]

Jesus, I would hope so.

Why did they grant cert? Do they ever say "this is so dumb we are going to hear it just to spike it so hard nobody will ever try this again"?

Or was it that they had enough winger votes when Scalia was still upright to grant cert?

Who knows. It takes four votes to grant cert, but you never know who votes for it or why. Given that it was 8-0, it's even possible the liberals wanted cert granted just to get an easy victory in a slam dunk case.

More likely, though, the conservative wing thought there was a possibility there, but after briefing realized it was a stinker of a case. Thomas and Alito's concurrences seem to point in that direction.

 

[CLS]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

This case was on Appeal, not Certiorari. There are two ways a case can get to SCOTUS, Appeal and Certiorari. Appeal cases are cases they must hear, and Cert cases are cases that they can choose to or not (sorry don't remember how it's determined has to do with the parties, the issues, and who won below -- I'm sure there's an explanation somewhere on the internet). One key difference is that if a cases is decided on Appeal, it is a decision on the merits, whereas if Cert is not granted, it is not a decision on the merits. This opinion actually has more substance than many Appeal decisions. A lot of them are not even signed; they're "per curiam" (for the court) and consist of one word, either "Affirmed" or "Reversed".

 

[unofan]

This case was on Appeal, not Certiorari. There are two ways a case can get to SCOTUS, Appeal and Certiorari. Appeal cases are cases they must hear, and Cert cases are cases that they can choose to or not (sorry don't remember how it's determined has to do with the parties, the issues, and who won below -- I'm sure there's an explanation somewhere on the internet). One key difference is that if a cases is decided on Appeal, it is a decision on the merits, whereas if Cert is not granted, it is not a decision on the merits. This opinion actually has more substance than many Appeal decisions. A lot of them are not even signed; they're "per curiam" (for the court) and consist of one word, either "Affirmed" or "Reversed".

Ah, right. Since its a voting redistricting case, it was heard by a 3-judge panel initially. Those are allowed to be appealed directly to SCOTUS.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Atlantic asks, what if SCOTUS was liberal?

What might it mean to have five justices on the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic presidents? Since 1970, the year Harry Blackmun received Senate confirmation, there always have been at least five justices appointed by a Republican president on the Court. If Merrick Garland is confirmed to replace Antonin Scalia, he will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan as Democratic appointees to the high Court.

Also, the next president, especially if he or she serves two terms, is likely to have three other vacancies to fill on the Court. Since 1960, the average age at which a Supreme Court justice has left the bench is 79 years old. There will be three justices 79 or older in 2017, when the next president is inaugurated. Ginsburg will turn 85, Anthony Kennedy 81, and Breyer 79, all in 2017.

Thinking of a Court where there are five or even six justices appointed by Democratic presidents is tantalizing for those on the left, like me, who have spent their entire careers with a Court that has been decidedly right of center. So, where might it most make a difference?

Not coincidentally, the centerpoint SCOTUS ideology has been solidly conservative since 1970.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Atlantic asks, what if SCOTUS was liberal?



Not coincidentally, the centerpoint SCOTUS ideology has been solidly conservative since 1970.

I think what you'd see is a mirror image of what we've seen these past 40 years. Certain members of the Court, appointed by a Democratic President, and sent to the Court with certain "expectations" placed on him or her, would disappoint. Their opinions and votes would turn out more conservative on certain issues than the left would like. It's only natural in a group like that where you'll have one or two dig in their heels and say "no way" to some of the extreme ideas pushed by their political masters who put them there.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I think what you'd see is a mirror image of what we've seen these past 40 years. Certain members of the Court, appointed by a Democratic President, and sent to the Court with certain "expectations" placed on him or her, would disappoint. Their opinions and votes would turn out more conservative on certain issues than the left would like. It's only natural in a group like that where you'll have one or two dig in their heels and say "no way" to some of the extreme ideas pushed by their political masters who put them there.

I don't think the actual ideas between presidents and judges tend to coincide -- they see the world from very different perspectives. Presidents do try to pick judges who "fit inside their birdhouse," but very few justices are explicitly policy-driven in the same way that politicians are. They favor policies as citizens, but I don't think they go into Court saying "today I'm going to willfully misinterpret the law for policy ends."

(Now, whether they just pick out the outcomes they want and they con themselves into believing those are just the accidental consequence of deliberately reasoned political theory is anybody's guess.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Figure this winds up at SCOTUS just in time for Hillary's appointee to cast the deciding vote...

In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found Tuesday that a male transgender teen prohibited from using a male bathroom does indeed have a Title IX discrimination claim that deserves to be heard in court.

Gavin Grimm, 16, was told by the Gloucester County School Board that he must use a separate bathroom, per its policy for transgender students. The ACLU petitioned a federal district court last year to put a preliminary injunction on the policy so Grimm could use the male bathroom, but U.S. District Judge Robert Doumar dismissed the Title IX-based discrimination case. However, the Fourth Circuit appeals panel sided 2-1 with Grimm—it's the same circuit that governs North Carolina, which is now facing a Title IX challenge from the ACLU over its HB2 law. The ruling relied on a U.S. Department of Education policy that transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

There's probably a Law of Bigotry that says towards the end the half-life of each of its Hail Marys gets shorter and shorter. We had, what, 100 years for sodomy, 25 years for DADT, 10 years for "defense of marriage," and now it looks like about 10 months for "defense of bathrooms."

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and payback's a b-tch.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Figure this winds up at SCOTUS just in time for Hillary's appointee to cast the deciding vote...



There's probably a Law of Bigotry that says towards the end the half-life of each of its Hail Marys gets shorter and shorter. We had, what, 100 years for sodomy, 25 years for DADT, 10 years for "defense of marriage," and now it looks like about 10 months for "defense of bathrooms."

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and payback's a b-tch.

What sport does the TG play? Baseball or softball? Please don't take this (Handy!) as an anti position, but legislatures are going to have to wrestle (no pun intended) with this in the next few decade. IIRC, the NCAA has guidelines, but very few states or National Governing Bodies do.

Given the current court decisions, if an male->female HS athlete wants to play on the girls softball team, he/she should be allowed to.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

What sport does the TG play? Baseball or softball? Please don't take this (Handy!) as an anti position, but legislatures are going to have to wrestle (no pun intended) with this in the next few decade. IIRC, the NCAA has guidelines, but very few states or National Governing Bodies do.

Given the current court decisions, if an male->female HS athlete wants to play on the girls softball team, he/she should be allowed to.

Yes, because that's what this is all about: getting over on somebody.

I honestly think this is a conservative mindset. I was driving with a coworker a few weeks ago and there was a guy on the side of the road with a sign (need food, etc). I was stopped at a light so I gave him a 10. When we drove away from the light, my coworker asked me, "aren't you afraid that guy isn't just out there picking up cash? I've heard these people make more than some people who work."

I just can't crawl into that head.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Yes, because that's what this is all about: getting over on somebody.

I honestly think this is a conservative mindset. I was driving with a coworker a few weeks ago and there was a guy on the side of the road with a sign (need food, etc). I was stopped at a light so I gave him a 10. When we drove away from the light, my coworker asked me, "aren't you afraid that guy isn't just out there picking up cash? I've heard these people make more than some people who work."

I just can't crawl into that head.

Conservatives don't trust anyone who looks unemployed and/or dark-skinned. Liberals don't trust anyone who wears a Rolex and/or drives an $80,000 dooshmobile.

See? The stereotyping works both ways.

 

[BassAle]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Yes, because that's what this is all about: getting over on somebody.

I honestly think this is a conservative mindset. I was driving with a coworker a few weeks ago and there was a guy on the side of the road with a sign (need food, etc). I was stopped at a light so I gave him a 10. When we drove away from the light, my coworker asked me, "aren't you afraid that guy isn't just out there picking up cash? I've heard these people make more than some people who work."

I just can't crawl into that head.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but as I was leaving the Whole Foods in Portland, ME this Sunday there was a guy standing at an intersection with a sign asking for money. The guy had brand new looking clothes (and they didn't come from Goodwill either), was very clean, had a fresh shave, etc. I had serious doubts he was legit, and I had seen plenty of 'help wanted' signs that day, you couldn't tell me that guy couldn't wash dishes. This median is pretty much constantly 'staffed' by one person all day (they take turns, I've seen the 'shift change' before). There was no way I was going to give that guy money. Then you see people you know are in serious trouble with drugs or mental illness or whatever and you can tell they are truly desperate and there is no realistic way they could get or hold a job given their situation.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and payback's a b-tch.

Yeah, those WASP's who would prefer to keep the "little lady" in the kitchen, the "boy" in the mail room or out on the lawn, and the "gimp" in a group home are really suffering.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Yeah, those WASP's who would prefer to keep the "little lady" in the kitchen, the "boy" in the mail room or out on the lawn, and the "gimp" in a group home are really suffering.

Wait, which one's the gimp?

Also, it's not WASPs who are the problem, this once. It's Cletus, not Chip.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but as I was leaving the Whole Foods in Portland, ME this Sunday there was a guy standing at an intersection with a sign asking for money. The guy had brand new looking clothes (and they didn't come from Goodwill either), was very clean, had a fresh shave, etc. I had serious doubts he was legit, and I had seen plenty of 'help wanted' signs that day, you couldn't tell me that guy couldn't wash dishes. This median is pretty much constantly 'staffed' by one person all day (they take turns, I've seen the 'shift change' before). There was no way I was going to give that guy money. Then you see people you know are in serious trouble with drugs or mental illness or whatever and you can tell they are truly desperate and there is no realistic way they could get or hold a job given their situation.

I figure if you're begging you're desperate. The only people I don't give money are the perfectly healthy skater dudes who hang out at Pioneer Courthouse Square and demand a handout. They get the "get a job" speech, I get flipped off, and everybody's happy.