ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
He's in the minority because he's nuts. Court is still 5-4 to the right.
He's in the minority because he's nuts. Court is still 5-4 to the right.
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.
The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
He's not even in the minority. Unless he thinks 2 years ago was the norm, which it wasn't.
SCOTUSBlog hasn't published any interim stat packs for this year, but the only noteworthy decision I can think of that he was in the minority on was the judicial election financing case.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_frequency_OT13.pdf
2013-14 term: His high point: He was in the majority 90% of the time in all cases, and was in the majority 72% of the time in divided decisions.
2012-13 term: His low point: 78/58
2011-12: 82/67
2010-11: 86/74
2009-10: 87/76
2008-09: 84/76
2007:08: 81/65
I don't see any leftward trend there at all.
Looking purely at 5-4 decisions:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_5-4_majorities_OT13.pdf
The conservative bloc + Kennedy (the red wedges) is on top consistently more often than the liberal bloc + Kennedy (blue wedges).
All of which makes sense. The only ideological change in the last 10 years has been the replacement of O'Connor, a states rights moderate, with Alito, a full fledged GOP conservative. The rest have essentially maintained the status quo.
As far as the article Bob linked to, Scalia was hamming it up for the Federalist Society (aka the conservative/libertarian legal society). There's nothing new coming out of that.
He's not even in the minority. Unless he thinks 2 years ago was the norm, which it wasn't.
SCOTUSBlog hasn't published any interim stat packs for this year, but the only noteworthy decision I can think of that he was in the minority on was the judicial election financing case.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_frequency_OT13.pdf
2013-14 term: His high point: He was in the majority 90% of the time in all cases, and was in the majority 72% of the time in divided decisions.
2012-13 term: His low point: 78/58
2011-12: 82/67
2010-11: 86/74
2009-10: 87/76
2008-09: 84/76
2007:08: 81/65
I don't see any leftward trend there at all.
Looking purely at 5-4 decisions:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_5-4_majorities_OT13.pdf
The conservative bloc + Kennedy (the red wedges) is on top consistently more often than the liberal bloc + Kennedy (blue wedges).
All of which makes sense. The only ideological change in the last 10 years has been the replacement of O'Connor, a states rights moderate, with Alito, a full fledged GOP conservative. The rest have essentially maintained the status quo.
As far as the article Bob linked to, Scalia was hamming it up for the Federalist Society (aka the conservative/libertarian legal society). There's nothing new coming out of that.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Interesting. When apportioning congressional districts do you use eligible voters or population?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4d4af7f97d_story.html?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more
Interesting. When apportioning congressional districts do you use eligible voters or population?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4d4af7f97d_story.html?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more
unofan
Well-known member
Congressional districts are based on population (hence the since striken 3/5ths language).
This is talking about state legislatures and how much leeway they can give themselves without running afoul of the federal constitution.
Which is the question. Which population is "population" when apportioning? If you exclude unregistered voters it changes things.
Or, the continuing battle between country mice and city mice.
unofan
Well-known member
But we're taking about state districts, not federal ones. If the federal one meant eligible voters, then the 3/5ths language was meaningless and the 14th amendment's language referring to "whole number of persons" makes no sense.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I'm amazed this isn't a matter of settled law. It's an inevitable and obvious tactic to use this contortionist logic for partisan advantage : the first time somebody tried it was probably the very first time districts were drawn.
Persons. Not registered voters. Not registered Republicans. Persons. Very, very clear.
I'm amazed this isn't a matter of settled law. It's an inevitable and obvious tactic to use this contortionist logic for partisan advantage : the first time somebody tried it was probably the very first time districts were drawn.
Persons. Not registered voters. Not registered Republicans. Persons. Very, very clear.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Very good question. I never thought that folks like illegals would get counted for governmental representation in the U.S., but apparently like many other things, this has all gotten loosey goosey and what once was common sense is not necessarily how things work. At first when I saw the headlines I didn't think much of this, but this will be an interesting one to see how it plays out and what the arguments are.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Ironically, counting undocumented immigrants would benefit the GOP, since the highest percentages relative to state population are mostly in the deep south.
There's surely got to be a better way for Republicans to try to steal a few more seats, since moving their positions to be more in line with the electorate is out.
Ironically, counting undocumented immigrants would benefit the GOP, since the highest percentages relative to state population are mostly in the deep south.
There's surely got to be a better way for Republicans to try to steal a few more seats, since moving their positions to be more in line with the electorate is out.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
At first glance I'd say it cuts both ways in that you've got places like California (especially) and New Mexico that lean Democratic and have large illegal numbers. Really, depending on how the ruling plays out and whether what happens in this ruling has any ripple effect to federal elections (including electoral votes), I can see either side benefitting. Beyond any partisan interest, I do think it's just plain an interesting question.Ironically, counting undocumented immigrants would benefit the GOP, since the highest percentages relative to state population are mostly in the deep south.
There's surely got to be a better way for Republicans to try to steal a few more seats, since moving their positions to be more in line with the electorate is out.
unofan
Well-known member
This isn't just about illegals. It's also about counting kids, legal non-citizens, felons, and anyone else ineligible to vote.
And again, this is purely about local and state races (since federal districts are specifically enumerated in the 14th amendment) and it's not, as I read it, an either or situation. It's a "can states pick which one, or not?"
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I think it's interesting as well, but I'm certain that among the legislators the partisan advantage is their sole motivation.
The Census is a head count; it doesn't ask whether you're an undocumented immigrant. Also, we have a government that represents all the people, not just those registered or even eligible to vote. Hopefully the Court will rule accordingly and make this a ringing endorsement of "one person, one vote," but I'm afraid there are partisan agendas (potentially on both sides) that will take precedence.
I think it's interesting as well, but I'm certain that among the legislators the partisan advantage is their sole motivation.
The Census is a head count; it doesn't ask whether you're an undocumented immigrant. Also, we have a government that represents all the people, not just those registered or even eligible to vote. Hopefully the Court will rule accordingly and make this a ringing endorsement of "one person, one vote," but I'm afraid there are partisan agendas (potentially on both sides) that will take precedence.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Question. Has your understanding of one person, one vote always included the thought that that should include someone who is not in this country legally? I think it's a legitimate question whether such folks should be counted in any way in our setting up legislative districts or other such functions.
Obviously there are folks in this country legally that deserve representation even if they can't vote, with children probably being the most obvious example.
Most things are done for partisan advantage in the realm of politics.
Question. Has your understanding of one person, one vote always included the thought that that should include someone who is not in this country legally? I think it's a legitimate question whether such folks should be counted in any way in our setting up legislative districts or other such functions.
Obviously there are folks in this country legally that deserve representation even if they can't vote, with children probably being the most obvious example.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Yes. My understanding of democratic government is it represents all the humans in the country. Some qualifications (e.g., the qualification to vote, the qualification to hold office) are circumscribed by law, but the right to representation is an inalienable human right. It is not "deserved," it simply is. I think when countries start mucking about with legislating limitations on basic rights, Very Bad Things happen very quickly, because majorities are typically tyrannical towards minorities they don't like. Treatment of prison populations comes immediately to mind.
I agree it's salutary to have this work through the courts, if only to eventually reach the right conclusion and have it reiterated that there is a Ground State of "strong equality" among all humans and our legal distinctions and other "weak inequalities" are cute and all but just icing on the cake. I do wish we had a Brandeis on the Court because not one of the current nine justices strikes me as up to the rhetorical task.
Yes. My understanding of democratic government is it represents all the humans in the country. Some qualifications (e.g., the qualification to vote, the qualification to hold office) are circumscribed by law, but the right to representation is an inalienable human right. It is not "deserved," it simply is. I think when countries start mucking about with legislating limitations on basic rights, Very Bad Things happen very quickly, because majorities are typically tyrannical towards minorities they don't like. Treatment of prison populations comes immediately to mind.
I agree it's salutary to have this work through the courts, if only to eventually reach the right conclusion and have it reiterated that there is a Ground State of "strong equality" among all humans and our legal distinctions and other "weak inequalities" are cute and all but just icing on the cake. I do wish we had a Brandeis on the Court because not one of the current nine justices strikes me as up to the rhetorical task.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Hmm... there was an exception for "Indians not taxed." I wonder how that plays out, if at all.
On the surface, it sounds like Native Americans living on reservations are not included in the proportional representation calculations for US House of Representatives.
For some purposes, Native Americans are viewed as members of a separate sovereign nation subsumed into US territories.
I can envision some contorted argument trying to extend that exception to non-US citizens as well. Not saying it would be a good argument or whether I'd agree with it or not. Can representation legally be limited to US citizenship?
This is exactly the problem facing eastern Ukraine. Russia has been sending people across the border and then having those people demand representation. In that instance, we'd decry that chicanery as a slow-motion invasion.
Hmm... there was an exception for "Indians not taxed." I wonder how that plays out, if at all.
On the surface, it sounds like Native Americans living on reservations are not included in the proportional representation calculations for US House of Representatives.
For some purposes, Native Americans are viewed as members of a separate sovereign nation subsumed into US territories.
I can envision some contorted argument trying to extend that exception to non-US citizens as well. Not saying it would be a good argument or whether I'd agree with it or not. Can representation legally be limited to US citizenship?
This is exactly the problem facing eastern Ukraine. Russia has been sending people across the border and then having those people demand representation. In that instance, we'd decry that chicanery as a slow-motion invasion.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I guess citizenship, like marriage, and many other social institutions, doesn't hold the water it used to.
Huh. I'd always thought of the right of representation as pertaining to where a person is legally. So, say, someone from Romania is here illegally, they do have the right of representation, in Rumania, not in a country they aren't legally in, here. I'm not playing games or anything, I just never imagined someone to take the position you hold forth. Do you believe there are any limitations on the "rights" of those who are here illegally in comparison to actual citizens of this country other than those you cite like voting and holding office?
I guess citizenship, like marriage, and many other social institutions, doesn't hold the water it used to.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I think we're more apart on semantics than substance. I'm only saying that the government is responsible for what happens to all the people inside its borders. So if the river is flooding the illegal migrant worker village you still call out FEMA. Lives are lives. So, for example, I can't pass a law that says it's OK if I steal from or assault or run over an illegal immigrant. Those protections are not political rights.
It is fair to say that on the spectrum of ideas of political sovereignty, at least post-1648, I lean towards weaker definitions of sovereignty. I'd actually prefer a formal recognition of something like the pre-1618 concept of "Christendom*," which recognized that there is a broad area of human definition that is outside the control and even the relevance of the prince. Nationality is useful for bookkeeping, but it's an accidental rather than an essential property.
* "Human rights" is the closest we have, but that's problematic in some ways, not least because it's so easily ignored when the chips are down (see post-9-11 US). The germinal idea behind "totalitarianism" is that there are aspects of human privacy and dignity which no sovereign can validly interfere with.
I think we're more apart on semantics than substance. I'm only saying that the government is responsible for what happens to all the people inside its borders. So if the river is flooding the illegal migrant worker village you still call out FEMA. Lives are lives. So, for example, I can't pass a law that says it's OK if I steal from or assault or run over an illegal immigrant. Those protections are not political rights.
It is fair to say that on the spectrum of ideas of political sovereignty, at least post-1648, I lean towards weaker definitions of sovereignty. I'd actually prefer a formal recognition of something like the pre-1618 concept of "Christendom*," which recognized that there is a broad area of human definition that is outside the control and even the relevance of the prince. Nationality is useful for bookkeeping, but it's an accidental rather than an essential property.
* "Human rights" is the closest we have, but that's problematic in some ways, not least because it's so easily ignored when the chips are down (see post-9-11 US). The germinal idea behind "totalitarianism" is that there are aspects of human privacy and dignity which no sovereign can validly interfere with.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I certainly have no problem with the government saving lives when there's a flood and such, regardless of who is here legally or illegally. I doubt anyone would disagree on that. Same with assaulting an illegal and such. Again, that's a gimmee. To me that's different than saying representation should be apportioned with illegals part of the count in determining roughly an equal number of folks in every district, which inevitably weighs representation toward those districts with more illegals. And I realize that could cost Arizona some representation, given that estimates of the percentage of illegals as a slice of the people living in Arizona have come in at 10 percent or so at times.
- Status