The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Wed May 11, 2022 11:07 am

https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed May 11, 2022 2:23 pm

She's great. :biggrin:

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Thu May 12, 2022 7:11 pm

https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Thu May 12, 2022 7:40 pm

Not just abortions. States get EVERYTHING now. Reich writes:
The split is accelerating. Red zip codes are getting redder and blue zip codes, bluer. Of the nation’s total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties – where a presidential candidate won at least 80% of the vote – jumped from 6% in 2004 to 22% in 2020.

Surveys show Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. Forty-two per cent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil”.

Almost 40% would be upset at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposite party.

And they’re passing “bounty” laws – enforced not by governments, which can be sued in federal court, but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits – on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortions to vaccinations.

Blue states are moving in the opposite direction. Several, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters.

When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15m to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states.

“States rights” was always a cover for segregation and harsh discrimination. The poor – both white and people of color – are already especially burdened by anti-abortion legislation because they can’t afford travel to a blue state to get an abortion.

Maryland and Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. One package of pending California bills would expand access to California abortions and protect abortion providers from out-of-state legal action.

Where will all this end? Not with two separate nations. What America is going through is analogous to Brexit – a lumbering, mutual decision to go separate ways on most things but remain connected on a few big things (such as national defense, monetary policy and civil and political rights).

America will still be America. But it is fast becoming two versions of America. The open question is like the one faced by every couple that separates: how will the two find ways to be civil toward each other?
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Thu May 12, 2022 8:46 pm

The Disunited States of America...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Thu May 12, 2022 8:59 pm

Who knew? The court would start the process leading to "some 50 states" sharing a military and a currency.

It's not the court's job.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by laklak » Thu May 12, 2022 9:11 pm

Save your Confederate money, y'all, the South shall rise again!

Srsly. It's Balkanization time.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu May 12, 2022 11:40 pm

No. We owe it to the world to deal with our Republican problem. :biggrin:

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Thu May 12, 2022 11:47 pm

SC overruled by Obama:
In 2009, President Obama signed his first official legislation with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s decision by making it easier to file pay discrimination suits. Ginsburg kept a framed copy of the bill, signed by Obama, in her chambers.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... eme-court/
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6939
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by macdoc » Fri May 13, 2022 12:07 am

it's time
Image
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Hermit » Fri May 13, 2022 4:19 am

:lol:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:56 am

Justice Clarence Thomas will be ruling on a case that deals with the validity of a legal theory used by his wife when she was trying to convince state legislators in Arizona to overturn the will of their electorate. By rights he should recuse himself, but I'll go out on a limb and say that he'll do nothing of the sort.

'Ginni Thomas' scheme for lawmakers to choose electors could be advanced by high court'
Virginia “Ginni” Thomas sent emails to 29 Republican legislators in Arizona urging them to disregard the results of a fair and free election and instead choose presidential electors that would give another result, according to emails uncovered by the Washington Post. Her husband will be considering a case on the nation’s highest court that could legitimize a theory to make these efforts a reality.

...

“This was part of the effort to overturn the election to get state legislatures to award electors to Trump in states where calculations showed that Biden had the greatest number of votes,” David H. Gans, director of the human rights, civil rights and citizenship program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in a phone call. “Ultimately, the theory that was pushed, no state took that up, but we still see the theory is out there like a loaded gun insisting that states do have this power.”

This plot is supported by a controversial legal theory known as the independent state legislature doctrine that says legislatures should have complete control over elections. Advocates of this theory claim the U.S. Constitution grants the legislature primacy in making the rules for federal elections and can only be checked by Congress.

“There’s a push by conservatives in many different places and arenas arguing based on what is often called the independent state legislature doctrine that state legislatures have sweeping delegated powers that can’t be interfered with in any manner,” Gans said.

...

Justice Thomas indicated his support for this theory in multiple cases during the 2020 election. In October, he dissented in a Pennsylvania case over mail-in ballots where Republicans claimed the state Supreme Court violated their authority over elections by forcing them to continue counting ballots received by Nov. 6. Thomas also indicated he would have granted an injunction in a North Carolina case challenging absentee ballot deadlines where lawmakers claimed the court did not have authority to change election law.

Earlier this year, two cases on the court’s shadow docket from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania tried to use the independent state legislature theory in the Election Clause context to overrule state court rulings on congressional maps. Relief in both cases was denied by the court, but three of the court’s conservative justices dissented in North Carolina’s case.

Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch — wrote a dissent that leaned into the idea that the Elections Clause gave state legislatures supreme power over federal elections.

North Carolina’s case is now before the court as a certiorari petition. If the justices decided to take up the case, it could have huge implications for elections across the country but it wouldn’t necessarily give a green light to the Presidential Electors Clause context for the independent state legislature theory. However, experts say a ruling in the case could give legitimacy to the theory as a whole.

“By suggesting that state legislatures should have the power to overturn the election by awarding electors after the fact, obviously that’s a little bit different from the issues that are in the North Carolina case, but they both are branches of the same tree, that the state has these independent powers that are untouchable by other institutions,” Gans said.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37956
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:34 am

Unless they live separate lives in a marriage of convenience they surely must have talked about it over breakfast, on long car journey's, after sex, etc?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:04 am

The election law is long overdue. The one from the 60s was from civil rights era and the court undid that, because there is no more racism.

However, the 14th amendment does give the feds the right to legislate election laws. You could easily ban gerrymandering in federal posts, legislator districsts. And you can add election security so the election staff is safe. State elections for state posts they could not touch.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by rasetsu » Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:37 pm

I hate to say it, but I have some sympathy for the independent state legislature theory. At the time the constitution was written, its authors were trying to figure out a way to divvy up power between the states, affirming their independence in some ways, while also affirming the federal government's authority to supervene in other matters. I get that philosophically, it seems unlikely that the authors intended to give that much power over the presidency to state governments rather than the people as a collective body, but it's not clearly written in a way that does so. Given that initially electors could be chosen by the legislature, and their acts governed by the state legislature, it's not at all clear the founders would be as opposed to the idea as we are in this era. That's particularly true given some writings by the founders which suggest that an elite in government deciding things was preferable to having things decided by the common man. This power-sharing structure was complicated by qualifying and in some cases negating popular representation so that southern states, with large populations of slaves, would not reject the new constitution outright.

So, I'm not sure that it's as black and white as some people make it. That's talking more based upon what a person believes ideologically and morally and to an extent simply ignores questions of original intent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests