The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
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 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:11 am

A long read and probably somewhat tedious for those who're not all that interested in machinations within the US Supreme Court. There's a significant chance that Trump and his autocratic ilk will get their way, and the press in the US could suffer some serious chilling.

'Palin v. New York Times is a Textualist Land Mine for the First Amendment'
For more than half a century, conservatives have wanted to eradicate New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that is the nation’s most important First Amendment case. A trial scheduled for this June may give them that opportunity. If the Supreme Court invalidates NYT, federal judges—including the 230 appointed by President Trump—will preside over more libel suits against journalists he calls “the enemy of the people.” Those judges can carry out Trump’s promise to “open up…libel laws…[and] have people sue you like you've never got sued before.”

Anyone who makes factual errors when criticizing government or accusing a person of misconduct could be dragged into court and left destitute by a jury’s verdict or legal bills. Public officials with government jobs and public figures—those who are well-known or have entered a public controversy—can win lawsuits that previously would have been unsuccessful.

The NYT ruling is essential to our democracy because it protects discussion of political issues and the fitness of those seeking public office. Justice William Brennan’s famous passage in the case exemplifies its significance: “Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

...

Even though NYT serves a vital interest, it is no match for “textualism”—the judicial philosophy that its supporters believe is the only legitimate method of constitutional interpretation. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was the intellectual leader of the textualist movement. His judicial opinions and speeches have been widely influential. Textualism is now so central to conservative jurisprudence that allegiance to it was required of anyone the Trump White House considered for appointment to the federal bench.

Textualists believe that courts must be guided by what the words in the Constitution meant at the time they were written by the founders or when an amendment was proposed and ratified. The Constitution is thus frozen in the 18th century, and judges cannot use the nation’s 230 years of experience to support a more enlightened interpretation of constitutional text.

Conservatives ridicule the view that the Constitution can be adapted to changing conditions and values. Justice Scalia said in a speech that the Constitution is “not a living document…it’s dead, dead, dead.” Textualists believe that if rights—such as those guaranteed by the First Amendment—were not established at the end of the 18th century or when the Constitution was amended, they are not protected today.

The danger is that many of the rights in the original Constitution and later amendments had only symbolic value until judges deciding cases gave them meaning. The First Amendment—which did not protect even mild criticism of government or public officials during the founding era—is an example of how fundamental rights needed time to develop.

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 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:36 pm

US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas showing himself ready to apply a ridiculous standard in his attempt to justify Republican's bad faith 'rationale' for vote suppression measures.

'Lawyers Compare Justice Thomas' Dissent on Pa. Election Cases to Rumsfeld's "The Absence of Evidence Is Not the Evidence of Absence"'
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not happy that his colleagues on the high court chose to pass up the opportunity to weigh in on a slew of cases stemming from last year’s presidential elections, penning a highly critical dissent. Attorneys, on the other hand, pointed out that the stalwart conservative appeared to adopt the “argument from ignorance” fallacy with regards to voter irregularities, suggesting that a lack of proof is not enough to show fraud did not occur.

The collective cases at issue challenged the Pennsylvania state judiciary’s decision to extend the deadline for counting votes (originally set at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day by the legislature) an additional three days by citing to a state constitutional provision guaranteeing that elections “shall be free and equal.” Thomas conceded that in this particular case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision did not affect the final results in any elections, but said the justices shouldn’t wait until such circumstances arise before setting a legal precedent.

“We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election,” he wrote, adding, “But we may not be so lucky in the future.“

Thomas then went on to espouse what he views as the dangers inherently presented by widespread absentee voting, citing several examples of attempted fraud—none of which took place over the latest election cycle—and a 2012 New York Times article to conclude that “the risk of fraud is ‘vastly more prevalent’ for mail-in voting ballots.”

“Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence,” Thomas wrote. In a footnote attached to the end of that sentence, Thomas appears to commit the logical fallacy regarding evidence of fraud, which postulates that a proposition may be true simply because it hasn’t been definitively proven to be false.

“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” he wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.”

Trial attorney Max Kennerly pointed out that, under such a framework, no amount of evidence against fraud could sufficiently prove its absence.

“What’s nice about Thomas’s argument is that he has no limit, no endpoint. He will always be able to say there’s not enough ‘assurance that fraud will not go undetected’ and therefore he must do whatever it is that benefits Republicans,” he tweeted.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
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 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:02 am

Postal voting is an option in most elections here. Fraud is virtually non-existant. It's hardly rocket surgery.
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 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:08 pm

On top of that the constitution leaves the whole of election to the states. Other than former slaves voting and then women and 18-year olds, there are no national rules.
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
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
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 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:41 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:Postal voting is an option in most elections here. Fraud is virtually non-existant. It's hardly rocket surgery.
Having said that...

Using photo ID in British elections will harm democracy, say US civil rights groups

Plans to force people to show photo ID to take part in UK elections amount to Republican-style voter suppression and are likely to erode faith in the democratic process rather than reinforce it, three leading US civil rights groups have warned.
In an intervention that could prove embarrassing to ministers, US groups that were at the frontline of efforts to combat vote-blocking efforts by Donald Trump and his allies, said ID laws disproportionately affected people from poorer and more marginalised communities.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Commons Cause said that while they did not campaign directly in the UK it was a common principle that such laws, without evidence of widespread election fraud, had a harmful impact...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hts-groups
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
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:58 pm

Lolwhut?
a) what to US groups have to do with british elections?
b) how does a treliable means of matching a would be voter with the voter lists and making sure the voter is who they claim to be harm democracy?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
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 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:02 pm

You have to prove who you are to get on the electoral roll. You're then given two single-use numerical codes both of which you have to use to register for each election. You can only cast your vote at one location and if your name isn't on the list at the polling station you don't get a ballot paper. Getting any of that wrong, or trying to subvert the process by deceit gets marked down as fraud. In 2019 four such incidents were recorded. In the same period there were six reported incidents of irregularities by candidates, two of which were upheld by the regulator.

As with the US, in spite of data to the contrary the Right perpetually raise the spectre of wrong doing, citing the apparent absence of fraud as 'proof' that that there's a significant yet unknown amount of skullduggery. Thus the party who has been returned to power in every election since 2010, with the largest majority in a generation at the last general election, seeks to make the process of casting one's vote more complicated by imposing unnecessary conditions in the name of fairness.
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
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:17 pm

We dont register for the elections. We register where you reside as it is compulsory and everyone has a unique citizens registration number. We have to show real ID. Not some utility bill. Is it really so hard to organise fair elections?
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

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 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:35 pm

It will never pass here that you would get a national ID. Now you pay every 4-6 years for a state driver's licence or ID. It has a number. There is no way to distinguish John Smith born 1.1.1966 living in Iowa from a John Smith born that day in any other state. You do not have to tell your social security number to anyone. Only your employer for taxes.

Republicans are afraid if we have a national ID next thing we will register guns.
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 » Wed May 19, 2021 11:18 am

You can have the abortion in the first trimester but first you have to have a test. If the baby has Down's, you must keep it no matter what.
Roe, for example, allows only limited restrictions on abortion during the second trimester, mostly involving a mother’s health. But less than 30 percent of Americans say that abortion should “generally be legal” in the second trimester, according to Gallup. Many people also oppose abortion in specific circumstances — because a fetus has Down syndrome, for example — even during the first trimester.

One sign that many Americans favor significant restrictions is in the Gallup data. Gallup uses slightly different wording from Pew, creating an option that allows people to say that abortion should be legal “in only a few” circumstances. And that is the most popular answer — with 35 percent of respondents giving it (in addition to the 20 percent who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances).

This helps explain why many abortion rights advocates are worried that the Supreme Court will gut Roe without officially overturning it. Yes, the justices are often influenced by public opinion.
Both advocates and opponents of abortion access believe the issue is too important to be decided by public opinion. For advocates, women should have control over their bodies; after all, no major decision of men’s health is subject to a veto by politicians or other voters. And for opponents of abortion access, the life of an unborn child is too important to be subject to almost any other consideration.

If the Supreme Court overrules or substantially weakens Roe, this intense debate will play out state by state. Many states are likely to restrict abortion access substantially.
NYT
https://nl.nytimes.com/
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 » Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:31 pm

How soon will they review it?
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18 ... tions-law/

Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Wednesday a measure that would prohibit in Texas abortions as early as six weeks — before some women know they are pregnant — and open the door for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and others.

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions — intended to make the law harder to block — are poised to be tested in the courts.
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: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Jun 02, 2021 8:24 pm

You've got to be a real idiot to believe in the future of laws like this.

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 Jun 02, 2021 8:37 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 8:24 pm
You've got to be a real idiot to believe in the future of laws like this.
It will be confusing. Also any parts that interact with other states. Court cases will show it works.

We have a law in effect about "partial birth" abortions that will cost Nebraska a lot if it goes to court. My state senator introduced it. She needed a second 4 year term and had done no legislation until that point. I think she wrote none of it, the party wanted to give her credit for it.
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
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:24 am

Sean Hayden wrote:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 8:24 pm
You've got to be a real idiot to believe in the future of laws like this.
and it's not like the US never had validated truly idiotic laws
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
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 » Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:33 am

The valedictorian at a Texas high school went off-script while delivering her graduation speech, criticising the state’s extreme abortion ban in an address that has since been widely shared on social media.

School administrators had signed off on Paxton Smith’s pre-written speech on how TV and media have shaped her worldview. But, when it came time to address the graduating class of Lake Highlands high school, she pivoted.

“In light of recent events, it feels wrong to talk about anything but what is currently affecting me and millions of other women in this state,” she said, her voice shaking as she began.

“Starting in September, there will be a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest,” Smith said.



...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ortion-ban
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
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests