Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

The HillVerified account @thehill 55m55 minutes ago

"Taking back the power from politicians to draw their own districts"

 

".....The Supreme Court ruled recently that it had no business in dismantling partisan gerrymandering. In 1776, our nation declared we would be a country whose government would derive its power from the consent of the governed.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a step away from that bold endeavor. It impacts every American citizen.

In most states, politicians have the power to draw their own districts, literally deciding who their voters will be. Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest?.....

 Partisan gerrymandering places labels on every single one of us. It reduces us to numbers on a map, meant to ensure politicians’ reelections and their own party’s advantage. .......

http://hill.cm/LWtapVw 

D-fxLq8WsAY9rUH.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

The HillVerified account @thehill 55m55 minutes ago

"Taking back the power from politicians to draw their own districts"

 

".....The Supreme Court ruled recently that it had no business in dismantling partisan gerrymandering. In 1776, our nation declared we would be a country whose government would derive its power from the consent of the governed.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a step away from that bold endeavor. It impacts every American citizen.

In most states, politicians have the power to draw their own districts, literally deciding who their voters will be. Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest?.....

 Partisan gerrymandering places labels on every single one of us. It reduces us to numbers on a map, meant to ensure politicians’ reelections and their own party’s advantage. .......

http://hill.cm/LWtapVw 

D-fxLq8WsAY9rUH.jpg

Elections have consequences and NOT voting has consequences.  If the Sanders supporters and Jill Stein voters had voted for Hillary, we wouldn't be discussing this problem.  Same at the local and state levels.  Also if the blacks who voted for Obama, but didn't bother in 2016 had voted.

When I ran for city council, I ran into lots of blacks who said it didn't matter if they voted.  20%+ of eligible voters were black and only about 1% voted.

I disagree with this decision, but Roberts had a valid argument.  If courts intervene, where does it stop?  The Constitution established three branches with the intention that Congress would police its elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" The Constitution established three branches with the intention that

Congress would police its elections. "

-------------------------------------------------

-THIS Congress?? :blink:

giphy.gif

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

" The Constitution established three branches with the intention that

Congress would police its elections. "

-------------------------------------------------

-THIS Congress?? :blink:

giphy.gif

What about the Congress the Dems controlled from 2008 to 2010 when Obama was President.

What did they do to 'police' elections?   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Day of Sorrow for American Democracy

The Supreme Court’s contorted reasoning in a gerrymandering case leaves a fundamental flaw in our constitutional democracy without hope of a judicial remedy.

 

 

".....Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the four justices who disagreed with Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause purporting to withdraw the Court once and for all from passing judgment on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymanders, ended thus:

Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.

Kagan’s occasion for sorrow is deep not only because the chief justice left a fundamental flaw in our constitutional democracy without hope of a judicial remedy, but because of the defective reasoning by which he came to that conclusion.......

 

The courts can act, the remedy is a judicial remedy, Roberts concludes, only if the line of demarcation is “precise,” to use the word he invokes six times. If one cannot say where the precise borderline of the extreme lies, everything must be allowed. But applying that argument to other questions illustrates its absurdity. If one cannot say how many hairs a man may have to still count as bald, there are no bald men. If one cannot draw the exact line between venal and mortal sin, then there is no mortal sin.

 

This is not a logical principle, and it is certainly not a juridical one........

Nor should anyone find consolation in the chief’s profession of judicial modesty and abstinence, his insistence that this is just a job for other organs of government—legislatures, the states.

How can you rely on gerrymandered legislatures to remedy gerrymandering? .........

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/rucho-v-common-cause-occasion-sorrow/593227/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_term=2019-07-03T10%3A00%3A15&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&fbclid=IwAR3UYY-UCvM6IwGKNxrz1vVQ9374hehJSYnkuE0oTS7QaVEKdDmJaQAuGHM

:(

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing “extraordinary” favors for Trump

The Trump administration thinks the court is its personal fixer. The court isn’t doing much to disabuse it of this idea.

 

.....a “stay pending appeal” is an order that suspends a lower court’s decision while the case is working its way through an appeals court. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted such a stay of a lower court order that blocked a Trump administration policy preventing most Central American migrants from seeking asylum.

As Sotomayor notes, the Supreme Court rarely granted such stays in the past, and for good reason. Because the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal dispute, it typically likes to hang back for a while as lower court judges wrestle with new legal questions......

Trump’s Justice Department has been far more aggressive than its predecessors in asking the Court to intervene at early stages of litigation. “To take one especially eye-opening statistic,” Vladeck writes, “in less than three years, the Solicitor General has filed at least 20 applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including 10 during the October 2018 Term alone).”

By contrast, “during the 16 years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”

The Trump administration, in other words, is behaving as if the Court is its personal concierge service —

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20862320/sotomayor-supreme-court-favors-trump

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Abortion, Guns And Gay Rights On The Docket For Supreme Court's New Term-

"...The upcoming term will almost surely be a march to the right on almost every issue that is a flashpoint in American society. Among them: abortion, guns, gay rights, the separation of church and state, immigration and presidential power.

Also headed to the court are cases testing the power of Congress to get information from the executive branch and elsewhere, information that is relevant to congressional oversight and potentially, to impeachment.

Clearly, President Trump had something like that in mind when he said of the current impeachment inquiry, "It shouldn't be allowed. There should be a way of stopping it, maybe legally through the courts."

And if that isn't enough, pending before the court is a sleeper case testing the very structure of our presidential election system....

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/07/765091522/the-supreme-court-march-to-the-right-fast-and-furious-or-incremental?utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr

=========

-sorry, not yelling here.....this size happens when I use Google  :( :blink:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Chief Justice Roberts: Public's need to understand gov't 'ever more vital'

"[W]hen social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital," wrote Roberts, who will preside over Trump’s Senate trial.

 

...... “We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability. But we should also remember that justice is not inevitable. We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch," Roberts said. .........

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/chief-justice-roberts-public-s-need-understand-gov-t-ever-n1109301?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Justices to consider faithless electors, ahead of 2020 vote

The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.

 

he Supreme Court said Friday it will decide ahead of the 2020 election whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.

Advocates for the court’s intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in a presidential election, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history......

 

The case arises from the 2016 presidential election. Three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.

The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular vote winner. In Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 fine against the three electors and rejected their claims.

In all, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas.......

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/justices-to-consider-faithless-electors-ahead-of-2020-vote-100631

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Justices to consider faithless electors, ahead of 2020 vote

The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.

 

he Supreme Court said Friday it will decide ahead of the 2020 election whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.

Advocates for the court’s intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in a presidential election, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history......

 

The case arises from the 2016 presidential election. Three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.

The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular vote winner. In Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 fine against the three electors and rejected their claims.

In all, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas.......

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/justices-to-consider-faithless-electors-ahead-of-2020-vote-100631

Should be interesting since the 12th Amendment does not address this question.  It just says the Electors will cast votes for president and vice president.   Do the states have the right to specify that their electors have to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state.  How does this effect the states that have proportional allocation of their votes?

Perhaps the answer is to require the electors to apportion their votes based on the popular vote.  Candidate 1 got 60%, so he gets 60% of votes; candidate 2 got 40%, so he gets 40% and then candidates, 3,4,5, etc. get a portion commensurate with their percentages.  But will the Supreme Court do that?  Could just fall back and say it is a state issue and I can see the current court doing that on a 5-4 vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing special favors for the Trump administration

The ordinary rules no longer apply when the Trump administration shows up in court.

........Until recently, it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts. As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.”........

....

“Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument,” Sotomayor writes in her Wolf dissent. They also “upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.”

And in this Supreme Court, that party is almost always the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court’s stay decisions weaken safeguards built into the court system....

......because the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the country, an error by the justices is much harder to correct than an error by a lower court.

Sotomayor’s opinion is a warning that the Supreme Court’s Republican majority appears to care more about bailing out the Trump administration than it does careful deliberation that ensures the law is read properly. It’s also a warning that the Supreme Court appears to be bending the rules for Trump and Trump alone. As Sotomayor writes, “the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.”

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/21148529/justice-sotomayor-supreme-court-wolf-cook-county-public-charge-thumb-on-scale

:unsure:

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ginni Thomas: Supreme Court justice's wife leading right-wing effort to purge officials 'disloyal' to Trump

 

Network of conservative activists alleged to have prepared memos for president 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ginni-thomas-supreme-court-trump-clarence-wife-justice-groundswell-a9354126.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1kmjDo8wQh4McpMlDpxIFVFL9GClp9Ta5M55CVbutlQdEzT3r9nIE0WgE#Echobox=1582544341

:blink:

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for 'threatening' comments

"You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Schumer said of Trump appointees as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.

 

........The senator's spokesman said Schumer was referring to the political price Republicans "will pay for putting them on the court." It was a warning, the spokesman said, "that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

In his statement, Roberts said, "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory," before calling Schumer's comments inappropriate and dangerous. "All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."........

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

 

-still w/o ANY censure re: T's tweets about judges & jurors??

:blink:   :(

giphy.gif

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
Schumer spokesman: “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said,
 
while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week,
 
shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The Supreme Court’s disturbing order to effectively disenfranchise thousands of Wisconsin voters

American democracy is in deep trouble.

".....Democrats hoped to defend a lower court order that allowed absentee ballots to be counted so long as they arrived at the designated polling place by April 13, an extension granted by a judge to account for the brewing coronavirus-sparked chaos on Election Day, April 7. Republicans successfully asked the Court to require these ballots to be postmarked by April 7.

All five of the Court’s Republicans voted for the Republican Party’s position. All four of the Court’s Democrats voted for the Democratic Party’s position.

The decision carries grave repercussions for the state of Wisconsin — and democracy more broadly. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in her dissent,

“the presidential primaries, a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, three seats on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, over 100 other judgeships, over 500 school board seats, and several thousand other positions” are at stake in the Wisconsin election, which will be held on Tuesday. Of all these seats, the state Supreme Court race, between incumbent conservative Justice Daniel Kelly and challenger Judge Jill Karofsky, is the most hotly contested........

ens of thousands of voters are not expected to even receive their ballots until after Election Day, effectively disenfranchising them through no fault of their own.

In response to this brewing catastrophe, Judge William Conley, an Obama appointee to a federal court in Wisconsin, ordered the deadline for receiving ballots to be extended to 4 pm on April 13. In response to this order, the Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to modify Conley’s decision to require all ballots to be postmarked by April 7 or they will not be counted.

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority granted the GOP this very specific request.

Again, many voters are not expected to receive their ballots until after this April 7 deadline...............

Republicans have fought tooth and nail to make it hard to vote in Tuesday’s election

The Supreme Court’s decision in Republican is the capstone of a weeks-long effort by the Republican Party to make it difficult for voters to actually cast a ballot in Wisconsin. Last week, Gov. Evers called the state legislature into session and asked it to delay the election. But the Republican-controlled legislature ended that session just seconds after it was convened. After Evers acted on his own authority to delay the election, the state’s Supreme Court voted along partisan lines to rescind Evers’s order. Republicans also rejected Evers’s proposal to automatically mail ballots to every voter in the state.

The background is that Republicans hope to hold on to a seat on the state Supreme Court, which is up for grabs in Tuesday’s election..............

In 2018, 54 percent of voters chose a Democratic candidate for the state Assembly. But Republicans have so completely gerrymandered the state that they prevailed in 63 of the state’s 99 Assembly races.

There is far more at stake in Wisconsin, moreover, than one state Supreme Court seat. Wisconsin could be the pivotal swing state that decides the 2020 presidential election. The question of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden occupies the White House next year could easily be determined by which man receives Wisconsin’s electoral votes.

And the Court’s decision in Republican suggests that the Supreme Court will give the GOP broad leeway in how US elections should be conducted.'

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/6/21211378/supreme-court-coronavirus-voting-rights-disenfranchise-rnc-dnc?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

I heard on one of news channels that the GOPers on the Supreme Court rationalized that the governor did not have authority to extend the deadline, even in an emergency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C-SPAN to broadcast audio of Supreme Court oral arguments live in May

.......

"The audio of the arguments will be accessible live via one of the C-SPAN TV networks, online via C-SPAN.org, and on the free C-SPAN Radio app, which will allow them to be heard via anyone's cellphone."

The Supreme Court earlier Monday said it will hear 10 cases over six days in May, with the justices and lawyers interacting over teleconference in an effort to adhere to social distancing policies set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the justices and counsel will all participate remotely,” a court spokeswoman said Monday...............

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/492581-c-span-to-broadcast-supreme-court-oral-arguments-live-in-may

:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2020 at 7:23 PM, mr6666 said:

The Supreme Court’s disturbing order to effectively disenfranchise thousands of Wisconsin voters

As disturbing as the decision and the whole process was, a bright side was that a conservative state justice, supported by Trump,  was defeated by a liberal.

"Liberal challenger Judge Jill Karofsky pulled out an upset victory over conservative Wisconsin state Supreme Court Judge Dan Kelly in a major win for Democrats. "

https://www.businessinsider.com/wisconsin-primary-supreme-court-race-live-results-updates-vote-counts-2020-4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Supreme Court’s first opinion related to COVID-19 was anonymous. Here’s why that matters

.........The case, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, aimed to block a lower federal court from giving voters more time to mail in absentee ballots for the April 7 primary. It reached the Supreme Court as an emergency application presented to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court’s newest justice who handles emergency matters for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes the state of Wisconsin. Kavanaugh, in turn, referred the case to the full court for consideration. 

The court’s final decision came in the form of a per curiam — or unsigned — opinion which historically was reserved for a ruling so uncontroversial that the entire court is in agreement. 

Does it matter that the author of the Wisconsin per curiam is anonymous?

A number of legal scholars who have studied the court’s per curiam opinions over the years would say it does. It’s a matter of transparency. Anonymity, they contend, weakens accountability for the decision and may serve as a shield for contentious rulings written by individual justices.

And, they would add, the Supreme Court has strayed far from the original intent behind a per curiam opinion — to the detriment of the public and the development of law. .........

.........

“When courts use an anonymous veil, they lose the benefits of the signed opinion—the environment of transparency, individual responsibility, and well-reasoned explanation—that keep the judiciary credible and accountable.”  

The per curiam also may be seen by the public as a tactic used for political reasons, as many people viewed Bush v. Gore, which harms the credibility of the institution.  .........

for now, the unsigned ruling in the Wisconsin case, pitting Republican officials against Democratic officials, may further contribute to the cynicism surrounding the court’s division along ideological lines. "

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-supreme-courts-first-opinion-related-to-covid-19-was-anonymous-heres-why-that-matters

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

US Supreme Court awards insurers $12bn in Obamacare claims

The almost-unanimous decision will allow insurers to recoup early losses from the Affordable Care Act's implementation.

"......... The 8-1 ruling authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor paves the way for a significant one-time cash infusion for major companies such as Humana Inc, Anthem Inc and Centene Corp. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that Congress had suspended the government's obligation to make such payments.

The court agreed with insurance companies that said that the lower court ruling, if allowed to stand, would have let the government pull a "bait-and-switch" and withhold money the companies were promised.

"The government should honour its obligations," Sotomayor wrote............

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/supreme-court-awards-insurers-12bn-obamacare-claims-200427163013444.html?taid=5ea74b56e1ba140001280ed4&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court Tosses NY Case That Could Have Expanded Gun Rights

The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups

......

The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.

The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association's New York affiliate. The court ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners. .......

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/supreme-court-tosses-ny-case-that-could-have-expanded-gun-rights/2262523/?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth Abramson (@)

@SethAbramson

·

5h

The case before SCOTUS on Trump's tax returns comes down to—at least in oral argument—the following: Trump wants SCOTUS to be a "finder of fact" (which it is not) adjudging Congress to have acted impermissibly. The progressive justices are looking—as *judges do*—to apply a rule.

1/ While Trump's lawyer keeps saying that SCOTUS should create a "higher standard" for Congress seeking records for a legislative purpose *when the individual holding the records is a president*, it's not clear what that standard would be, how it would be articulated, and so on

2/ Trump's case most *clearly* falls apart when his lawyer is questioned about the HPSCI (intel committee) subpoena. The only argument he has is that going back to 2010 is "too far" for the investigation of the 2016 election—and that HSPCI should have subpoenaed other people too.

3/ But SCOTUS won't—nor should it, nor would it *ever*—conduct a fact-finding mission on whether acts relevant to the 2016 election interference scandal might be located in (say) 2012, *nor* will it conduct a fact-finding mission to determine who *else* should've been subpoenaed.

4/ In other words, Trump wants a "Bush v. Gore"-type decision, a decision in which SCOTUS does its own fact-finding, creates an ill-defined new constitutional standard, then says that this new, from-whole-cloth "rule" only applies in a single case and will never be applied again.

4/ In other words, Trump wants a "Bush v. Gore"-type decision, a decision in which SCOTUS does its own fact-finding, creates an ill-defined new constitutional standard, then says that this new, from-whole-cloth "rule" only applies in a single case and will never be applied again...........

see: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1260218487592665089

:unsure:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth Abramson (@)

@SethAbramson

·

3h

NOTE9/ What I see here is a 5-4 vote declaring Trump America's God-Emperor

—with Roberts assigning himself the opinion so he can draw the declaration of Trump as America's God-Emperor

in super responsible-sounding terms a few suburban moderates can be punked into feeling OK about........

see:  https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1260250753077260288

 

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...