Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mr6666

SCOTUS battles

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

 

 

Share this post


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?   

 

 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


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