SCOTAL Itch

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Attachment 12524

"Very simple, my retarded bro" is now my go-to preface for the answer to any question.

[beyelzu]

I just finished Originalism as Faith, thanks for the suggestion, Maturin, it was very informative and a pretty easy read.

I found his argument for legal realism pretty compelling. I found the original yet who claimed the Warren court was Originalist pretty hilarious.

https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2...-j-segall/amp/

This response to a review by Prof Segall does a pretty good job of hitting some of the high points and giving an overview.

[Stephen Maturin]

The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson will be sworn in as the 104th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 30, at noon at the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will administer the Constitutional Oath and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer will administer the Judicial Oath in a ceremony in the West Conference Room before a small gathering of Judge Jackson's family.

May the epic dissents fall like rain next term.

[beyelzu]

Having completed the book, I’ve decided that I’m a legal realist and now I have a hate on for Originalism even more than I did previously.

So thanks for that, Matlock.

Speaking of fiery dissents, I’ve been thinking about a couple of things Roe being overturned 5-4 with the Mississippi law being upheld 6-3 and people saying RBG hurt us by not retiring earlier.

Yes RBG was replaced by Serena Joy and yes without that the Supreme Court would probably have upheld Roe 5-4 with Roberts writing an opinion and a 5-4 ruling to uphold an 15 week abortion ban probably under Casey declaring such not an undue burden.

Roberts is no champion of Roe, he would just like to chip away at the rights slowly so he can claim being a good Chief Justice and not a Taney piece of shit.

This has been coming, and while it sucks for many pregnant persons right now, I think we will rally harder against this than the death by a thousand cuts that has been ongoing for years now.

But sometimes I’m a starry eyed optimist.

As always I acknowledge my laity nature as a simple country microbiologist running his mouth about Constitution and court.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by JoeP

As long as it's a man choosing to do it, it's all part of the plan.

Reminds me of the old classic:

Betty Bowers Explains Abortion to Everyone Else -...

The Bible isn't anti-abortion, but it isn't pro-choice either. Because there's no discussion of women getting a choice in the matter.

(Although the only time there's a punishment for killing a fetus, it does not involve the woman being punished. And it is definitely not consistent with it being considered murder.)

[viscousmemories]

The authors of The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy were on the Majority Report the day before yesterday and they had a really interesting conversation about the history and present state of the SCOTUS.

Our Constitution Is Actually Anti-Oligarchy w/...

[beyelzu]

The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would hear a case that could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/u...eme-court.html

Also can someone explain the “reasoning” to me?

The doctrine is based on a reading of two similar provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The one at issue in the North Carolina case, the Elections Clause, says: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

That means, North Carolina Republicans argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility among state institutions for drawing congressional districts and that state courts have no role to play.

Wouldn’t the same logic say that such election laws can’t be vetoed either or am I missing something?

[Stephen Maturin]

There's a body of precedent holding that the U.S. Constitution takes states as they find them in this regard, such that when the Constitution confers authority on a state legislature, that authority is subject to all the state law baggage to which the legislature is subject. If that includes gubernatorial veto authority and judicial review by state courts, so be it.

Guess which body of precedent is going away to be with Jesus next term.

Equally doomed is the 2015 decision Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, described and linked here, which held that states can delegate their congressional redistricting power to a commission (the idea being to limit political gerrymandering by the party that controls the legislature. The only mystery is whether they'll find a way to overrule it in the newly accepted Moore v. Harper or wait for a future case in which redistricting commissions are directly at issue.

[beyelzu]

“Some years ago, I remarked that ‘[w]e’re all textualists now,’” Kagan noted. “It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it.”

Opinion | The Supreme Courts EPA ruling says: Well do whatever we want - The Washington Post

From Kagan’s dissent in West Virginia v EPA.

As a bonus, they used their decision to elevate the “major questions doctrine” — which holds that agencies can’t regulate in ways that aren’t explicitly laid out in statutes if what they’re doing is too consequential — into precedent. Yet in practice, everyone knows that the major questions doctrine, being vague and versatile, will be used only to strike down agency regulations the conservatives don’t like; regulations from Republican administrations they find pleasing will be left intact.

This is the get out of text free card that the court created.

I’ve seen people argue that Kagan was calling Originalists hypocrites, but now I understand non-textual is way worse than not being consistent to their Originalism.

[mickthinks]

Here's some Heather Cox Richardson
... Now, a radical minority insists that a legislature is a legislature alone, unchecked by state courts or state constitutions that prohibit gerrymandering. This interpretation of the Constitution is radical and new. It caught on in 2015, when Republicans wanted to get rid of an independent redistricting commission in Arizona.

This doctrine is, of course, what Trump and his allies pushed for to keep him in power in 2020: Republican state legislatures throwing out the will of the people and sending electors for Trump to Congress rather than the Biden electors the majority voted for.

That doctrine would also give to state legislatures the power to control who can vote, and how and where they can do so. It would strip power from elections commissions and secretaries of state, and it would take from state courts the power to challenge gerrymandering or voter suppression. Republicans currently control 30 state legislatures, in large part thanks to the gerrymandering and voter suppression in place in a number of those states.

Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that this doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”

And yet in March, when the Supreme Court let the state supreme court’s decision against the radical map stay in place for 2022, justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh indicated they are open to the idea that state courts have no role in overseeing the rules for federal elections.

In the one term Trump’s three justices have been on the court, they have decimated the legal landscape under which we have lived for generations, slashing power from the federal government, where Congress represents the majority, and returning it to states, where a Republican minority can impose its will. Thanks to the skewing of our electoral system, those states are now poised to take control of our federal government permanently.

Almost exactly 35 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan nominated originalist Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) recognized his legal theory for what it was: an unraveling of the modern United States. “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. ... America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks,” Kennedy said.

And yet, here we are.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Heather Cox Richardson

It caught on in 2015, when Republicans wanted to get rid of an independent redistricting commission in Arizona.

And before the 2015 redistricting case, there was the plurality opinion in Bush v. Gore, in which the now-dead shitbags Rehnquist and Scalia, along with the still-living shitbag Thomas, told us that state courts have no business involving themselves with the state legislature's processes for selecting presidential electors. So Richard Nixon, in the person of Dead Bill Rehnquist, is STILL pissing in the punchbowl of American democracy from beyond the grave.

[viscousmemories]

Does anyone want to tell me this woman is off her rocker? Please?

SCOTUS has opened Pandora's box. They've reverted to an extreme "states' rights" position that allows red states to end civil rights and oversight of corporations. Blue states like CA are going to try to drive the market with sanctuary laws and their own regs. 1/n

— Brynn Tannehill (@BrynnTannehill) June 30, 2022

[Ari]

I do think it ignores the current divide in the republican party as well as the potential galvanization of liberals.

For the last several years I’ve heard about how it was really Mike Pence that was Evangelical’s goal to become president, that the long game was in part to move him into play. Now I hear some people, great people, are saying that he deserves to be hung. While the anger has calmed down a bit, there’s still a heavy divide between Trump, his loyalists and those in the party that have crossed him. Trump has driven a new breed of political cons that will tow the inflammatory line because it excites them and they get rich off it, not because they are true believers. I’m not sure that battle has come to a head yet.

Meanwhile the swift and destructive moves by the court seem to have perked a lot of ears. In the spirit of the myth of the boiling frog, let’s hope they turned the water up too fast.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by erimir

Reminds me of the old classic:

The Bible isn't anti-abortion, but it isn't pro-choice either. Because there's no discussion of women getting a choice in the matter.

(Although the only time there's a punishment for killing a fetus, it does not involve the woman being punished. And it is definitely not consistent with it being considered murder.)

Oh Father forgive them, they know not what they do. ESPECIALLY when the unbeliever becomes a Bible scholar and think they/he/she /have a knowledgeable grasp.

[Miss Shelby]

Have/has? What is the latest update on verbs? Can anyone diagram a sentence for me?

[Miss Shelby]

Do we know what verbs are now or are we still focusing on nouns

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

My favorite post from you. I didn’t think ya had it in ya.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

[Miss Shelby]

Kamala can we be friends? I mean it. I like you. We can be friends who hate each other on the net. I have lots of those

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Oh Father forgive them, they know not what they do. ESPECIALLY when the unbeliever becomes a Bible scholar and think they/he/she /have a knowledgeable grasp.

Atheist biblical scholars don’t hold articles of faith that can distort their understanding of the religion that they study.

Being Christian doesn’t really give you special knowledge, no more than it actually gives the power to withstand snake bights nor speak in foreign languages as some of your fellow believers hold.

As usual, of course, you’ve got fuckall substantive to say.

[beyelzu]

As with every level of government, there is no requirement that the Supreme Court factor science into their decision-making. And, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett has said, “I’m certainly not a scientist.” But expertise matters, and knowing when you don’t know something and seeking that information makes for better justice. Yet, in their efforts to be constitutional purists, at least when it suits their ideology, the justices in the majority show that ignoring science and evidence is their modus operandi. Instead, they are using their power to uphold a certain vein of religion: this same term the majority ruled against separation of church and state in two education cases, one of which forces Maine to fund schools that teach children misinformation about evolution and climate science. The United States once inspired other countries to protect people’s liberties. Now the rest of the world is watching, and reacting to the decisions that our Supreme Court made this term. And it’s not good.

Evidence Shouldn't Be Optional - Scientific American

[lisarea]

Biblical arguments are a distraction. It's tempting for a lot of non-Christians to get caught up in that, and I've done it myself enough to know. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.

But it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Only Christians are required to follow it, and I'm not Christian. Sure, there are a lot of supposed Christians who pretty flagrantly violate its principles and don't even appear to have read it themselves, but that's actually none of my business in itself. That's between them and their god. I only care when they start trying to impose it on others.

And the Bible is very explicitly not supposed to play any role in US government, either. That's a pretty big deal as far as the founding documents are concerned.

There's no sense in arguing Biblical or government policy with someone who can't even respect the separation of church and state. That's where the arguments about government policy need to get cut off, and everyone needs to be reminded that what the Bible says is irrelevant.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Atheist biblical scholars don’t hold articles of faith that can distort their understanding of the religion that they study.

Being Christian doesn’t really give you special knowledge, no more than it actually gives the power to withstand snake bights nor speak in foreign languages as some of your fellow believers hold.

As usual, of course, you’ve got fuckall substantive to say.

And I never once said that it did.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Biblical arguments are a distraction. It's tempting for a lot of non-Christians to get caught up in that, and I've done it myself enough to know. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.

But it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Only Christians are required to follow it, and I'm not Christian. Sure, there are a lot of supposed Christians who pretty flagrantly violate its principles and don't even appear to have read it themselves, but that's actually none of my business in itself. That's between them and their god. I only care when they start trying to impose it on others.

And the Bible is very explicitly not supposed to play any role in US government, either. That's a pretty big deal as far as the founding documents are concerned.

There's no sense in arguing Biblical or government policy with someone who can't even respect the separation of church and state. That's where the arguments about government policy need to get cut off, and everyone needs to be reminded that what the Bible says is irrelevant.

I was replying to a presumptive post which suggested that it did.