SCOTAL Itch

[Kyuss Apollo]

SCOTUS Sides With S.C. To Reinstate Witness Signature Mandate For Absentee Ballots

The eight-person Supreme Court on Monday sided with South Carolina to reinstate a mandate that absentee ballots require witness signatures, even as critics argue that the coronavirus puts an undue burden on voters to safely get a witness cosign on the ballots.

The order will not apply to ballots already cast or those mailed in within the next two days, but will apply to ballots going forward for the Nov. 3 general election.

"This Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election," Justice Brett Kavanaugh in explaining the court's decision.

"By enjoining South Carolina's witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court's precedents."

Because, what pandemic.

[Crumb]

So the solution to incorrectly changing the rules before an election is to change them back even closer to the election.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Just a reminder.

Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

[JoeP]

(a) Everything is selective

(b) They don't need her to assume authority over men - assuming authority over women is what they really want.

[SR71]

So many things today. SCOTUS allows Dump to end census early. Barrett tells Dems more than once they won't be getting Scalia, they'll be getting Barrett. Dems, lacking a mean bone, don't say that is obvious, Scalia is dead, and why are you ducking my question with this stupidity?

She told that dickhead Kennedy she has principles. The Dems need to grind her repeatedly with what her principles tell her about her hearing versus the (not) hearing for Merrick Garland, and what her values tell her about how citizens should feel about the subject.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

2016 might have been important.

Hearing: #AmyConeyBarrett won’t say if Trump can delay the election. He can’t. - Vox This was a revealingly corrupt, cravenly political non-answer. No doubt she knew it when she said it, which shows that, even after being nominated, she plays to #Trump. https://t.co/HiQetQJREW

— howardfineman (@howardfineman) October 13, 2020

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues – Teacher-Scholar-Activist

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues – Teacher-Scholar-Activist

That letter says it all. The circumstances may be beyond her control, except for the part that she's a voluntary participant.

[viscousmemories]

This interview with Mark Joseph Stern yesterday was very informative.

Starts at about 21:00 and goes until about 1:00:00

Senate Judiciary Questions Amy Coney Barrett w/...

[viscousmemories]

Some notes I took from the above interview. Corrections to my interpretations are welcome!

• Roberts has shown himself to be somewhat of an "institutionalist" which seems to mean that he will avoid rulings that are baldly political if they threaten the reputation of the court itself
  
• Barrett is far more conservative and aligned with the Republican party than Roberts. Just by participating in this nomination she has "shown herself to be a cynical hack" (per Stern)

Important concepts:

• Chevron Deference
  - The courts defer to expert agencies on matters of legislative enforcement. So if congress tells the EPA to regulate air quality, they can rely on the EPA to define the standard without having to specify every detail. Without this deference, the courts become a "scientific review board".
  
• Nondelegation Doctrine
  - This is the view (endorsed by 5 sitting justices) that Congress isn't allowed to delegate its legislative authority to other agencies in the first place. In other words they can't just tell the EPA to regulate air quality and allow them to determine the best way to implement that, they have to dictate exactly what it means. This has implications in every area of regulation.
  
• Separability Doctrine
  - If one element of a law is found to be unconstitutional it can be separated out and eliminated without bringing down the entire law. So for example the individual mandate in the ACA was found to be unconstitutional so congress neutered it (said there is no financial penalty for non-compliance) but the rest of the ACA still stands. The conservative justices will argue that it is not separable and therefore the whole ACA is nullified.

At Risk:

• Gay marriage rights
  - Thomas and Alito have already signaled that they want to see Obergefell* challenged, and with Kennedy having retired and Barrett replacing Ginsburg it is now in serious jeopardy.
  
• Kim Davis case
  
• On the docket in November a case about whether Catholic foster services have to work with same sex couples (19-123 FULTON V. PHILADELPHIA, PA)
  - Barrett repeatedly referred to sexual orientation as "sexual preference"
  
• Voting Rights Act
  - Barrett has argued that the right to bear arms is more fundamental than the right to vote
  
• 2020 Election contest
  
• Global Warming
  
• Affordable Care Act
  - 19-840 CALIFORNIA V. TEXAS
  - 19-1019 TEXAS V. CALIFORNIA
  
• All Health and Safety Regulations

*Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
- Source: Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that **the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples** by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. **The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples**, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

[slimshady2357]

4-4 vote, Barrett not on the Court to break the tie.
Shadow docket so no opinion at all, which really needs to stop. https://t.co/vjbF8GIuCm

— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 19, 2020

I sort of understand what is being said here, but would appreciate Mr Maturin's breakdown if was following it and has the time.

[erimir]

Shadow docket means that the case is essentially being decided without officially being decided.

When the Court decides not to hear cases, it's often the final say, or at least, final for a while. But it gets much less attention and coverage, so it's like a "shadow" ruling.

Additionally, when it comes to election cases and other highly time-sensitive issues, the Court making other decisions can essentially decide the case. If they put a stay on a ruling this close to the election, that's essentially overturning the decision without overturning it. It doesn't matter if they eventually hear the case after the election, the chances that the Court (especially this court) would order a new election if they ruled after November 3rd would be close to zero.

And in the case of presidential elections, there's no precedent or Constitutional provisions for it.

So some of their decisions on election issues in the past month have essentially been rulings, deciding how this election will happen, but without officially making rulings.

Roberts is much smarter and restrained than many of his colleagues. He makes more use of these types of attacks on voting rights and liberal priorities, because full frontal assaults get more attention and pushback and risk making court packing more popular. Unfortunately for him, his four GOP colleagues on the bench would rather basically dare the Democrats to pack the courts.

The scariest part is that they may be right - Democrats won't get an opportunity (because they won't win the Senate under this tilted playing field, or Biden won't win) or they won't make use of it (because of some dumbass like Feinstein).

This is why taking the Senate with as many seats as possible is essential. Best if we don't need Manchin, Sinema or Feinstein's votes.

[slimshady2357]

I fucking hate that cocksucker so much.

This portion of Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is objectively just ridiculous. First screenshot is dishonest about why ballots might arrive late and whose fault it is; second one is basically just a long version of Trump's tweets delegitimizing mail-in voting. pic.twitter.com/8xAhrqURTb

— Eric Bradner (@ericbradner) October 27, 2020

[erimir]

That's a libel against cocksuckers.

[beyelzu]

Kavanaugh quoted a source that disagrees with the position that he was using to support.

Kavanaugh then quoted from a law review article titled “How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting” by New York University Law Professor Richard Pildes to bolster his point.

The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: ‘[L]ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,’” Kavanaugh wrote. “The ‘longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.’”

A closer reading of Pildes’s article, or even the heading under which the cited paragraph appears, shows that Pildes unequivocally concluded that all states should make sure they count valid ballots received after Election Day.

“States that require absentees to be received by election night or shortly after should move this date back,” Pildes wrote. “Moreover, if a significant number of votes come in after a receipt deadline that has not been changed and that is much tighter than in other states, ex post litigation challenging that deadline is easy to imagine. This is exactly what we do not want to face for a risk that can be mitigated in advance.”

Which is disingenuous horseshit that I expect from the illiberal piece of shit.

Brett Kavanaugh Caught Cherry-Picking Quote | Law & Crime

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

11or 13
Congress last set the number of Supreme Court Justices in 1869. They decided on 9 Justices because at that time there were 9 Circuit Courts and they made each Justice responsible for a single Circuit Court. There are now 13 Circuit Courts. We'll remember this in 8 days

— Kevin willoughby (@wheels616) October 27, 2020

[viscousmemories]

Are we just pretending Alito didn't give that insane speech to the Federalist Society?

[Ari]

No, but like, what can we do about it?
Which is a real question as I don’t know what can really be done if the justices just full out wish we had a nazi themed theocracy, besides not placing those people on the bench in the first place.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Ari

No, but like, what can we do about it?
Which is a real question as I don’t know what can really be done if the justices just full out wish we had a nazi themed theocracy, besides not placing those people on the bench in the first place.

Technically, we can impeach them, but that requires not having half the Senate also wishing we had a nazi themed theocracy.

...so, we can't do much about it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Yep. There have been fewer Supreme Court justice impeachments (1) than presidential impeachments (3) and the exact same number of removals (0).

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

More in thrad about important topic but there’s this knob embarrassing himself:

This was very awkward: Roberts calls on Sotomayor, but Alito completely ignores him and asks another question—and another, and another ... until Roberts cuts in to call on Sotomayor. Alito tries to keep speaking, but Roberts cuts in AGAIN to call on Sotomayor. Oof.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 30, 2020

[Stephen Maturin]

Generally speaking, SCOTUS is an appellate court. However, it does have some original jurisdiction. If you have a case "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" or "in which a state shall be party," you can file your lawsuit in the Supreme Court. You can't just file a complaint in SCOTUS straight away though. Per Rule 17 of the Court's internal rules of practice, you need to file a motion requesting permission to commence a lawsuit along with your proposed complaint.

Thus it was that on Monday the idiot Attorney General of Texas deposited this Cleveland Steamer on the chest docket of SCOTUS. Texas wants permission to file a 41-page complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI alleging that the presidential elections in those states were conducted unconstitutionally and demanding that the Court enjoin those states from appointing or certifying any Electors based on the election results.

The Court could have denied the motion for leave to file outright, but didn't. PA, GA, MI and WI have until tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern to file responses to the idiot Texas AG's motion.

Naturally, the wingosphere has deemed the Court's failure to deny the motion sua sponte as a complete and flawless victory. They are busily making plans to celebrate Trump's second term.

For those interested in following along with the festivities, SCOTUS's docket page for the case is available here.

[Crumb]

This is rich coming from Texas.

Originally Posted by Texas

Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters,
with more favorable allotted to voters – whether
lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by
local government under Democrat control and
with populations with higher ratios of Democrat
voters than other areas of Defendant States.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

5-4, Roberts dissenting alas, alak, but at least due process is upheld.

[Stephen Maturin]

And so it was that the SCOTUS lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania went to be with Jesus.