SCOTUS rulings 2020

[ftf82 485]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

There’s like ten lawyers in the country that know anything about Indian law (that’s generally what that body of law has been referred to historically, not me being old). I can tell you that if you’re gonna buy property in the El Paso area you’re probably going to have an exception to your title policy for claims related to some old land grants that were stolen and disputes that may never be resolved.

And buyers and lenders just close their eyes and close their deals.

"Any and all claims of right, title and interest to the land, including but not limited to any right of possession or claim for damages relating to the land which has been asserted or may be asserted, of record or not, by or on behalf of any Indian or Indian Tribe, including but not limited to the Tigua Indian Tribe of El Paso, Texas, also known as Pueblo De La Ysleta del Sur, also known as the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Indian Tribe, also known as the Tigua Indian Community, including but not limited to claims appearing in Affidavit of Julian Granillo, filed for record April 16, 1993, recorded in Volume 2553, Page 1958, Real Property Records of El Paso County, Texas."

Edited July 9, 2020 by ftf82
any andy

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Some more problems with Mazars:

 

 

I don't think that's much of a problem.  It's Trump's personal tax returns and other corporate information relating to him personally that causes the separation of powers issue.  "The President's papers," the court said.

Corporate documents generally are not going to be an issue.  Nor is immediate family.  We all know Trumpco has been under investigation this whole time.

In the balancing test, the less connection the sought documents have to the President personally, the less potential the subpoena has to be invalid.  

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think anybody really knows.  There are a whole bunch of state and federal laws that carve out "Indian Country" (the term used in the United States Code) from their coverage.  And I don't think anybody has a full catalog of just what that would include.

I don't know.  I understand that there may be some real question about the legal authority of local governmental entities.  Things like cities and counties derive their authority from the sovereignty of the State.  But if the State is not sovereign, then what authority does it have to grant any power to, say, the City of Tulsa?

Regardless, I think this is something that is going to get papered up in a real hurry.  The State apparently has been in advanced talks with the Creek Nation about some sort of agreement on these issues.

For the record--I think the biggest question is left unanswered.  Is Oklahoma's suckitude reduced by 1/3rd proportionate to the territory it just lost?  And if so, what is 1/3rd of infinity?

Or is the same amount of suck just condensed into a smaller area?  Presumably collapsing into a singularity of suck centered somewhere around Norman.  

If you listen closely, you can hear every law clerk in the Eastern District of Oklahoma chugging a handle of vodka.

Could Indian Territory unilaterally secede from the state entirely?

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think that's much of a problem.  It's Trump's personal tax returns and other corporate information relating to him personally that causes the separation of powers issue.  "The President's papers," the court said.

Corporate documents generally are not going to be an issue.  Nor is immediate family.  We all know Trumpco has been under investigation this whole time.

In the balancing test, the less connection the sought documents have to the President personally, the less potential the subpoena has to be invalid.  

I should probably add, those portions of the subpoena not seeking "the President's information" probably could have been held valid.  But because it wasn't argued that way, there was no way for the SC to parse it that way.

Ultimately, and hilariously, I think the fact that X number of presidential candidates for Y number of years have voluntarily disclosed their tax returns with minimal fallout is going to be used to undercut a claim that it unduly interferes with the execution of the office.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Voldemort86 2,259]

6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

I expect the R’s to put a full court press on Thomas to retire ASAP 

his wife is a trump friend 

I can’t state it enough times, but Trump really is a weak fucking candidate. He won all of his swing states with pluralities. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got more of the vote as 3rd parties than 3rd party candidates ever freaking get.

Trump is so detestable and pathetic that he needs all sorts of advantages to win. He needs a third party candidate to dilute the votes. He needs America to have Democrat fatigue ( in 2016, it did and right now they don’t). He needs a Supreme Court vacancy. Hell he got a vacancy before 2016 and conservatives showed up to preserve Scalia’s seat. I still think the Kennedy vacancy and kavanaugh hearing in 2018 cost us 10+ house seats, several governorships, and probably Bill Nelson’s senate seats in Florida, Beto lost his chance to upset Cruz, and mccaskill or Donnelly would’ve pulled it out.

A Supreme Court vacancy is very very bad for the dems right now. Trump desperately wants one. He wants the fight to be bitter like kavanaugh’s was to juice up his base. We really need the Supreme Court to stay intact for a few months. No vacancies!
 

 

[wildcat09 29,257]

I haven’t seen anything whatsoever to indicate that the Kavanaugh hearings hurt the Dems in 2018.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

While not impossible I can’t imagine that Alito or Thomas will retire now. Yes they can see a decent chance that their retirement might help trump win in November but they can also see themselves outlasting a Biden presidency.

 

[Eastwood 4,394]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law" sounds great, but did Gorsuch just eliminate adverse possession?

No, because adverse possession, at least in Texas, is governed by statute. 

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

42 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Could Indian Territory unilaterally secede from the state entirely?

As I understand it--and I am not at all well-versed in Indian law--Congress determines the degree of reservation autonomy.  If Congress were to excise a reservation from a state's jurisdiction, it could presumably do so (though Congress cannot adjust the state's boundaries).  But I don't think the Creek Nation can secede from Oklahoma.

[ftf82 485]

Gorsuch’s argument in part (I confess I’ve only read summaries so far) mentioned language in the Treaty that promised the land to the Creeks in perpetuity and that it would never be incorporated into a territory or state. But Congress subsequently voted to admit Oklahoma as a state.  So presumably there’s no question about whether it’s part of OK or not.  Gorsuchs position is that Congress never amended the Criminal Laws Acts which mandates Federal Court jurisdiction for cases involving Indians.  And Gorsuch basically saying Congress created this problem, they can fix it and it ain’t our job to do it is interesting given he wrote Bostock last month.  

[Voldemort86 2,259]

28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I haven’t seen anything whatsoever to indicate that the Kavanaugh hearings hurt the Dems in 2018.

Conservatives are motivated by Supreme Court vacancies. I know for a fact that the kavanaugh hearing pissed a lot of people off and amped up lots of conservatives to vote. It was even reflected in the polling for a few months after the hearing. 

[wildcat09 29,257]

10 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Conservatives are motivated by Supreme Court vacancies. I know for a fact that the kavanaugh hearing pissed a lot of people off and amped up lots of conservatives to vote. It was even reflected in the polling for a few months after the hearing. 

Yeah, but how many of those people were potential swing voters in swing districts who were not already locks to vote R?

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, but how many of those people were potential swing voters in swing districts who were not already locks to vote R?

thats not the right question. The right question is how many of them showed up to vote that were otherwise going to skip voting (I skipped voting). 

[tx 3 putt 76,393]

1 hour ago, Voldemort86 said:

 

A Supreme Court vacancy is very very bad for the dems right now. Trump desperately wants one. He wants the fight to be bitter like kavanaugh’s was to juice up his base. We really need the Supreme Court to stay intact for a few months. No vacancies!
 

 

Dont under estimate McConnell working this behind the scenes 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

16 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Dont under estimate McConnell working this behind the scenes 

The good news (so far) is that historically many Supreme Court retirements are announced on the last day of term which is today. I’d rather deal with  10 more years of Thomas than 4 more years of trump damnit.

[wildcat09 29,257]

41 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

thats not the right question. The right question is how many of them showed up to vote that were otherwise going to skip voting (I skipped voting). 

I think I addressed that with “...were not already locks to vote R.”

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think I addressed that with “...were not already locks to vote R.”

I didn’t read it that way at all. Either I’m not understanding you or you aren’t understanding me. I mean I think there was a fair number of GOP voters that were going to skip the election (over generalized dislike of how things were going) that showed up after the kavanaugh thing. I did end up sitting out the entirety of election other than getting  my wife to vote for Ed Emmett for me for county judge,  it I had some friends who weren’t going to vote who decided to go vote after the hearings. I think this number was less than zero. I’d say, anecdotally, that when they other guy is shooting off his own dick you should let him and not give him an out. 
The nomination did not help the Dems in the senate- with that awful map for them. 

[wildcat09 29,257]

8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I didn’t read it that way at all. Either I’m not understanding you or you aren’t understanding me. I mean I think there was a fair number of GOP voters that were going to skip the election (over generalized dislike of how things were going) that showed up after the kavanaugh thing. I did end up sitting out the entirety of election other than getting  my wife to vote for Ed Emmett for me for county judge,  it I had some friends who weren’t going to vote who decided to go vote after the hearings. I think this number was less than zero. I’d say, anecdotally, that when they other guy is shooting off his own dick you should let him and not give him an out. 
The nomination did not help the Dems in the senate- with that awful map for them. 

Sorry if I was unclear, my intent with “were not already locks to vote R” was to exclude people who were considering sitting out. I don’t deny that they exist or anything, I just doubt that they were a particularly substantial voting bloc in a swing district.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

Gorsuch’s argument in part (I confess I’ve only read summaries so far) mentioned language in the Treaty that promised the land to the Creeks in perpetuity and that it would never be incorporated into a territory or state. But Congress subsequently voted to admit Oklahoma as a state.  So presumably there’s no question about whether it’s part of OK or not.  Gorsuchs position is that Congress never amended the Criminal Laws Acts which mandates Federal Court jurisdiction for cases involving Indians.  And Gorsuch basically saying Congress created this problem, they can fix it and it ain’t our job to do it is interesting given he wrote Bostock last month.  

Well, in Bostock, he could find an interpretation of the law itself (some might call it sophistry, I call it fairly brilliant simplicity) that supported the outcome, thus not requiring the punt to Congress.  Or, if Congress doesn't like the impact of their plain words they can fix it, what I sometimes call the "reverse punt."

But, there's no point in trying to reconcile constitutional law, whether an individual justice's, a liberal or conservative wing or court, or the court itself over the long haul.  It relies on precedent, it tosses precedent aside.  It leads the conscience of the nation and offends the conscience of the nation.  Thankfully, though, it takes a pretty long time for these irreconcilable results to happen.

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sorry if I was unclear, my intent with “were not already locks to vote R” was to exclude people who were considering sitting out. I don’t deny that they exist or anything, I just doubt that they were a particularly substantial voting bloc in a swing district.

Gotcha. What did Cruz win by- 4.5% or so?  Could it have been that much in Texas?  Probably not. Might it have made the difference in Missouri?  Indiana?  Maybe. 

[Cairn Horn88 8,183]

54 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Dont under estimate McConnell working this behind the scenes 

Fuck McConnell.  That is all.

[wildcat09 29,257]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in Bostock, he could find an interpretation of the law itself (some might call it sophistry, I call it fairly brilliant simplicity) that supported the outcome, thus not requiring the punt to Congress.  Or, if Congress doesn't like the impact of their plain words they can fix it, what I sometimes call the "reverse punt."

But, there's no point in trying to reconcile constitutional law, whether an individual justice's, a liberal or conservative wing or court, or the court itself over the long haul.  It relies on precedent, it tosses precedent aside.  It leads the conscience of the nation and offends the conscience of the nation.  Thankfully, though, it takes a pretty long time for these irreconcilable results to happen.

I think it’s as simple as justices having pet issues on which they may differ from what would reasonably be expected to be a different outcome based on a lot of their other decisions.

I’ll credit Gorsuch with seemingly actually believing in textualism more than most other purported textualists, but my default position is that originalism and textualism are bullshit con jobs asserted to pretend that conservatives aren’t just ruling for favored political outcomes. I think something in his past (that goes beyond simply him being a judge out west) makes him sympathetic to Native American issues, and a textualist approach conveniently also led to a decision that aligned with those concerns.

I don’t say this to shit on him, I’ll celebrate any time a judge actually incorporates some basic human decency into a decision. In difficult legal questions, I think what feels right and what feels wrong matter. I remain confident though that I’ll never go broke betting against the good faith application of originalist or textualist rules by conservative judges.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Could Indian Territory unilaterally secede from the state entirely?

They are sovereign nations already. For instance, California was not able to shutdown the tribal casinos in California for Covid (they shut down voluntarily for a short period of time on their own). A sovereign nation within a sovereign state within a sovereign nation. Feds have jurisdiction over criminal matters. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think it’s as simple as justices having pet issues on which they may differ from what would reasonably be expected to be a different outcome based on a lot of their other decisions.

I’ll credit Gorsuch with seemingly actually believing in textualism more than most other purported textualists, but my default position is that originalism and textualism are bullshit con jobs asserted to pretend that conservatives aren’t just ruling for favored political outcomes. I think something in his past (that goes beyond simply him being a judge out west) makes him sympathetic to Native American issues, and a textualist approach conveniently also led to a decision that aligned with those concerns.

I don’t say this to shit on him, I’ll celebrate any time a judge actually incorporates some basic human decency into a decision. In difficult legal questions, I think what feels right and what feels wrong matter. I remain confident though that I’ll never go broke betting against the good faith application of originalist or textualist rules by conservative judges.

Well, I will say this, textualism and originalism do kind of tend to favor the status quo and not making big departures from precedent or custom.  That is kind of the essence of conservatism. At times it can be infuriatingly backward.  Sometimes, though, it may be just right.

On the other hand, sometimes justices delve into the vast cornucopia of rights (credit Lino Graglia) and do stuff that doesn't seem to be tethered to any real principle at all except some vague, less-than-universally accepted notion of "what's right."  And that is kind of the essence of liberalism.  And, sometimes, that is just right, too.  Sometimes it might go a little far and create unintended consequences.

Like most things in this country, probably the best things politically come from compromises, and that's becoming rarer.

I am always rooting for the surprise, maverick justice, from either wing of the court.  Too many 5-4 decisions, going either way, are too much like unprincipled opposition in the houses of congress.

['stache 21,774]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law" sounds great, but did Gorsuch just eliminate adverse possession?

Adverse possession is about land ownership. Today's decision did not affect any land ownership, only the extent of jurisdiction between different sovereigns. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Adverse possession is about land ownership. Today's decision did not affect any land ownership, only the extent of jurisdiction between different sovereigns. 

I may have injected that concept into the discussion unintentionally as a similar concept to what the Court struck down. 0klahoma argued since it has used its State law for years, the Court should allow them to continue. The Court rightfully told them to pound sand. 

[wildcat09 29,257]

It was just a dumb joke. I’m a real estate lawyer, adverse possession in this tenuous logic was basically the closest that anything I ever do has to any Supreme Court decision of note in...I don’t know how long.

[Gil Bang 25,898]

1 hour ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Fuck McConnell.  That is all.

Harramph!

[workswithseed 2,037]

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Harramph!

He says before doing a line of coke.

[workswithseed 2,037]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

I practice Indian law. No, it is not that big of a deal for non-Indians living in Tulsa. It's biggest impact will be that the federal courts will need to beef up their prosecutors team a little to handle major crimes committed by Indians in Eastern Oklahoma.

So just for Indians? How will this effect taxes for Oklahoma? 2020 is weird.

['stache 21,774]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

So just for Indians? How will this effect taxes for Oklahoma? 2020 is weird.

The only thing that comes to mind is that if you are an Indian, you work for an Indian Tribe or tribal business, and live in a reservation (now most of eastern Oklahoma), that income might be exempt from state income tax.

Edit: I also think that tribes that own fee land within the reservation might be able to stop paying property tax. In Indian person might try that argument but I don’t think it would win.

Edited July 10, 2020 by 'stache

['stache 21,774]

12 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

I may have injected that concept into the discussion unintentionally as a similar concept to what the Court struck down. 0klahoma argued since it has used its State law for years, the Court should allow them to continue. The Court rightfully told them to pound sand. 

I think that is more of a laches issue (legal doctrine that one who does not enforce a right for long enough can lose it, sort of like a statute of limitations without a statute). In the early 2000s a tribe in New York claimed original jurisdiction over their former lands, bought property in fee in that area, then stopped paying property taxes claiming that they were exercising "sovereignty" over the land. The Supreme Court applied laches and held they had not exercised sovereignty in over 200 years so they lost that case. Justice Gorsuch mentions in the Oklahoma decision that laches and other issues may apply in responding to the state's absurd "parade of horribles" defense. So, for example, if the reservation had been treated as such the entire time the tribes probably could have taxed non-indians living in the reservation. But they haven't done so for so long that if they tried, I assume a similar laches defense would be invoked. It's not the same as the NY case because the Oklahoma tribes have been present the entire time and have exercised some forms of sovereignty in the entire area for years (before yesterday they were referred to as their "jurisdictional areas" or sometimes the "original reservation" or "former reservation" although the tribes stopped using the latter terms some years ago when it became known that they might still have a claim to reservation status). Either way, I highly, highly doubt the tribes will try to press this decision into enforcement of things against non-Indians. They would lose some of the good will they are currently getting and would likely lose anyway if they tried.

Edited July 10, 2020 by 'stache

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

It just occurred to me that there may be a reason that I am fairly sanguine about the Supreme Court, in addition to being a recovering conservative.

In a couple of decades of IP law practice, there have been a couple or three dozen Supreme Court decisions that have actually impacted my day-to-day practice and things my clients are doing in a pretty concrete way.

So we follow them as raptly as other people follow the big policy or political decisions, and often in much greater detail because we really have to figure out what they mean for us and our clients.

These decisions are, for the most part, apolitical, but still influenced to a degree by the philosophies and politics of the justices, sometimes in odd or unpredictable ways.

The other thing is that the procedural posture of the cases, like the Trump tax cases, sometimes affects the outcome in a way that makes it less decisive than everyone thought or hoped it would be. 

So you get used to "baby splits," or other unappealing outcomes, sometimes just because of the procedural posture.The "remand to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this opinion" is a common sister-kisser in a lot of them. 

Disappointment and dismay are common features of Supreme Court watching, even when there are few or no politics involved.  And not just when your side loses.

Obviously, the lay people don't really get this at all.  Some of the law dogs that don't have direct stakes in outcomes may not either.

The remands to the trial court for further proceedings in the Trump cases aren't some GOP plot to give Trump enough time to ride it to the election.  They were entirely predictable outcomes based on where the cases were and how they were ruled upon by the lower courts.

Edited July 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,843]

Whoah: https://apnews.com/638826b00bba1b389756126e4cfae97a

[Voldemort86 2,259]

5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Whoah: https://apnews.com/638826b00bba1b389756126e4cfae97a

You scared me. I was fearing a Supreme Court vacancy before I clicked on it.

[ftf82 485]

The Supreme Court rules 5-4, CJ + liberals, in rejecting a church’s objection to a shutdown order; conservatives dissent from denial.

Dissents

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief. This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10- screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by ftf82

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

To be fair, this was an application for an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the "shutdown" order pending appeal.  It is NOT a decision on the merits.

Based on what I have read of it, as set forth in Gorsuch's dissent, the shutdown order draws a rather arbitrary distinction between what churches can do as opposed to other gathering places.  It would seem that that distinction is indefensible.

But, likelihood of success on the merits is only one prong of the preliminary injunction analysis.

Because any court would be limited to enjoining the enforcement of the shutdown order as written as pertains to churches, it would leave churches in Nevada free of any shutdown order, at least until the state acted again.  Can't really have that.

[ftf82 485]

True that it was seeking relief from the denial of the injunction. But essentially that leaves the churches with no remedy, as any decision on the merits is likely months to a year or two away, so they'll end up mooted. As far as leaving the churches free of any shutdown orders, so what. Governor or legislature could fix that easily.

[henrygandorf 29,177]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be fair, this was an application for an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the "shutdown" order pending appeal.  It is NOT a decision on the merits.

Based on what I have read of it, as set forth in Gorsuch's dissent, the shutdown order draws a rather arbitrary distinction between what churches can do as opposed to other gathering places.  It would seem that that distinction is indefensible.

But, likelihood of success on the merits is only one prong of the preliminary injunction analysis.

Because any court would be limited to enjoining the enforcement of the shutdown order as written as pertains to churches, it would leave churches in Nevada free of any shutdown order, at least until the state acted again.  Can't really have that.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

True that it was seeking relief from the denial of the injunction. But essentially that leaves the churches with no remedy, as any decision on the merits is likely months to a year or two away, so they'll end up mooted. As far as leaving the churches free of any shutdown orders, so what. Governor or legislature could fix that easily.

I think the district court fucked it up frankly. It's an unpersuasive opinion. So did the ninth circuit probably. But it's not up to the Supreme Court to fix all lower court errors, especially preliminary ones. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,692]

1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

True that it was seeking relief from the denial of the injunction. But essentially that leaves the churches with no remedy, as any decision on the merits is likely months to a year or two away, so they'll end up mooted. As far as leaving the churches free of any shutdown orders, so what. Governor or legislature could fix that easily.

Welcome to the SCOTUS shadow docket. Florida’s allow disallowing felons to vote unless they’ve paid all their fines + restitution is almost certainly unconstitutional as a poll tax, but the court refused to put an injunction freezing the law during the appellate process, so this November a whole bunch of people won’t be able to vote because of an unconstitutional law. SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits, but materially affected the vote in FL anyways. 

[ftf82 485]

35 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Welcome to the SCOTUS shadow docket. Florida’s allow disallowing felons to vote unless they’ve paid all their fines + restitution is almost certainly unconstitutional as a poll tax, but the court refused to put an injunction freezing the law during the appellate process, so this November a whole bunch of people won’t be able to vote because of an unconstitutional law. SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits, but materially affected the vote in FL anyways. 

Well I wasn't discussing voting rights issues under the 24th Amendment. I was discussing abridgment of free exercise under the 1st (and freedom of assembly). I'm happy to discuss the 24th though. So is your position that permanently disenfranchising felons is not permissible? Because the Court, relying on the second clause of the 14th Amendment, has said it is, right or wrong. And if you can permanently disenfranchise felons, why wouldn't it be constitutional to conditionally allow them to vote if they satisfied the State's conditions?  In other words, why is it "almost certainly unconstitutional"? Seems like to me there's a reasonable basis to believe otherwise based on Richardson v Ramirez. Again, I'm not weighing in on the morality of it (for lack of a better word), but the Constitutionality.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Welcome to the SCOTUS shadow docket. Florida’s allow disallowing felons to vote unless they’ve paid all their fines + restitution is almost certainly unconstitutional as a poll tax, but the court refused to put an injunction freezing the law during the appellate process, so this November a whole bunch of people won’t be able to vote because of an unconstitutional law. SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits, but materially affected the vote in FL anyways. 

Yeah, this is what I meant about the justices going back and forth observing procedural niceties instead of the outcomes.  It's usually a Republican judge "stunt," but look at the dissents in the Nevada case.  Not a word about preliminary relief.

[Pig Bellmont 8,692]

19 hours ago, ftf82 said:

Well I wasn't discussing voting rights issues under the 24th Amendment. I was discussing abridgment of free exercise under the 1st (and freedom of assembly). I'm happy to discuss the 24th though. So is your position that permanently disenfranchising felons is not permissible? Because the Court, relying on the second clause of the 14th Amendment, has said it is, right or wrong. And if you can permanently disenfranchise felons, why wouldn't it be constitutional to conditionally allow them to vote if they satisfied the State's conditions?  In other words, why is it "almost certainly unconstitutional"? Seems like to me there's a reasonable basis to believe otherwise based on Richardson v Ramirez. Again, I'm not weighing in on the morality of it (for lack of a better word), but the Constitutionality.

Get this pseudo intellectual bs out of here. I was commenting on the SCOTUS practice of materially affecting cases and even executions by ruling - or not - on injunctions without actually reaching the merits. 
 

And my position is that the 24th Am. says the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged for failure to pay “any poll tax or other tax”. A state doesn’t violate that amendment if it takes the right to vote from someone who committed a felony, but they do if someone can’t vote simply bc they didn’t pay a fee. Richardson v Ramirez is about the 14th Am. and doesn’t have to do with this analysis. The FL in question is about paying fees and restitution, not about restricting voting rights on the basis of previously committed felonies. 
 

If you want to wager how SCOTUS will ultimately rule, you can buy me a 6 pack when I’m proven correct 

[wildcat09 29,257]

The real laughable thing about the Florida shit is the state has no mechanism in place to determine how much a felon owes or verify if they’ve paid their entire debt. And if they vote and the state later says they still owed money, that’s a felony. It’s an absurd nightmare system intentionally created to effectively overturn the amendment that was passed to re-enfranchise felons and send them back to prison for attempting to participate in our democracy.

Short of re-establishing chattel slavery, I have a hard time thinking of something more evil a state could do.

['stache 21,774]

Maybe a longshot, but does anyone have a Washington Post subscription who can post or send me the text of this article?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/17/supreme-court-oklahoma-oil-/

 

[elfenix 34,171]

pm sent

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Get this pseudo intellectual bs out of here. I was commenting on the SCOTUS practice of materially affecting cases and even executions by ruling - or not - on injunctions without actually reaching the merits. 
 

And my position is that the 24th Am. says the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged for failure to pay “any poll tax or other tax”. A state doesn’t violate that amendment if it takes the right to vote from someone who committed a felony, but they do if someone can’t vote simply bc they didn’t pay a fee. Richardson v Ramirez is about the 14th Am. and doesn’t have to do with this analysis. The FL in question is about paying fees and restitution, not about restricting voting rights on the basis of previously committed felonies. 
 

If you want to wager how SCOTUS will ultimately rule, you can buy me a 6 pack when I’m proven correct 

I'm all for mitigating collateral consequences for convicts.  And reducing sentences across the board. I don't really have a problem with those states that condition return of the franchise on completing parole or supervised release in addition to the carceral sentence.

And, I dislike conditioning return of the franchise on completing/fulfilling fines and restitution that stood zero chance of being defrayed when imposed, but I don't think it's a poll tax. 

 

[ftf82 485]

5 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Get this pseudo intellectual bs out of here.

Great. Now do Wickard.

[wildcat09 29,257]

Either a justice or someone very close to a justice has been leaking a ton of shit about this past term to Joan Biskupic. This is part one of what will apparently be a four part series: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-lgbtq-civil-rights-act-alito/index.html

Someone is clearly mad at Roberts, but who? I think the most obvious bet has to be Kavanaugh, but Alito and maybe Ginny Thomas seem like good bets as well.