Things the Supreme Court will ruin - 2020 edition

[wildcat09 29256]

2 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

I still think this is an extremely stupid solution. It depends on the Republicans on the Supreme Court acknowledging Congress' right to do that and there's absolutely no reason to think they would.

[CooterBrown 17911]

What do we think the odds are of Biden actually packing the court?  I was surprised that it was as easy as it was but do we think he'll actually go through with it?

Unfortunately Biden is a pussy who thinks he can reach across the aisle.

Best case scenario is that Biden dies in the spring, Harris takes over, straps on the spiked rusty dick and butt and skull fucks the GOP to death.

[yoladu 4067]

4 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Unfortunately Biden is a pussy who thinks he can reach across the aisle.

Best case scenario is that Biden dies in the spring, Harris takes over, straps on the spiked rusty dick and butt and skull fucks the GOP to death.

[yoladu 4067]

preview for ya..

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump-biden/index.html

Brett Kavanaugh foreshadows how Supreme Court could disrupt vote counting

 

again.. ruling not to extend rights, but to take away rights.

Edited October 27, 2020 by yoladu

[CowboyFred 1151]

7 minutes ago, yoladu said:

preview for ya..

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump-biden/index.html

Brett Kavanaugh foreshadows how Supreme Court could disrupt vote counting

 

again.. ruling not to extend rights, but to take away rights.

this was a good twitter thread that took his concurrence apart for the sham it was 

 

[Asithappens 974]

Itself.

Scotus will ruin itself. 

 

[Asithappens 974]

16 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also, she never really wanted to retire. She was always going to work until she died in spite of her brief flirtation with retirement. She happened to die when Trump was President. 

She moved us forward. That is her legacy. Others may move us backward after her, but that is their legacy, not hers. 

Her legacy is also not retiring and letting Obama fill her seat.

All the other things you said were true, but jesus, face some reality. 

This is why the Dems typically lose against the GOP. 

[safe sex 11682]

As if the GOP would have let Obama replace RBG lol

[Bama Chick 28596]

As if the GOP would have let Obama replace RBG lol

Exactly.

We’d just have another name to go with Merrick Garland in the “Can Y’all Believe This Shit???” chapter in future history books.

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

On the upside, it could be a golden age for abortion tourism. Just the shot in the arm that the airlines need.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

More opinion Kavanaugh's opinion:

 

[wildcat09 29256]

13 hours ago, trauma babe said:

As if the GOP would have let Obama replace RBG lol

They wouldn’t have been able to stop it if she’d retired in 2014. GOP didn’t control the senate until 2015.

[Aqua Buddha 14519]

I like how this very court said we didn't need federal oversight in regards to extending the Voting Rights Act but they won't hesitate to tell precincts in Wisconsin how and when to count votes.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Most of the items that have already been mentioned. Might end up hearing the appeal with college athletics and the NCAA if that hasn't been decided yet and it won't end well for the players regardless. Perhaps challenges to how the FCC grants licenses to foreign entities or a another case that pecks away at the 'free' press if those don't get squared away in the lower courts. With so many judges appointed, I wonder how much will get passed upward from the dark money groups and how much will likewise be stopped. That happens, right?

 

 

[Jester 382]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

More opinion Kavanaugh's opinion:

 

Look.  I hate Kavanaugh, but that isn't what he said.  Seems like fear mongering to me.  Now, that's not to say Kavanaugh won't attempt something shady as hell if this ends up in the Supreme Court, but to infer that Kavanaugh claimed 'that states announce the winner on an election night' based on these excerpts is incorrect.  Caveat:  I didn't read the full concurrence.  Just what was in the original Phillip tweet.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

15 minutes ago, Jester said:

Look.  I hate Kavanaugh, but that isn't what he said.  Seems like fear mongering to me.  Now, that's not to say Kavanaugh won't attempt something shady as hell if this ends up in the Supreme Court, but to infer that Kavanaugh claimed 'that states announce the winner on an election night' based on these excerpts is incorrect.  Caveat:  I didn't read the full concurrence.  Just what was in the original Phillip tweet.

The legal folks here can address this better than I, but my understanding was that part of the 'thingies' (important legal term) he quoted were not necessarily the same? Example: he used Vermont as an example of a state that did not change their rules during a pandemic but in actuality, they did. The article he cites by Pildes argues that states should extend their mail by date deadlines because of the undue burden on the postal service. Remember, this is in a state that couldn't get its ballots mailed out in time for the last election. So, one week before the final election day during a pandemic that is unduly affecting a state, saying that "states want to definitely announce the winner on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter" and following that with the quote by Pildes "If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode." But omits that Pildes was arguing that in light of that election officials and postal workings needing to work around the pandemic and attempting to avoid having ballots arrive late because the mail service had been disrupted.

So, it's a little of both maybe? I'm a blurry person, but legal people are much more specific.

[Jester 382]

11 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The legal folks here can address this better than I, but my understanding was that part of the 'thingies' (important legal term) he quoted were not necessarily the same? Example: he used Vermont as an example of a state that did not change their rules during a pandemic but in actuality, they did. The article he cites by Pildes argues that states should extend their mail by date deadlines because of the undue burden on the postal service. Remember, this is in a state that couldn't get its ballots mailed out in time for the last election. So, one week before the final election day during a pandemic that is unduly affecting a state, saying that "states want to definitely announce the winner on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter" and following that with the quote by Pildes "If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode." But omits that Pildes was arguing that in light of that election officials and postal workings needing to work around the pandemic and attempting to avoid having ballots arrive late because the mail service had been disrupted.

So, it's a little of both maybe? I'm a blurry person, but legal people are much more specific.

Agreed.  The states should change the rules.  But in this specific circumstance (for what the opinion is based on), they didn't.   The courts changed it after a challenge.  Kavanaugh seems to be vesting the rights to change election laws with the state legislature, and not the courts.  I think that is pretty much in line with what I would expect from him and other conservatives, this pandemic and unique circumstances you reference above be damned.  Problem is obviously where the state legislature is controlled by republicans = no changes.

I think the part to focus on in Kavanaugh's concurrence is 'or as soon as possible thereafter.'  That could mean a day, 3 days, a week, etc. based on each state's rules.  Note, there aren't challenges to laws where state legislatures have different rules (for instance, Texas allows for the receipt of mail in ballots up to 24 hours after the election date).  He referenced a few other states doing the same or having deadlines even further out.  The key there is that the legislature enacted those rules, not the courts after a challenge.

I think the problem here is more-so with the state legislature(s) than the opinion itself.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Jester

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

11 minutes ago, Jester said:

Agreed.  The states should change the rules.  But in this specific circumstance (for what the opinion is based on), they didn't.   The courts changed it after a challenge.  Kavanaugh seems to be vesting the rights to change election laws with the state legislature, and not the courts.  I think that is pretty much in line with what I would expect from him and other conservatives, this pandemic and unique circumstances you reference above be damned.  Problem is obviously where the state legislature is controlled by republicans = no changes.

I think the part to focus on in Kavanaugh's concurrence is 'or as soon as possible thereafter.'  That could mean a day, 3 days, a week, etc. based on each state's rules.  Note, there aren't challenges to laws where state legislatures have different rules (for instance, Texas allows for the receipt of mail in ballots up to 24 hours after the election date).  He referenced a few other states doing the same or having deadlines even further out.  The key there is that the legislature enacted those rules, not the courts after a challenge.

I think the problem here is more-so with the state legislature(s) than the opinion itself.

Okay, fair enough. I don't know what the heck happened to Wisconsin after we moved. They seem to have lost their sensibility.

[wildcat09 29256]

28 minutes ago, Jester said:

Agreed.  The states should change the rules.  But in this specific circumstance (for what the opinion is based on), they didn't.   The courts changed it after a challenge.  Kavanaugh seems to be vesting the rights to change election laws with the state legislature, and not the courts.  I think that is pretty much in line with what I would expect from him and other conservatives, this pandemic and unique circumstances you reference above be damned.  Problem is obviously where the state legislature is controlled by republicans = no changes.

I think the part to focus on in Kavanaugh's concurrence is 'or as soon as possible thereafter.'  That could mean a day, 3 days, a week, etc. based on each state's rules.  Note, there aren't challenges to laws where state legislatures have different rules (for instance, Texas allows for the receipt of mail in ballots up to 24 hours after the election date).  He referenced a few other states doing the same or having deadlines even further out.  The key there is that the legislature enacted those rules, not the courts after a challenge.

I think the problem here is more-so with the state legislature(s) than the opinion itself.

The part to focus on is his bullshit that States want to announce the winner before the vote is certified. That's not how it works at all, and even if it was it is absolutely absurd to think that a state's interest in announcing a winner as soon as possible should prevail over the right of the people to vote.

[Ted Lange 16052]

Fun thread.  
 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32341]

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32341]

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Alito is a Covid denier.

Least surprising news ever.

He’s been able to fly under the radar because of Thomas’s crazy and the sideshows of Kavanaugh and ACB but he’s the most dangerous kind of nutter - the stealth nutter.

[Willfully Horn 7913]

On 10/27/2020 at 9:07 AM, hayden_horn said:

sow the wind, dude, sow the fucking wind

Plant ice,  harvest wind. Sow wind, reap the whirlwind. Through it all, the dude abides.

[Voldemort86 2259]

On 11/12/2020 at 10:39 PM, Bama Chick said:

Alito is a Covid denier.

Least surprising news ever.

He’s been able to fly under the radar because of Thomas’s crazy and the sideshows of Kavanaugh and ACB but he’s the most dangerous kind of nutter - the stealth nutter.

I wish a meteor would hit alito and Thomas’s house in the off-season.

[troph 24562]

 
 

People can say what they want so long as we can marry who we want. Doesn’t take an Ivy League lawyer to figure that one out justice Alito. As for a court clerk giving or refusing to give the marriage license at the court house well, that’s not speech, that’s a ministerial duty owed to all under the equal protection clause of the US constitution. If you wish to exercise your first amendment rights please do so on the steps of the courthouse, you’re welcome to accuse me of being a spawn of Satan there.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Worth noting as the Trump Administration ends; that while they have executed more inmates going back for decades, they did fail on Stephen Miller's objective of reaching the symbolic 14, I believe.

Here is a bit that Sotomayor wrote:

 

 

 

[elfenix 34171]

Can't wait for the supreme court to decide that privacy means the government can't force the disclosure of dark money donor lists. Fedsoc and its justices can't let the well go dry.

[Js1 85110]

30 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Worth noting as the Trump Administration ends; that while they have executed more inmates going back for decades, they did fail on Stephen Miller's objective of reaching the symbolic 14, I believe.

Here is a bit that Sotomayor wrote:

 

 

 

There’s been as many federal executions in the past few months than the past few decades. Fuck Trump