The Supremes

[tx 3 putt 76,859]

Fuck this current conservative group.

This court is going to be dealing out pain for years to come. Roe v Wade and LGBTQ rights are in the cross hairs. 

There is only one reason to gerrymander, to suppress voting rights. 

The country just took a huge step away from being a democracy today. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by tx 3 putt

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Yep, fuck every one of you who voted for Trump unless you're 100% okay with voter suppression. This is how the GOP will hold onto power over the next 20 years even after all the old white people start to die off.

 

Edit: Every single Dem candidate in the debates tonight needs to talk about packing the court to fight this, fuck trying to appeal to anyone who thinks that isn't a good idea.

Edited June 27, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Straight up subversion of democracy happened today. 

[Firemans4Horn 18,034]

Hot garbage. 

[Fozzz 152]

People seem awfully surprised on twitter.  I know this is cliche, but lol, what were they expecting?

[tx 3 putt 76,859]

I was hoping Roberts would show some common sense and swing this decision 

[Js1 85,258]

LOL so NOW SCOTUS decides something is too political for them to issue an opinion on? 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

We need smart conservative justices that can call balls and strikes, not these radical liberals!

*massive amount of evidence of racial discrimination being used for gerrymandered map in NC*

Conservative Justices: This is just too complicated, we can't tell if it's a ball or strike. We are very smart and not garbage human beings that don't deserve to live on this earth.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LOL so NOW SCOTUS decides something is too political for them to issue an opinion on? 

Probably the most absurd excuse I've ever seen coming from the Supreme Court.  They could use this justification for almost anything. 

[Js1 85,258]

Can someone smarter than me explain WTF they decided on the citizenship question for the census?

I'm seeing it was both blocked but also giving Commerce a 2nd shot to explain themselves? 

[wildcat09 29,338]

I told y'all John Roberts wouldn't save us.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

We need smart conservative justices that can call balls and strikes, not these radical liberals!

*massive amount of evidence of racial discrimination being used for gerrymandered map in NC*

Conservative Justices: This is just too complicated, we can't tell if it's a ball or strike. We are very smart and not garbage human beings that don't deserve to live on this earth.

You look up all the shenanigans the liberal justices were involved in during the gilded and progressive eras and the idea of "balls and strikes" becomes so laughable.  The judicial branch is THE arm of government responsible for advancing policy that cannot be advanced electorally.  

Edited June 27, 2019 by Fozzz

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Can someone smarter than me explain WTF they decided on the citizenship question for the census?

I'm seeing it was both blocked but also giving Commerce a 2nd shot to explain themselves? 

whatever it means, this is always a good sign:

Quote

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

That's an impressive #both sides, even for you Fozzz. 

[bolverk 29,644]

18 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Yep, fuck every one of you who voted for Trump unless you're 100% okay with voter suppression. This is how the GOP will hold onto power over the next 20 years even after all the old white people start to die off.

  

Edit: Every single Dem candidate in the debates tonight needs to talk about packing the court to fight this, fuck trying to appeal to anyone who thinks that isn't a good idea.

Between this and Citizen's United, I think we can all agree that this is the point.

[RomaVicta 29,892]

Mitch McConnell delenda est.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, suddenly shaggy said:

That's an impressive #both sides, even for you Fozzz. 

The liberals of the gilded age are the conservatives of today.  Look up William Graham Sumner, for instance.  

[Js1 85,258]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

 

whatever it means, this is always a good sign:

 

[Biff Tannen 45,661]

This seems antithetical to the idea of making this country less polarized.  If I understand correctly, SCOTUS basically said gerrymandering is part of the fabric of this nation.  So now there is no answer other than each party, whenever they are in power, to completely goat fuck the other side and rig the system as hard as they can.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The liberals of the gilded age are the conservatives of today.  Look up William Graham Sumner, for instance.  

If you're that concerned about it, I'm sure he must have burned the 30,000 Pony Express letters and acid-washed his printing press. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I thought Roberts would have trouble calling Ross a liar.  He was fine with it, turns out.

Quote

That evidence showed that the Secretary was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process. In the District Court’s view, this evidence established that the Secretary had made up his mind to reinstate a citizenship question “well before” receiving DOJ’s request, and did so for reasons unknown but unrelated to the VRA. 351 F. Supp. 3d, at 660.

 

[elfenix 34,221]

Mitch is erect

[David Dennison 18,837]

Racism's over, y'all.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

This country was so fucked. Now we are super duper fucked. 

[Fozzz 152]

There is a good new documentary on Netflix called The Edge of Democracy that is about the impeachment of Rousseff.  I think we are basically headed to the same fate as Brazil, they are just 5-10 years ahead of us.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Alito's opinion on the census brings up a good point.

Quote

Asking about citizenship on the census also has a rich history in our country. Every census, from the very first one in 1790 to the most recent in 2010, has sought not just a count of the number of inhabitants but also varying amounts of additional demographic information. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, as president of the American Philosophical Society, signed a letter to Congress asking for the inclusion on the census of questions regarding “‘the respective numbers of native citizens, citizens of foreign birth, and of aliens’” “‘for the purpose . . . of more exactly distinguishing the increase of population by birth and immigration.’” C. Wright, History and Growth of the United States Census (prepared for the Senate Committee on the Census), S. Doc. No. 194, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1900). In 1820, John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, was responsible for conducting the census, and consistent with the 1820 Census Act, he instructed the marshals who were charged with gathering the information to ask about citizenship.4 In 1830, when Martin Van Buren was Secretary of State, a question about citizenship was again included.5 With the exception of the census of 1840, at least some portion of the population was asked a question about citizenship as part of the census through 2000, after which the question was moved to the American Community Survey, which is sent to only a small fraction of the population. All these census inquiries were made by the Executive pursuant to congressional authorization. None were reviewed by the courts. Now, for the first time, this Court has seen fit to claim a role with respect to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, and in doing so, the Court has set a dangerous precedent, both with regard to the census itself and with regard to judicial review of all other executive agency actions. For the reasons ably stated by JUSTICE THOMAS, see ante, p. ___ (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), today’s decision is either an aberration or a license for widespread judicial inquiry into the motivations of Executive Branch officials. If this case is taken as a model, then any one of the approximately 1,000 district court judges in this country, upon receiving information that a controversial agency decision might have been motivated by some unstated consideration, may order the questioning of Cabinet officers and other high-ranking Executive Branch officials, and the judge may then pass judgment on whether the decision was pretextual. What Bismarck is reputed to have said about laws and sausages comes to mind. And that goes for decisionmaking by all three branches.

Our slow-moving review process assumes a baseline level of honesty in the population.  When we elect a team of frauds to run us, there is suddenly going to be too many new areas where people are asking the Court to stick their nose in.  "Never before have we reviewed whether a citizenship question is illegal in a census."  Well, because we've never had an administration that has figured out how to use that to hurt the republic.  Now that someone has, the court is asked to review it.

In order to do so, the court was forced to open the door to any of 10,000 challenges that might be seen at the lower level.  There is no way we have the resourced to do so.  But to admit that is to let the Commerce Department conduct an intentionally bad census for the purpose of fucking minorities.

The entire Trump administration is a stress test for our country.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

 

 

[Captainant 27,619]

Roberts may be perhaps one of the most caustic people against democracy. His needlessly over-broad opinion in citizens united caused a justice to retire prematurely in protest, and has directly led to the unlimited infusion of dark money into our politics. This newest decision not only acknowledges that the gerrymandering is an unjust thing to occur and will damage democracy, but he also attempts to put future courts in a position where they can no longer hear these cases. What a fucking piece of shit. I hope his legacy is remembered by only these two catastrophically bad decisions, and no further damage to our democracy.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Roberts may be perhaps one of the most caustic people against democracy. His needlessly over-broad opinion in citizens united caused a justice to retire prematurely in protest, and has directly led to the unlimited infusion of dark money into our politics. This newest decision not only acknowledges that the gerrymandering is an unjust thing to occur and will damage democracy, but he also attempts to put future courts in a position where they can no longer hear these cases. What a fucking piece of shit. I hope his legacy is remembered by only these two catastrophically bad decisions, and no further damage to our democracy.

I think the gerrymander law is temporary.  I think the solution ends up being that the next VRA-type law include some provisions in it that SCOTUS can police.  

[Lurch 5,922]

Pack the fucking court.

[wildcat09 29,338]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Roberts may be perhaps one of the most caustic people against democracy. His needlessly over-broad opinion in citizens united caused a justice to retire prematurely in protest, and has directly led to the unlimited infusion of dark money into our politics. This newest decision not only acknowledges that the gerrymandering is an unjust thing to occur and will damage democracy, but he also attempts to put future courts in a position where they can no longer hear these cases. What a fucking piece of shit. I hope his legacy is remembered by only these two catastrophically bad decisions, and no further damage to our democracy.

Citizens United, Shelby County, and Rucho are one hell of an awfulness trifecta.  He's essentially made it perfectly legal for the GOP to destroy American democracy.

[wildcat09 29,338]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the gerrymander law is temporary.  I think the solution ends up being that the next VRA-type law include some provisions in it that SCOTUS can police.  

There won't be one for a long time. Roberts has made it a near certainty.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

 

i admit i haven't been following this one as closely, but wouldn't the "explanation" kinda be obvious after that memo leaked? 

[Captainant 27,619]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the gerrymander law is temporary.  I think the solution ends up being that the next VRA-type law include some provisions in it that SCOTUS can police.  

You know that Robert's court gutted the VRA on the basis of "its original purpose has been fulfilled and the act is no longer necessary in the US", right?

Ya know, I'll add that case to my shame-list for roberts.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You know that Robert's court gutted the VRA on the basis of "its original purpose has been fulfilled and the act is no longer necessary in the US", right?

Ya know, I'll add that case to my shame-list for roberts.

The gerrymander case was just tossed because it was non-justiciable.  You could get a law as early as next year that fixes that.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

*next year = as a result of the election next year.  so I guess I mean 2 years from now.

[Captainant 27,619]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The gerrymander case was just tossed because it was non-justiciable.  You could get a law as early as next year that fixes that.

And the people voting on that law are being elected from districts that have been designed to guarantee a specific outcome for representation. I don't think the people who are winning because of their partisan gerrymandering are going to fix that problem.

[Bateshorn 9,927]

The fact that multiple federal jurisdictions, conservative and liberal, have sent them redistricting cases, often with the lower justices presenting thoughtful decisions arguing against partisan redistricting, and the Supreme's basically said "Hell No.  And stop sending us cases."  tells you what a shitty decision this is.   Everyone is telling you the house is on fire and the Surpreme's just screamed SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 

The hypocrisy of the Roberts court gutting VRA while throwing up it's hands to say "too hard, too political" on this is breathtaking. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Bateshorn 9,927]

The Census thing is a fig leaf at best.  The Commerce Department was in direct violation of the Administrative Procedures Act in both the spirit and the letter of the law.  It's an open and shut case, AND Ross lied multiple times under oath, was caught in that lie, and LIED again, and was caught again.  The Soliciter General should have been laughed out of the court room.  He's sending it back to Commerce so they can get their story straight for the 3rd time, and Roberts can green light an emergency repeal on the pending case moving through the 4th circuit right now.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19,184]

Boring.  What's on TV tonight?

[Bateshorn 9,927]

Lol,  if the economy collapses and the Dems win overwhelming majorities and start redistricting the shit out of the GOP, I'm guessing Roberts will want to take another look at this case.

[Js1 85,258]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Bateshorn 9,927]

If I was the judge in New York who is reopening this case,  I would slow walk the fuck out of discovery.  "Uh, yeah,  let's make the deadlines for brief's December 24.  We'll start proceedings in January of 2020. Guess we aren't gonna make that Census printer deadline."

[sidis 9,821]

fucking clownshow move, roberts...

republicans gonna regret this one in the not-too-distant future.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

It feels like these fuckers will try again and possibly get a reason that’s suitable for the court.

 

am I wrong? What are the chances this is on the 2020 census?  I sure as fuck hope it’s not. It’s painfully obvious Trump doesn’t care about getting an accurate count ( which is the point of the census), he just wants to get more seats in red states. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Voldemort86

[yoladu 4,090]

I need people smarter than me to boil this down..

Did the Supreme Court just say that although gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles' those bodies responsible for gerrymanding get to rule the roost?

And since that roost has stacked the deck, via gerrymandering, there is no real mechanism available to the majority to stop this implementation of policies 'incompatible with democratic principles'?

Is that it?

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by yoladu

[tantric superman 4,667]

57 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This seems antithetical to the idea of making this country less polarized.

I guess if you were a conservative you would argue that this allows the people to pick legislators who will ultimately self police themselves. 

It's kind of absurd.  Like deciding that the best way to eliminate theft is to get government out of the business of enforcing laws against theft. 

Just like the latter would ultimately lead to vigilantism and perhaps a larger number of fingers and hands being chopped off, the former seems like it would lead to schism and revolution.

 

[Bateshorn 9,927]

5 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

It feels like these fuckers will try again and possibly get a reason that’s suitable for the court.

 

am I wrong? What are the chances this is on the 2020 census?  I sure as fuck hope it’s not. It’s painfully obvious Trump doesn’t care about getting an accurate count ( which is the point of the census), he just wants to get more seats in red states. 

This is correct.  Roberts is essentially saying "I couldn't buy your bullshit with a straight face, but I want to help you.  Go back and come back with another justification."

[hayden_horn 11,362]

yeah, feels like roberts has pretty much just stated his intent. 

shame. it's a real shame.

but, one can hope that his means congress gets itself unfucked and starts legislat-mwhahahaahhaha who the fuck am i kidding