Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (3 Viewers)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[MT15]

Bad comparisons.

If an owner fears consequences if she turns down a request to design a website that would violate her beliefs, something has already happened. What has happened is that the owner has been put in fear, in an attempt to force the owner to do what will violate her beliefs.

She needs relief from that, and the court is her place to seek it.

She lied in her case, and named a person who she claimed had asked her to do a website. That person didn’t even know her and isn’t gay.

The man named in the Supreme Court's gay rights ruling says he didn't request a wedding website

A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled could refuse to make a wedding website for gay couples had cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.

apnews.com

“Smith named Stewart — and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats. His contact information, but not his last name, were listed in court documents.”

 

[Snarky Sack]

ripe

www.law.cornell.edu

The plaintiff in this case presented false information using someone's name, email and contact information and presented it as factual. When a reporter asked the person about his request for a gay wedding website, he denied knowing anything about it. The guy has been married for 15 years to a woman and has kids. The plaintiff submitted false information as fact in a supreme court case.

Just looking at that, it seems that you are right. I had questioned that myself.

But, neither of us are on the SCOTUS, and neither of us are knowledgeable on that case.

Maybe the "ripeness" issue did not come up because the defendant avoided bringing up that issue. Maybe the state of Colorado thought its case was so strong that it wanted a ruling on the merits, not on the standing.

Maybe Colorado thought it would be bad optics for them to insist that the plaintiff wait for them to fine or imprison her before suing.

But, as far as I can see, you're right.

 

[SaintForLife]

We’ll see if anything happens with legacy admissions
==========

WASHINGTON (AP) — The next big fight over college admissions already has taken hold, and it centers on a different kind of minority group that gets a boost: children of alumni.

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that strikes down affirmative action in admissions, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to put an end to legacy preferences — the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. Long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy, opponents say it’s no longer defensible in a world with no counterbalance in affirmative action.

President Joe Biden suggested colleges should rethink the practice after the court’s ruling, saying legacy preferences “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court’s decision to remove race from the admissions process.

So did Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

“Let’s be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It’s called legacy admissions,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said on Twitter.

For critics of legacy admissions, the renewed debate over fairness in admissions has offered a chance to swing public sentiment behind their cause.

As colleges across the U.S. pledge their commitment to diversity following the court’s ruling, activists have a simple response: prove it. If schools want to enroll more Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, activists say, removing legacy preferences would be an easy first step.……

Affirmative action for white people? Legacy college admissions come under renewed scrutiny

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that removes race from the admissions process, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to stop favoring applicants with family ties to alumni.

apnews.com

 

[CoolBrees]

Biden wasn't VP in 2018.

He was a private citizen.

The conservatives in this board rally suck at this

 

[SaintForLife]

Biden wasn't VP in 2018.

He was a private citizen.

The conservatives in this board rally suck at this

Are you claiming someone has to be actively in government for it to be considered a legacy admission?

 

[CoolBrees]

Are you claiming someone has to be actively in government for it to be considered a legacy admission?

Are you claiming that, even if true, is a deviation from standard operating procedure at private universities?

 

[SaintForLife]

Are you claiming that, even if true, is a deviation from standard operating procedure at private universities?

Nice strawman, but I didn't claim anything. I simply showed Biden's hypocrisy. I'm all for getting rid of legacy admissions.

 

[MT15]

Are you claiming someone has to be actively in government for it to be considered a legacy admission?

Did Hunter or Joe attend that University? No? Do you even know what a legacy admission is? Good lord….

 

[Optimus Prime]

Could have gone in the gun control thread too
===================
In 2019, Zackey Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend in a Texasparking lot and threatened to shoot her. She escaped and applied for a restraining order, and Rahimi was placed under a protective order that prevented him from possessing firearms.

But later that year, within a matter of weeks, and in flagrant violation of the order against him, he was involved in five other shootings in the state.

He was charged with violating federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence protection orders from possessing them, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six years in prison.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, rejecting his argument that the law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

Then, after the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a Second Amendment case last year, the appeals court reversed its decision, vacated his conviction, and opened a pathway for another major Supreme Court case that could radically reshape the nation’s gun laws during a growing crisis for gun violence.

On the last day of its latest term, the Supreme Court announced plans to hear arguments in a case that asks whether the government can prohibit domestic violence offenders from owning firearms, setting up another major Second Amendment test before the nation’s highest court.…….

Should domestic abusers have the right to be armed? SCOTUS may scrap protections

A Texas man repeatedly violated a restraining order that forbids him from possessing a firearm under federal law. Justices will decide if judges went too far after they said it was unconstitutional, Alex Woodward reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Snarky Sack]

Could have gone in the gun control thread too
===================
In 2019, Zackey Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend in a Texasparking lot and threatened to shoot her. She escaped and applied for a restraining order, and Rahimi was placed under a protective order that prevented him from possessing firearms.

But later that year, within a matter of weeks, and in flagrant violation of the order against him, he was involved in five other shootings in the state.

He was charged with violating federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence protection orders from possessing them, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six years in prison.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, rejecting his argument that the law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

Then, after the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a Second Amendment case last year, the appeals court reversed its decision, vacated his conviction, and opened a pathway for another major Supreme Court case that could radically reshape the nation’s gun laws during a growing crisis for gun violence.

On the last day of its latest term, the Supreme Court announced plans to hear arguments in a case that asks whether the government can prohibit domestic violence offenders from owning firearms, setting up another major Second Amendment test before the nation’s highest court.…….

Should domestic abusers have the right to be armed? SCOTUS may scrap protections

A Texas man repeatedly violated a restraining order that forbids him from possessing a firearm under federal law. Justices will decide if judges went too far after they said it was unconstitutional, Alex Woodward reports

www.independent.co.uk

Domestic abusers should be tried for felony assault. If they are convicted, they will not be allowed to possess firearms. If kept in prison for a lengthy sentence, they will actually have to abide by that law.

I like that better than the mere accusation being used to take away a constitutional right.

 

[Optimus Prime]

More than half of Americans believe US Supreme Court justices decide cases largely on the basis of their partisan political views, a figure that has shot up 10 percentage points from January 2022.

That figure – 53 per cent – appears to be driven by the gulf between perceptions of the conservative supermajority court among Republican and Democratic voters following several controversial rulings at the end of its latest term, according to new polling from ABC News/Ipsos.….

Most Americans believe Supreme Court justices rule by politics, poll finds

Gulf between Republican and Democratic views on critical decisions drives perception of the court, poll finds

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

June 24 marked one year since the Supreme Court, in the landmark Dobbs case, overturned Roe v. Wade, shockingly reversing almost 50 years of precedent to strip away what had been a constitutional right to an abortion.

You see, the conservative justices in the majority of that 5-4 decision argued the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong” because the Constitution never mentioned abortion. That meant, the justices said, abortion couldn’t possibly be a constitutional right and must be left to the states.

Doing anything else would amount to activist judges “making things up,” or as the phrase goes, “legislating from the bench.” To hear Republicans talk, that’s pretty much the worst thing a federal judge could do.

It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.”

Now that Republican appointees are a supermajority on the Supreme Court, you would think that this majority would steer clear of anything that might look like it was writing laws and thereby undermining the people’s representatives in Congress.

But you’d be wrong.

Today’s conservative justices are happily imposing their reactionary legislative vision on America, not just by interpreting laws, but by effectively rewriting them, in order to implement unpopular policies that could never get passed through Congress. Separation of powers be damned.

Take some of the biggest, most divisive, most consequential issues in American life right now: student loan relief, climate change, voting rights, labor laws and gun control. Now the Supreme Court decides what happens on those issues. Not you. Not me. Not our elected representatives.…..

On climate change, the Supreme Court has undermined Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency twice in the last year alone.

In West Virginia v. EPA, a 6-3 majority ruled the EPA exceeded its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority: “It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. … A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself.”

Except that Congress did explicitly give the EPA the authority to use the “best system of emission reduction” when it passed the Clean Air Act in the '60s.

As Kagan put it in her dissent, “The Court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.”

Then in May in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in a precedent-setting opinion that the Clean Water Act only allows the EPA to regulate wetlands that have “a continuous surface connection” to “waters of the United States.”

Except that’s not what the law says. The law applies to “all waters of the United States” and explicitly wetlands "adjacent” to those waters. But instead of applying the law as written, Alito just changed the meaning of the word “adjacent” to mean “adjoining.”

You want Congress to decide how to protect our air and water? Tough. The Supreme Court decides that now.………

Opinion | Who died and made the Supreme Court a Congress?

Now that Republican appointees are a supermajority on the Supreme Court, it has set out to essentially rewrite American laws.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Incumbent]

Here is a way to frame this so it makes more sense. In the way you originally worded this, the voting base was simply smarter in 2020 to support Biden. It would give no credit to Biden for making inroads with progressives, and winning them over. Does that sound right?

I want to be clear the idea that progressives, or "Bernie Bros" are to blame for HRC losing, but Biden gets credit for getting them to vote for him logically makes no sense. It's either the fault of the candidate, or the voting base. I will never understand your kind of sentiments that put the fault with the voting base, and not the candidate.

You want people to vote for you? Run better candidates, and campaigns. The American public owes the DNP nothing.

It doesn't need to be reframed. I understand your position and disagree with it.

 

[J-DONK]

It doesn't need to be reframed. I understand your position and disagree with it.

That's interesting because I can easily reframe other candidates losing elections, and blame the voter base. As in Black southern Democrats are to blame for Bernie losing, and not himself. I could even go a step further as you did, and say that conservative black Democrats in the south need to simply get behind the progressive candidates that are more popular in battleground states so we can win elections.

Does this feel flawed to you? It shouldn't. It's the exact same overarching analysis of blaming the voter base vs the candidates for a loss.

 

[Incumbent]

That's interesting because I can easily reframe other candidates losing elections, and blame the voter base. As in Black southern Democrats are to blame for Bernie losing, and not himself. I could even go a step further as you did, and say that conservative black Democrats in the south need to simply get behind the progressive candidates that are more popular in battleground states so we can win elections.

Does this feel flawed to you? It shouldn't. It's the exact same overarching analysis of blaming the voter base vs the candidates for a loss.

I’m not omitting anybody in hoping that left-leaning voters, and anybody who opposes the hateful and anti-democratic base that has overtaken the Republican Party, will see their way to voting for whichever candidates stand in opposition.

If you can’t see the importance of voting for the candidates in general elections who most closely represent what is important to you, even if that is much less compelling than you’d hoped, I don’t know what else to say to you. Trump’s victory set progress back for years.

It’s entirely possible to be critical of a candidate and still understand they represent a better direction than the only other remaining alternative. It isn’t a betrayal of principles to see the bigger picture, it’s wise.

I’m a middle aged, middle class white guy. Election outcomes have far fewer consequences in my life but I’m voting for the interests of people who will and do suffer more directly. A lot of people are suffering today because of Trump’s victory.

 

[MT15]

I’m not omitting anybody in hoping that left-leaning voters, and anybody who opposes the hateful and anti-democratic base that has overtaken the Republican Party, will see their way to voting for whichever candidates stand in opposition.

If you can’t see the importance of voting for the candidates in general elections who most closely represent what is important to you, even if that is much less compelling than you’d hoped, I don’t know what else to say to you. Trump’s victory set progress back for years.

It’s entirely possible to be critical of a candidate and still understand they represent a better direction than the only other remaining alternative. It isn’t a betrayal of principles to see the bigger picture, it’s wise.

I’m a middle aged, middle class white guy. Election outcomes have far fewer consequences in my life but I’m voting for the interests of people who will and do suffer more directly. A lot of people are suffering today because of Trump’s victory.

Yes, like every woman in every state that has restricted abortion. And plenty more different types of people. It has set the US back decades, and we don’t know yet where it will stop. Same sex marriage is in jeopardy, IMO, as is the right to birth control. I could definitely see this court kicking both of those back to the states like they did Roe.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Progressives are still talking about the fact that the customer asking for a website for a gay wedding in the website design case may not have been authentic. They are such sore losers!

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be. The twist? Stewart says it never happened.

The revelation has raised questions about how Lorie Smith’s case was allowed to proceed all the way to the nation’s highest court with such an apparent misrepresentation and whether the state of Colorado, which lost the case last week, has any legal recourse.

The answer is no, they do not, but yes, they did. The state of Colorado could have challenged the authenticity of the case when it first came up. Why didn't they?

My guess is that they knew that such a case certainly would come up, and were as eager to get to court as Lorie Smith was, each side being confident of a victory. There is no reason to believe that the court would have decided any differently if another, more verifiable, client had asked for a website for a same sex wedding.

This is like convincing a spouse that you are right about something, only to have them come back to it over and over. Luckily, I never get that from Mrs. Snark. But mainly because I rarely convince her that I am right.

 

[MT15]

You want to talk about sore losers? lol. Have a talk with your boy, Trump, about that.

The answer is no, they do not, but yes, they did. The state of Colorado could have challenged the authenticity of the case when it first came up. Why didn't they?

Possibly because the AG in CO at that time was GOP? Suffice it to say the GOP no longer holds that office in CO.