U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

[clairecloutier]

I thought it might be useful to have a general thread for discussing issues relating to the Supreme Court and the U.S. courts.

Today I saw this opinion piece in the Guardian. It expands on some current Democratic ideas about rebalancing the SC and argues that Democrats (if we ever get back in power) need to move aggressively to rebalance the lower courts as well. The author makes the case that the concept of an independent judiciary is dead and unrealistic, that Rs acknowledge this and have done everything possible for years to install conservative judges, and that Dems need to respond in kind. Personally I’m quite worried about the effect that all the Trump-appointed, conservative lower-court judges are going to have on our judicial system and govt in years to come.

Enough playing nice. It’s time to pack the courts
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/19/pack-the-courts-democrats-2020

 

[Skittl1321]

Democrats will have a tough time packing the courts, even if they decide to try, with a Republican led senate...

It's not really even an option.

 

[NeilJLeonard]

Democrats will have a tough time packing the courts, even if they decide to try, with a Republican led senate...

It's not really even an option.

Vote the GOP out of office first. Then do what must be done. Also, investigate how much money the 1% are donating to education at all levels including law schools.

NJL

 

[clairecloutier]

Democrats will have a tough time packing the courts, even if they decide to try, with a Republican led senate...

It's not really even an option.

Obviously, it's not an option now. As I said above, it's something to consider should Dems ever regain control of the Senate and Presidency.

Democrats must be smarter about running on, and emphasizing, control of the judiciary. We should make it as central to our mission as the Republicans have. Trump's unqualified, controversial judicial appointees could potentially be used as a campaign issue for Dems, especially in more progressive areas.

 

[BittyBug]

I thought Pete Buttigieg made an interesting point when he observed that, faux outrage by R's about the idea of expanding the court notwithstanding, the R's unilaterally reduced the size of the court to 8 justices in 2016 (by failing to consider Merrick Garland's nomination), and then increased it back to 9 when they regained control of the White House.

 

[ilovepaydays]

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that this is an unreasonable search.

I wonder if this case will make it to the Supreme Court.

 

[MacMadame]

It's dumb because most places take a picture of your license and/or enter something in an online tracking system these days. So they are arguing about an antiquated system that will go away on its own.

 

[antmanb]

It's dumb because most places take a picture of your license and/or enter something in an online tracking system these days. So they are arguing about an antiquated system that will go away on its own.

Kind of off topic but I was genuinely fairly horrified that I had to take a drivers licence out with me to get into a lot of bars in NYC at night (i'm 40 and could never be mistaken for anything close to 21) and that a copy was taken of it when we entered at least three bars...given that they were also gay bars, viewed through the Data Protection lens of the EU, it made me ask a lot of questions about what was done with that data, where was it stored and why did they even take copies? I don't think they could do anything like that in the EU.

 

[allezfred]

Kind of off topic but I was genuinely fairly horrified that I had to take a drivers licence out with me to get into a lot of bars in NYC at night (i'm 40 and could never be mistaken for anything close to 21) and that a copy was taken of it when we entered at least three bars...given that they were also gay bars, viewed through the Data Protection lens of the EU, it made me ask a lot of questions about what was done with that data, where was it stored and why did they even take copies? I don't think they could do anything like that in the EU.

What?

 

[BlueRidge]

Adding another what?

They take a picture of your license? Or make a copy? I'm shocked that people aren't more concerned about this. Gad.

 

[rfisher]

Adding another what?

They take a picture of your license? Or make a copy? I'm shocked that people aren't more concerned about this. Gad.

Facebook is wanting a photo Id uploaded if you change email address or can't remember your password. Like their security is secure.

 

[antmanb]

Adding another what?

They take a picture of your license? Or make a copy? I'm shocked that people aren't more concerned about this. Gad.

They took pictures of our licences in front of us rather than take it away to make a copy. But I did wonder why, and what it was used for.

 

[Skittl1321]

Kind of off topic but I was genuinely fairly horrified that I had to take a drivers licence out with me to get into a lot of bars in NYC at night (i'm 40 and could never be mistaken for anything close to 21) and that a copy was taken of it when we entered at least three bars...given that they were also gay bars, viewed through the Data Protection lens of the EU, it made me ask a lot of questions about what was done with that data, where was it stored and why did they even take copies? I don't think they could do anything like that in the EU.

WOW. I have never had a copy of my license taken at a bar.

I did have a bouncer try to cut it for being fake when I was 20 (who has a fake ID that puts them months under 21?), and I pleaded to have the cop 3 inches away run it to see that it was real so they didn't destroy my license.

 

[BlueRidge]

They took pictures of our licences in front of us rather than take it away to make a copy. But I did wonder why, and what it was used for.

creepy.

 

[BittyBug]

....i'm 40 and could never be mistaken for anything close to 21....

I think the guidelines are that they card anyone who looks like they're under a certain age - maybe 40 - so feel flattered. It is no fun being in the crowd that they no longer card.

They took pictures of our licences in front of us rather than take it away to make a copy. But I did wonder why, and what it was used for.

My guess is their own protection. In many states bar operators have liability for anything that may happen if a customer becomes intoxicated at their establishment, and later causes some type of injury and there is a particular focus on serving underage customers, so it's probably to CYA. But as @BlueRidge noted, it is disturbing to think that this type of capture of so much personal data is fairly routine in the U.S.

 

[BlueRidge]

I think the guidelines are that they card anyone who looks like they're under a certain age - maybe 40 - so feel flattered. It is no fun being in the crowd that they no longer card.
My guess is their own protection. In many states bar operators have liability for anything that may happen if a customer becomes intoxicated at their establishment, and later causes some type of injury and there is a particular focus on serving underage customers, so it's probably to CYA. But as @BlueRidge noted, it is disturbing to think that this type of capture of so much personal data is fairly routine in the U.S.

That makes sense. I can't say I know much about bars...

 

[MacMadame]

In some places, their policy is to card everyone.

 

[once_upon]

In some places, their policy is to card everyone.

Yep. I'm about to turn 66 and am carded in several bars (having moved to a more urban area near a university).

And when we were in Anchorage last summer I was carded - my driver's license was a paper copy as I was waiting for the new one to be issued - and needed my passport as ID.

 

[ballettmaus]

Kavanaugh sided with the liberal judges in a decision against Apple https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-lawsuit-targeting-app-store-proceed/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_applescotus-1030am:homepage/story-ans&utm_term=.18893722aa5a



The conservative majority overturned a 40-year-old ruling. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-courts-conservatives-overturn-precedent-as-liberals-ask-which-cases-the-court-will-overrule-next/2019/05/13/b4d3c4f8-7595-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.e75a16b9a3fd

He conceded that it was not explicitly set out in the text of the document. However, “there are many other constitutional doctrines that are not spelled out in the Constitution but are nevertheless implicit in its structure and supported by historical practice,” Thomas wrote.

Good to know, Justice Thomas. I sure hope congressional lawyers remind him about his words in the near future.

 

[Zemgirl]

The NYT just yesterday published an article about the differences and similarities between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-neil-gorsuch.html

 

[ballettmaus]

Bad news for Manafort. The Supreme Court says a person can be tried in state and federal court for the same conduct. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause-case/index.html

 

[DORISPULASKI]

Also bad news for anyone else Trump might pardon

 

[DORISPULASKI]

The second LGBT nonbaking baker's case was sent back to the lower court in Oregon.

 

[ballettmaus]

Also bad news for anyone else Trump might pardon

Possibly bad news for Trump himself...

 

[BlueRidge]

uh what? Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims

 

[DORISPULASKI]

5 to 4. Usual suspects.

 

[BlueRidge]

From the Guardian:

Justice Kagan is reading her dissent in the partisan gerrymandering case from the bench, according to reporters in and out of the room. Reading a dissent from the bench is SCOTUS-speak for “the majority royally messed this one up.”

Here's how the NY Times puts it:
Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Bar Partisan Gerrymandering

 

[caseyedwards]

Too bad! Lines are getting more and more egregious!!! Just because politicians are given something to do shouldnt mean they get to be so partisan

 

[BlueRidge]

number 2 is coming out as we speak

(double entendre intended )

Here it is

The Trump administration will not be able to move ahead with its original plan to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 US Census, after the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court decision rejecting the commerce department’s stated justification for doing so.

But the commerce department might have time to advance alternative reasoning for including the citizenship question on the census, resulting in its inclusion, analysts said.

 

[rfisher]

From the Guardian:



Here's how the NY Times puts it:
Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Bar Partisan Gerrymandering

Then now is the time to start pushing for dropping the outdated electoral college system. That and for Democrats to focus on state and local elections.