U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,956
Then now is the time to start pushing for dropping the outdated electoral college system.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.
That's really the takeaway. We have to win everything, every seat possible, in 2020. From state legislature seats on up. It's all important.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,771
Also need to push at the state level for independent commissions to draw legislative districting maps. Of course this doesn't remove all politics but it adds a layer of distance.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,692
Wrote this over from a FB meme since I can't attach it -
"Florida - blocked campus voting
Georgia - purged 10s of 1000s of voters
Kansas - closed precincts in Hispanic areas
Michigan - stripped power from new Governor
North Carolina - collected democratic ballots and didn’t turn them in
North Dakota - restricted Native Amerces from voting
Texas - closed polling site on historically black college campuses
Wisconsin - stripping power from new Governor

Share if you are sick and tired of republicans cheating to win elections"

So they've got still got gerrymandering and they welcome help from other countries. What do they need the actual GOP voters for. New slogan - "we cheat so you can stay home on election day".
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,771
On the citizenship question, I'd say I don't know much about it but for the precedent of what the census has included and been about in the past which did not mean counting citizens, but I'm sure Pure-Unbiased-Moderate-Posters would realize I'm just being disingenous and making up a bullshit reason for my partisan support of whatever the liberals want.

Can I just say how much I hate that crap?

/thread dragging, not sorry...
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
31,128
The headlines are misleading. The SCOTUS didn't say partisan gerrymandering is okay. They said it's a States issue and not a Federal one.

I think that's crap personally, but so far the state courts have struck down partisan gerrymandering in every case that I know about. So the SCOTUS is not overturning the state decision that was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Unless I'm completely confused.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,771
The headlines are misleading. The SCOTUS didn't say partisan gerrymandering is okay. They said it's a States issue and not a Federal one.

I think that's crap personally, but so far the state courts have struck down partisan gerrymandering in every case that I know about. So the SCOTUS is not overturning the state decision that was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Unless I'm completely confused.
I believe the Supreme Court said that the constitution does not give any jurisdiction to federal courts in regards to Congressional districting.

so this excludes any appeal to a federal court.

This seems very strange to me. I have to read more of the reports.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
61,150
As I said, it becomes critical for states to not allow this and for voters to not allow it to happen within their state. This is the type of thing that is kept quiet until it's done and most voters don't pay attention until it's already happened.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,248

Could someone please explain what this latest ruling on gerrymandering means exactly? Did the SC void any ruling that has been made on gerrymandering by saying it's not a matter for federal courts?
 

Peaches LaTour

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,130
Wondrous news-just announced on the news that RBG is cancer-free!!!!

Please, God, let this lady live, healthy, for a long time to come.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,248
The Montana Supreme Court reversed a decision of a lower court that found that the Jehovah's Witnesses had failed to report child abuse. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795019348/montana-court-reverses-35-million-child-abuse-verdict-against-jehovahs-witnesses

The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a $35 million judgment against Jehovah's Witnesses for failing to report child sexual abuse.

A lower court had found that the church illegally failed to report a child sexual abuser to authorities, which allowed him to continue sexually abusing another child.

The unanimous decision from seven state Supreme Court justices found that religious authorities are not always obligated to report child sexual abuse to authorities due to an exemption in Montana state law.
The court's opinion states that Holly McGowan told local Jehovah's Witnesses elders in 1998 that she was being abused by her stepfather, Maximo Reyes, who had married her mother four years before. But because Reyes did not confess and McGowan did not have a second witness to her allegations, she was told that the elders could not take further action. According to the opinion, the abuse "escalated to numerous incidents of rape."

Six years later, her brother told an elder that their stepfather had also sexually abused him. McGowan provided a letter to back up his claims, acting as a second witness. The elder did not report the allegations to authorities but convened a committee that banished Reyes from the congregation. They reinstated him just over a year later at his request, according to the opinion.

In 2002, Reyes also started molesting Alexis Nunez, the niece of McGowan and her brother. "Alexis was five years old when Maximo's abuse began and ten years old when it ended," the opinion states. It says the abuse happened on a weekly basis.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,248
The SC lifted the injunction against Trump's new rule that allows DHS to deny entry to immigrants who they think are likely to use government benefit programs. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/5-4-ruling-supreme-court-allows-trump-plan-deny-green-n1124056?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said Monday that district court judges have been issuing nationwide injunctions much more often.

They called on their colleagues to review the practice, which they said has spread "chaos for the litigants, the government, the courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions."
Yeah, I wonder why that is. :shuffle:
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
Yeah, I wonder why that is. :shuffle:
Because the left has weaponized the judiciary. It’s ridiculous for district courts to be issuing national injunctions. It exceeds their scope and jurisdiction.

But now the right is responding in kind and treating judicial nominations and proceedings as zero sum games. Maybe at some point we’ll go back to actually passing legislation—preferably with broad consultation and consideration.
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,235
Because the left has weaponized the judiciary. It’s ridiculous for district courts to be issuing national injunctions. It exceeds their scope and jurisdiction.

But now the right is responding in kind and treating judicial nominations and proceedings as zero sum games. Maybe at some point we’ll go back to actually passing legislation—preferably with broad consultation and consideration.
I don't think so, Tim. :rolleyes:

The first time I heard of a District Court issuing a nationwide injunction was an (IMO ultra) conservative judge blocking a labor regulation propounded during the Obama administration. Now, I'm not saying it was the first ever, but it happened.

I did the research at that time because I was flabbergasted, and because we were actually trying to use the All Writs Act to accomplish some of the same goals.... oh well, too much inside baseball. Courts were weaponized way before "the left" (whatever that is) came in.

But Thomas didn't protest that nationwide injuction, AFAIK. Wonder why?:lol:
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
Certainly nationwide injunctions have happened previously, but the point the justices made was their recent rapid proliferation. I think such injunctions shouldn’t occur at the district level regardless, but I don’t think there’s much dispute that a critical part of the resistance efforts against the Trump administration has been to file challenges in left-leaning district courts to secure immediate nationwide injunctions, and certain judges have been responsive to that—particularly in the 9th circuit.

Weaponizing the judiciary in this way is problematic no matter who does it. But it follows a consolidation of executive authority that gained ground under Bush II, expanded greatly under Obama, and now is a staple of the current administration. The power of the legislature is being stripped away and replaced by fiats issued by the President and the judiciary. This is terribly dangerous precedent, and shouldn’t be applauded by any side.

Don’t get the Tim reference...
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,235
Thank you for the explanation @agalisgv ; the justices may have seen a rapid proliferation, of course, because this administration has chosen to disregard so much of the law. I don’t think I can agree that it is a creation of the left. Then again, I long for the days of my youth when we actually had pro choice Republicans....

also showing my age with “I don’t think so Tim”, it was a catchphrase from the sitcom “Home Improvement”. I’m too old to learn new catchphrases:D
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,248
Because the left has weaponized the judiciary.
Oh, the left is weaponizing the juidiciary? Good one. Which party was it again that refused to so much as hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee and is currently ramming one ultra-conservative (and sometimes unqualified) judge after another through the Senate?

You may not have noticed but there's a power-hungry authoritarian in the WH and since Republicans in Congress have decided that they don't want Congress to be a co-equal branch with oversight powers any longer, the judiciary is the only option that is left to try and stop him.

It’s ridiculous for district courts to be issuing national injunctions. It exceeds their scope and jurisdiction.
If the court system is set up in such a way that the people who are filing for these injunctions have to go to the district court first, how does it exceed their scope and jurisdiction?
 
Last edited:

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
Oh, the left is weaponizing the juidiciary? Good one. Which party was it again that refused to so much as hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee and is currently ramming one ultra-conservative (and sometimes unqualified) judge after another through the Senate?
I believe that was alluded to in the paragraph you didn’t quote. Nonetheless, the left has traditionally relied on courts and federal legislation to enact agendas whereas the right typically focuses more on state level legislation (though the penchant for executive orders is increasingly embraced and practiced by both sides).

To be clear, though, the issue at hand is the issuing of nationwide injunctions by district level judges to steer a political agenda one typically can’t accomplish legislatively, and the use of the courts this way tends to occur more with left than the right (though I think that will change with the next Dem President elected).
You may not have noticed but there's a power-hungry authoritarian in the WH and since Republicans in Congress have decided that they don't want Congress to be a co-equal branch with oversight powers any longer, the judiciary is the only option that is left to try and stop him.
The role of the judiciary is not to simply block your opponent. Just because one doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t make that law unconstitutional or a breach of civil rights. To use the courts to issue nationwide injunctions whenever one’s party doesn’t win an election is an abuse of power in itself. The fact that the left frequently reverts to that doesn’t make it less abusive.

Obama’s administration saw an incredible consolidation of power under the executive branch (as did Bush before him). Liberals didn’t mind it under Obama because it furthered liberal agendas. But now that Trump is in the WH, that same use of executive authority doesn’t look so good anymore.

I understand why it’s happening—the country is very polarized and that’s reflected in Congress. So to get things done, it’s easier to issue an executive order or get a judge to issue an injunction than it is to pass legislation. But this is an abdication of the duties of the legislative branch where democracy is most evident. And that’s a dangerous trend.
If the court system is set up in such a way that the people who are filing for these injunctions have to go to the district court first, how does it exceed their scope and jurisdiction?
Decisions should be issued within the jurisdictional confines of the district and not applied nationwide. At the circuit level, a wider jurisdiction is in play.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,956
Hmm, let’s see, which party cast aside all recent precedent that I’m aware of and declined to even hold hearings on an SC nominee? Which party blocked most of one President’s federal court appointees so that their party would have more appointees when they got their President in office?

But oh right, this is a “leftist” consolidation of judicial power :rolleyes: :rofl:
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
Appointing judges is a normal part of the functioning of the executive branch. Filibustering nominees is a prerogative of the legislative branch (and is being done far more against Trump than was against Obama—those stats are available if folk are interested). Those aren’t abuses of power.

What I’m talking about are third parties bringing suit against laws or orders they don’t like, filing them in friendly districts to get a sympathetic judge to issue a nationwide injunction before the case has ever been tried. This has been an intentional policy of the resistance, and it’s a weaponization of the judiciary. That’s what Gorsuch was addressing (though he didn’t attribute it to a particular side).

From Vox:
Democrats would actually do well to listen to Gorsuch. In the long run, they have far more to gain than the GOP from Gorsuch’s approach, which would strip liberals of a tool they’ve used to challenge Trump’s policies — but Democratic presidents have much more to fear from a too-aggressive judiciary than Republicans.

...
It’s working in Democrats’ favor — for now. But in the long term, nationwide injunctions are likely to be a much bigger thorn in the side of Democratic presidents than they are for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court, after all, is controlled by Republicans. So liberal nationwide injunctions tend to be wiped away quickly, while conservative injunctions may last forever.

It’s also likely that Republican litigants will have a much easier time finding judges willing to block Democratic policies. Trump, after all, has filled the federal court with deeply ideological judges. And a party seeking a nationwide injunction may need to find only a single judge willing to hand down such an order.

The writer goes on to explain how district court judges have issued more nationwide injunctions against Trump than were issued in the entire 20th century combined. And while this is being applauded for stopping Trump now, it can be used against Dems under a Dem presidency to far more chilling effect. The writer advocates limiting or eliminating nationwide injunctions as a result and forming a coalition around the Gorsuch/Thomas opinion to preserve Dem policies in the future.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information