The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Yes….by all means….lets not reform the Supreme Court

BREAKING

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court refuses to halt the execution of Missouri death row inmate Marcellus Williams.

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) September 24, 2024

For this not aware….even the prosecution now claims he was wrongfully convicted.

 

She is from a small but overly vocal and demonstrative demo that no respectable Black man would have anything to do with. She denigrates her own race by falsely suggesting that what she is, is what most sisters are*. Just bouncing your post to use as a teachable moment to say that.

*That technically isn't what she did, if you're quoting her completely, but that's what her White audience members left with. I'm sure someone probably dismissed the stupidity by saying, "It's only comedy"... Nah, way off. She's willing to spread shit to get laughs and make money instead of getting a REAL job.

 

At what point is the prison staff doing this “just following orders”

Missouri executes Marcellus Williams despite prosecutors’ push to overturn conviction https://t.co/ghx7zBXcY6

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 24, 2024

 

Treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution-- it is beyond their reach. It is only possible in time of war...

 

Catholic, too.

 

They already whited out part of the constitution this summer. You telling me they wouldn't invent some "history" about the meaning of the word "war" and how Congress has allowed the Executive to define it more loosely over the years, therefore Trump's prosecutions against Democratic politicians, donors, and voters as treason can move forward.

And in an alternate timeline they'd toss out such a charge against Trump because war has an absolute definition and the founders made it clear.

 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’m well aware of the definition of treason. He’s saying they’ve made the president immune from charges of treason. It doesn’t matter how treason is defined in the constitution if he is immune from the charge.

this was not at all what he was talking about. It wasn’t anything about charging others for treason. It was about their immunity ruling…and the fact that they didn’t even carve out (make an exception to) presidential immunity for treason.

And the video doesn’t even focus on the treason part…it is about the Supreme Court inventing presidential immunity. If anything…Whitehouse screws up by even discussing treason in relationship to the president or adding it to this tweet…as I’m not sure anything the president could do would ever be chargeable for treason…under any scotus ever. I can’t envision the founding fathers thinking that the part of the government specifically authorized to negotiate with our enemies be subject to charges of treason. That makes zero sense.

My point is….Whitehouse has been publicly speaking for years about the fact that our court has been captured….and absolutely eviscerates the immunity ruling…. where dickweeds like Durbin can’t even think of dropping things like blue slips.

 

Yeah, Democrats are going to have to fix the Supreme Court once they’ve dealt with the fascist threat.

There are lots of ideas out there, but I’m deeply pessimistic about them. The ones that might get enacted (ethical standards) won’t really curb their power, and the ones that might curb their power, I don’t see how they get enacted, not in the short or even medium (before the 30s hit us) terms.

The “best” combination of that is, frankly, President Harris going Andrew Jackson on them. But an action such as that would leave an enormous amount of scar tissue on our politics.

 

I guess that depends upon how one branch was able to go rogue in the first place. And in this case, it’s down to one of two parties going rogue in a chamber of the leg due to electoral system quirks. The twenty smallest GOP heavy states are capable of delivering 80% of what they need for Senate control with less than 19% of the population. With that degree of electoral protection, there’s no meaningful path toward legislative reform or reining this in via the judicial confirmation process. And the same issue manifests in the constitutional amendment process and the EC to determine the executive, which is how we end up with Harris probably needing to win nationally by 4pts against a guy who did a treason and an assault and who speaks of Haitians eating pets in Ohio on the national debate stage. The GOP no longer needs to be serious about anything other than consolidating power.

But the alternative (addressing outside of normal Constitutional order) is almost certainly more terrifying than the current status.

And that scar tissue/damage would stick to Dems much more. 2026 would be a disaster as would 2028. Because of the built in GOP Senate/EC cushion.

 

I don’t understand this pessimism. You need a trifecta and enough of a senate lead to vote to overturn the filibuster. Then pass legislation expanding the court.

My response to “but they could then do the same thing” is that they’d need to get a trifecta first…in a world where gerrymandering, voter suppression and unlimited dark political money is unconstitutional. Good luck. And if they get it..:fine..:that’s the world we live in….which is exactly the world we live in now.

 

The problem is that the trifecta is much easier for the GOP to achieve than it is for the Dems due to the Senate and the EC. If we take AZ/WI/PA from Cook PVI to be the true middle/tipping point: GOP 46 Senate seats in states at least 3 pts to the right. Dems 38 seats. 16 very contestable seats in the middle. Dems currently have 3 GOP seats, but at least 2 of those will be gone.

If all Senate seats were up for grabs every 2-year cycle, in theory, the range of things could be 38-54 Dem and 46-62 GOP. Cut the range in half as the seat cycles are staggered and neither party will clean sweep the competitive seats in three successive elections. 12 out of 16 is probably as good as it gets for either: 42-50 Dem vs 50-58 GOP.

Which means a GOP POTUS is almost assuredly guaranteed the Senate. And the last 4 new Presidents have had the House for their first two years as well.

On the Dem side the best a new POTUS could reasonably hope for is 50 Senate seats and having all 50 hold the line on critical votes. And if one party won’t control the House with a new incoming POTUS it is the Dems. Some of that is down to gerrymandering but constituent clustering in urban areas where voters “self gerrymander” is at least as responsible.

Dems have are counting on a 2.5 to 3 game parlay the GOP doesn’t need to play to achieve the trifecta. The only way out of this mess is flipping the Sun Belt.

 

That’s why you expand the court to allow legislation that will not get shot down by SCOTUS to 1)end gerrymandering (I get doesn’t affect senate), reinstate/renew the VRA (******** it..:require DoJ precedence for every state, pass abortion rights, real campaign finance reform (or reverse citizens united).

In other words..:level the playing field at least somewhat and pass popular shit that won’t get shot down by a corrupted political scotus and I have a hard time seeing a Republican trifecta. And even then..:they’d have to be a much different Republican Party to accomplish that….which shouldn’t be as scary.


Edit: it’s been an incredibly long week for me and just realized all I did is repeat my original argument.

I need a nap.

 

3 new states.

Puerto Rico.
American Samoa
American Micronesia.

4 if you add DC

 

American Sāmoa has about 44,000 people.

 

Guam is Micronesia

 

Let's drop a few California homeless there to get them over 70k

 

A chance for me to get pedantic

While Guam is in the region of Micronesia, Guam is not Micronesia.

Guam is not even part of the country known as Micronesia, which is more formally known as the Federated States of Micronesia.

Instead, Guam is part of the Mariana archipelago, but is considered a separate territory from the Northern Marianas.

edit: Anthropologists who work in the Pacific generally don't use "Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia" to describe the Pacific anymore. Instead, we use Near Oceania and Remote Oceania, given those are more descriptive of the cultural history of the region. Guam is part of Remote Oceania. The dividing line between Near and Remote Oceania occurs between the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Simply put, New Guinea and the Solomons would be Near Oceania, while the rest of Melanesia and all of Micronesia and Polynesia are in Remote Oceania. Near Oceania was settled roughly 30,000 years ago, while Remote Oceania was settled after 5,000 years ago (depending on the location). Near Oceania is represented by both non-Austronesian and Austronesian languages, while Remote Oceania is solely Austronesian language speakers, indicating there were two separate migrations into the Pacific - the first was to Near Oceania, while the second went through Near Oceania and then into Remote Oceania.

 

Boo this man.

 

No, invade the other half of the Island and annex Manu Samoa into America Samoa.

 

Another chance to be pedantic!

Both Sāmoa and American Sāmoa are made up of multiple islands. It's not like Crete or St Martin, where one island is divided into two. Thus, we wouldn't "invade the other half of the island".

American Sāmoa is made up of 6 inhabited islands, while Sāmoa is made up two inhabited islands ('Upolu and Savai'i), both of which are much larger than the islands in American Sāmoa.

Of interest to me, Savai'i is the linguistic equivalent of Hawai'i. Hawai'i is named after the legendary East Polynesian homeland Hawaiki (the "k" in other East Polynesian languages becomes the glottal stop (') in Hawai'ian; East Polynesia is basically almost all of Polynesia except for Tonga, Sāmoa and some smaller neighboring archipelagoes). Thus, there is a possibility that Savai'i in Sāmoa is the legendary homeland for East Polynesians. That Sāmoa is the likely source population for East Polynesia is supported linguistically and archaeologically, but that has not been narrowed down to Savai'i as opposed to 'Upolu.