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

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    The other argument in the piece I agree with, is that upholding Colorado does not somehow create a risk that insurrectionist states will then illegally bar Dems, because this risk already exists. As usual the Court is simply caving to asymmetric threats/fears that state parties will cheat in elections if the plain meaning of the constitution is enforced. That's ridiculous!

    If Trump is elected, he has already announced his plans to use a corrupted DOJ to oppress opponents. Of course their campaigns will be sabotaged.

    Practical concerns about non-uniformity and abuse are understandable. But they are overblown. If state officials or state courts reach unsound or contradictory legal conclusions about the meaning of Section 3 (e.g.—by adopting overbroad definitions of what qualifies as an "insurrection"), their determinations could be reviewed in federal court, and the Supreme Court could impose a uniform definition of the terms in question. Indeed, it could do so in this very case! Non-uniform interpretations of provisions of the federal Constitution by state and lower federal courts can occur in many contexts. Settling such issues is one of the reasons why we have a Supreme Court that can be the final arbiter of federal constitutional questions. ​
     
  2. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Weissmann / McCord touched on some of these issues in their review - I recommend if you want something shorter. One of the interesting points is that if the Supreme Court says state courts can't rule on this question, it opens the door to whether Congress decides and what might happen when the electoral college is certified.

    Could Harris simply refuse to certify Trump electors on the ground he is not eligible?

    This really illustrates why it is quite important an insurrectionist is not on the ballot IMO!
     
    dapip and soccernutter repped this.
  3. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, but how do you think ACB, Kagen, Jackson, and Sotomayor will rule?
     
  4. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    TPM is doing a series on how Team Trump tried to overturn the election.

    The basics of the plan were to muck things up so badly that nobody would trust what Congress did, then the Supremes would name Trump president again. There’s a bit more to it but not much more.
     
  5. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    IOW, well thought out in the typical Trumpian way :thumbsup:
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  7. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
  8. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    redacted
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    The Dunning School or the Dunning-Kruger school?
     
  9. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Ha - they have bigger sacs than the men in the room

    I am hoping that they will actually comment Obiter on the elephant in the room and say it appears clear that Trump is not eligible under s3 at the end of the day, even if overturning Colorado for procedural/jurisdictional reasons.
     
  10. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was actually getting at your male-gendered terminology. Gonads would have been a better term.

    I'm really wondering if they will agree with Colorado that he did take part in an insurrection, but vote against Colorado for the reasons you state.
     
  11. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    The point i keep coming back to is GOP voters need to know the answer to this in the current primaries!

    I am really mystified by the idea that the highest Court in the land can't simply issue guidance on this fundamental question which has been determined in multiple courts and the evidence is all around.

    Especially if they claim some nonsense about how s3 does not prevent Trump from running (as opposed to assuming the office), that will obviously directly raise the question of whether Congress cannot seat him.
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  12. ElNaranja

    ElNaranja Member+

    Houston Dynamo
    United States
    Jul 16, 2017
    There is a 0% chance this SC says he participated in an insurrection. There's already one open insurrectionist on the Court and many others sympathetic to varying degrees.
     
    M, bigredfutbol and Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  13. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, there is a 0% chance because I highly doubt their ruling will mention that. We might see Thomas and Alito include it in their opinion, but I doubt the majority opinion will mention it.
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  14. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It’ll be one thing if they ignore it and make a ruling based on other issues, like jurisdiction.

    It’ll be a whole other thing if they explicitly state he didn’t because as I understand it, they’d have to explain and justify such a ruling.
     
  15. ElNaranja

    ElNaranja Member+

    Houston Dynamo
    United States
    Jul 16, 2017
    They've lied and made up stuff before. They clearly have no issue with waving their hands vaguely and make a ruling. Not sure why this instance would be so different on paper.
     
  16. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    30 days. Your move, Clarence.

     
    xtomx repped this.
  17. Smurfquake

    Smurfquake Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    San Carlos, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Copied from the tweet thread for followup discussion

    It's like they're daring us - "so what are you chuds going to do about it, huh?"
     
    rslfanboy and bigredfutbol repped this.
  18. Deadtigers

    Deadtigers Member+

    Jul 23, 2015
    Independent Republic of the Bronx, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ghana
    I wish I had their armour against shame.
     
  19. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hmmm. While Thomas may not have violated SCOTUS ethics rules (mostly because there aren't any), he may have violated Federal law.. Prepare the axe grinding anti-Garland posters! :)

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-felony/

    It is worth noting that Thomas has argued that the reason why he did not disclose the gifts from his "friends" is because he was advised by his fellow justices that personal hospitality did not require him to disclose such gifts. His argument is that his benefactors taking him on personal jets, going on trips to vacation destinations, and trips on their personal yachts qualify as a Personal hospitality.
     
  20. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    I think I just saw the bat signal….
     
    rslfanboy, soccernutter and chaski repped this.
  21. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    "She hates ghetto Blacks. Certainly not me"

     
    bigredfutbol repped this.
  22. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    She doesn't hate Black people as much as he does.
     
  23. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    In the past we just assumed he was doing the bidding of rich, white assholes. Now there are receipts.
     
    Mike03 and Deadtigers repped this.
  24. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Auriaprottu, Mike03, KCFutbol and 2 others repped this.
  25. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Is the Supreme Court beyond redemption? Recent partisan decisions and corruption make it seem that one of the critical legs of American democracy is "compromised". A three-legged stool cannot work with one leg broken.
     

Share This Page