Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by imanihonjin View Post
    Ha. I stopped posting because work systems were blocking CS. Problem solved, I got a new job and there is no more blockage!
    really great that the chilis i.t. guy hooked you up
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
      I can get to CS and see what new posts there are, but if I try to click on any thread, it's a no-go. It was good for a few weeks a little while ago, but then got filtered again.
      Me too.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
        Drumpf just gave his data... This is why the Dems are going to lose pushing immigration (again).



        All you have to do is look at all the homeless folks in California. If a country can't even take care of its own how can it be expected to take care of all the orphans of the world?
        Wow, he's talking about ending races. He really is racist.
        τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

        Comment


        • Originally posted by chrisrenrut View Post
          Me too.
          i blame brockster for screwing up everyone’s email filyers
          Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
            Interesting results from the Court today.

            They blocked the government from adding the Citizenship question. That one was probably doomed when the memos leaked about the administration's real intent being to under-count minorities.

            However, IMO, Roberts wimped out on the gerrymandering case, even admitting in his opinion that:

            “Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering."

            Also calling partisan gerrymandering "unjust" and "incompatible with democratic principles."

            I like states rights arguments most of the time, but come on Roberts, this one is just wimpy. Now when the pendulum swings the other way the dems are free to do the same thing. Both are wrong.

            So the decision is basically,
            Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.
            It would have been fun if he'd quoted the great president Van Buren.

            Lame.

            But the political tide on this is going in the other direction I think, and this decision will just serve to beat that drum louder. So for the long term I'm not as worried about it.
            Just read the opinion. Didn't see anything about leaked memos revealing that the government wanted to undercount minorities. Link?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
              I like Roberts in some ways, but his wimpiness annoys me. He admits gerrymandering is freaking "INCOMPATIBLE with democratic principles" but still rules the other way because he's afraid to make that decision?????

              George Washington with his warning of the dangers of political parties is not impressed.

              I miss Justice Kennedy.

              Still, I think this decision will only serve to spur on the anti-gerrymandering movement because now they can use the Chief Justice's own words to make their case.
              It's not the Courts job to solve all life's problems. Gerrymandering can be easily fixed by the states.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                When the partisanship action is unconstitutional they can. I say it was, maybe five justices say it's not, but it's more than just "impolite" when states go out of their way to limit representation of certain people based on political ideas. If this were done on racial lines instead of party, this is already a settled matter and the gerrymandering would have been struck down.
                I'm honestly interested in what part of the constitution you think it violates. I've never heard a coherent argument as to why the constitution has anything to say about it all.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                  I think it's a Constitutional right for a citizen to be represented the same as their neighbor even if their political preferences are different. How is that off base?
                  How on earth could that be a constitutional right? What about members of the Green Party or Libertarian Party (not to mention non-party interest groups like the KKK). Do they have a "right" to have their views represented in Congress? Or is it only the BIG parties that have a guaranteed right to be in Congress.

                  And what about Democrats in Utah? There are a significant number of them. Should Utah be forced to draw district lines to guarantee at least one Democrat gets elected to Congress? What's the point of even voting if that is what the constitution requires?
                  Last edited by UVACoug; 07-01-2019, 04:20 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                    State's courts? That's exactly what people did in these cases and they all ruled against the gerrymandering. So now the Supreme court has reversed it. Ok, maybe the legislatures then. The tide I think is to push back on the extreme partisanship fortunately.
                    Pennsylvania supreme court held that political gerrymandering was against the state constitution. No Supreme Court review there.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                      really great that the chilis i.t. guy hooked you up
                      You can and need to do better that this. Disappointing effort, man.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                        Just read the opinion. Didn't see anything about leaked memos revealing that the government wanted to undercount minorities. Link?
                        This was widely reported for the last several weeks leading up to this decision. The administration would have won this had it not been for that, IMO. No, Roberts didn't specifically mention it in his opinion, but he did say the administration's argument that the question was needed to help them better enforce the voting rights act was not credible. He basically said it was a lie using more polite language. It wasn't just memos. It was an entire hard drive. Brand new cases had just been filed in the federal courts about it, based on the discovery of that evidence, as the decision on this case was being decided. Many observers believe the Court was about to rule in the administration's favor on this one but that they'd have to revisit it again when those cases came up. What the ruling says is that the administration has the right to ask the question but they have to come up with a reason that isn't obviously a lie. There is no reason for the Court to rule that way without knowing the background info below:

                        https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress

                        https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross

                        "But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                        "In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”

                        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651

                        The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.

                        Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.

                        Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.

                        Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.
                        Last edited by BlueK; 07-03-2019, 08:03 AM.

                        Comment


                        • "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                            This was widely reported for the last several weeks leading up to this decision. The administration would have won this had it not been for that, IMO. No, Roberts didn't specifically mention it in his opinion, but he did say the administration's argument that the question was needed to help them better enforce the voting rights act was not credible. He basically said it was a lie using more polite language. It wasn't just memos. It was an entire hard drive. Brand new cases had just been filed in the federal courts about it as the decision on this case was being decided. Many observers believe the Court was about to rule in the administration's favor on this one but that they'd have to revisit it again when those cases came up. What the ruling says is that the administration has the right to ask the question but they have to come up with a reason that isn't obviously a lie. There is no reason for the Court to rule that way without knowing the background info below:

                            https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress

                            https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross

                            "But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                            "In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”

                            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651

                            The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.

                            Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.

                            Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.

                            Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.
                            The Census Bureau asks way too much... all they need to know is the number of folks living under your roof. On the last go around I answered the race question by marking "Other" and writing in "American". That generated a visit from a representative from census bureau. She asked if I meant "White" and I asked her if I looked white to her. She agreed it wasn't appropriate. She asked if I knew where my family immigrated from and I told her that as far as I know they have always been here and didn't immigrate from anywhere. So she asked, "So native american?" I told her that my great^5 grandfather fought in the revolutionary war and asked her why a native american would be inclined to do that. After pointing out to her the question on race was subjectively worded and telling her I feel "american" she gave up and left.

                            I suppose I should get the Ancestry DNA test done to figure were "my people" are from but the FBI is using their database to pin people to their unsolved crimes. I don't want to go to jail just because my DNA happened to be at some crime scene because I sneezed there once.

                            FYI, the Census Bureau threatens to fine you or something for not answering or giving false information but they haven't fined anyone since before 1970. They are like a little yappy dog you can just kick out of the way.
                            "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                            "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                            "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                              This was widely reported for the last several weeks leading up to this decision. The administration would have won this had it not been for that, IMO. No, Roberts didn't specifically mention it in his opinion, but he did say the administration's argument that the question was needed to help them better enforce the voting rights act was not credible. He basically said it was a lie using more polite language. It wasn't just memos. It was an entire hard drive. Brand new cases had just been filed in the federal courts about it, based on the discovery of that evidence, as the decision on this case was being decided. Many observers believe the Court was about to rule in the administration's favor on this one but that they'd have to revisit it again when those cases came up. What the ruling says is that the administration has the right to ask the question but they have to come up with a reason that isn't obviously a lie. There is no reason for the Court to rule that way without knowing the background info below:

                              https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress

                              https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross

                              "But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                              "In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”

                              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651

                              The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.

                              Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.

                              Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.

                              Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.
                              Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                                Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
                                This would have probably easily gone the other way given the default with Roberts is usually to side with the executive branch, even when Obama was president. This was pretty remarkable for him to say to the government that their argument for why they needed the citizenship question was "contrived." He did leave it open for them to provide a better answer. I also think it's pretty crazy that they allowed some political activist/consultant to tell them what false rationale to use to add the question,

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X