SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[TummieGaruda]

I'm a little confused why you'd be able to purposely put non birth parents regardless of gender(s) on a birth certificate...

Happens all the time. Apparently in AK, when a woman gives birth, the husband is automatically assumed to be the father even if he isn't biologically. He can in essence, opt out by signing an Acknowledgement of Paternity along with the mother and biological father. This has repercussions though as by doing this, the step father essentially has no legal relationship with the child but it can protect him down the road if he and the mother get divorced.

[Andalusian girls]

SCOTUS is currently hearing arguments concerning partisan gerrymandering, under consideration is Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting that saw Republicans take 60 of 99 state legislative seats with 48.6% of the vote, and the Democrats who won the majority of the vote only the remaining 39. as is typical the Court has already broken along 4-4 lines with Kennedy the Kingmaker sitting in his temporary but frequently held position as the most powerful man in America.

in 2004 he had previously ruled against outlawing gerrymandering claiming there was as yet no manageable justiciable standard for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims, while leaving open the possibility of declaring partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional were those standards to be developed before the Court. 13 years later here we are and we are to see if, in his mind, that standard has been both developed and violated.

[Andalusian girls]

oh and in a bit of petty courtroom drama Ginsburg clapped back at Gorsuch during oral arguments, Gorsuch got p condescending and fired off this lecture for his colleagues'es'es' benefit

"Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution. And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear—if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, says Congress has the power, when state legislators don’t provide the right to vote equally, to dilute congressional representation. Aren’t those all textual indications in the Constitution itself that maybe we ought to be cautious about stepping in here? "

to which

"Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?"

[Yuri-G]

SCOTUS is currently hearing arguments concerning partisan gerrymandering, under consideration is Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting that saw Republicans take 60 of 99 state legislative seats with 48.6% of the vote, and the Democrats who won the majority of the vote only the remaining 39. as is typical the Court has already broken along 4-4 lines with Kennedy the Kingmaker sitting in his temporary but frequently held position as the most powerful man in America.

in 2004 he had previously ruled against outlawing gerrymandering claiming there was as yet no manageable justiciable standard for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims, while leaving open the possibility of declaring partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional were those standards to be developed before the Court. 13 years later here we are and we are to see if, in his mind, that standard has been both developed and violated.

This, right here, is what people should really be concerned about. This is scarier than healthcare, scarier than gun rights, scarier than anything else I can think of, politically speaking.

[Tyche]

oh and in a bit of petty courtroom drama Ginsburg clapped back at Gorsuch during oral arguments, Gorsuch got p condescending and fired off this lecture for his colleagues'es'es' benefit



to which

plz never die Ginsburg.

Also, it's going to be interesting how Kennedy views the efficiency gap and if that standard is good enough. The reason he sided with the conservative justices last time (sort of sided, he actually wrote a separate ruling) was a lack of a measurable standard. We now have a pretty decent way to measure.

[arus2001]

This, right here, is what people should really be concerned about. This is scarier than healthcare, scarier than gun rights, scarier than anything else I can think of, politically speaking.

Any time I've tried to bring it up elsewhere, if the people even know what it is, tend to default to, "But the Dems do it, too!" as if that makes it a-ok.

[archibaldcrane]

plz never die Ginsburg.

Also, it's going to be interesting how Kennedy views the efficiency gap and if that standard is good enough. The reason he sided with the conservative justices last time (sort of sided, he actually wrote a separate ruling) was a lack of a measurable standard. We now have a pretty decent way to measure.

He didn't ask a single question to the anti-gerrymandering side, and he had a dozen questions or statements for the Republican side.

That is very promising.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Yuri-G]

Any time I've tried to bring it up elsewhere, if the people even know what it is, tend to default to, "But the Dems do it, too!" as if that makes it a-ok.

Yeah, I'd be just as concerned when the Democrats do it (although I haven't heard about that as much). Subverting the will of the citizenry and consolidating power through illegitimate means is never ok.


Then again, those are both par for the course in an electoral republic so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Byrthnoth]

Democrats do it as well, but they're either much worse at it or restricted by their petty ideals.

[Deftscythe]

Democrats do it as well, but they're either much worse at it or restricted by their petty ideals.

They are restricted by their inability to win the elections that would put them in positions with the authority to gerrymander.

[Byrthnoth]

Not historically true

[synistar]

BOTH SIDES are guilty of it. The reason why California now has an independent commission drawing the lines was largely in part to the noncompetitive nature of districts in the 2000s. Only 4 seats in a 10 year period swapped parties. These districts were drawn as a compromise between BOTH SIDES so there wasn't a need to flood a bunch of money for congressional races.

Then voters gave the state legislature the bird and voted for an end to this. Surprisingly, the Republicans supported that proposition. Now they are eating crow because it gave the Dems even more seats in the state and federal levels. Though it makes sense why Dems control so many seats when they have 44% of registered voters as opposed to 29% for the Repubs (according to 2013, the latest available information)

[Byrthnoth]

If you look at disparities between votes and representation, Republicans are most or the states with a serious disparity.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...es-do-it-myth/

[Roranora]

so both sides gerrymander is p much "well the Dems got a house seat in Arizona"

[Zealot]

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the White House's DACA appeal until a Court of Appeals has heard it first. That means DACA will no longer end on March 5th.

SCOTUS also hears oral argument for Janus vs. AFSCME today, in a case that could do another blow to unions. Alito usually writes the anti-union opinions so whenever this one is decided if it's him writing for the majority it means bad news for unions.

[archibaldcrane]

A similar case gridlocked 4-4 while Scalia's seat was unfilled, this one will probably go against the unions.

[Yuri-G]

the best part about the whole union thing is the part where "oh but police and fire unions are ok because reasons."

[archibaldcrane]

the best part about the whole union thing is the part where "oh but police and fire unions are ok because reasons."

wait is that really part of this case? they're literally scott walker-ing it?

[archibaldcrane]

Oh you just mean many conservatives talking about unions think police+fire are ok but the rest are trash, gotcha.

Police unions are very nervous about this ruling as well. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...-police-unions

[Andalusian girls]

SCOTUS also hears oral argument for Janus vs. AFSCME today, in a case that could do another blow to unions. Alito usually writes the anti-union opinions so whenever this one is decided if it's him writing for the majority it means bad news for unions.

not bad for the whole first amendment thing tho