SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[Yabby]

I hate the SC with the best of them, but they have never taken a case that had no standing.

[Tyrath]

They would never break precedent, the rubes cry as they keep breaking precedent over and over

[Mrbeansman]

Nah this was just a rare case where they couldn't bend the rules without breaking them.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

They would never break precedent, the rubes cry as they keep breaking precedent over and over

The courts would never overturn Obergefell!

They just overturn all the other precedents because they weren't hard coded into constitutional law!

[Mrbeansman]

I have no faith that someone wont find a way to bring this before SCOTUS eventually.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

They would never break precedent, the rubes cry as they keep breaking precedent over and over

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. People are treating this like a win for Obergefell, but that’s not what’s happening here. This isn’t the case they would use to overturn Obergefell because it didn’t have standing, and the legal gymnastics required to make it fit would be so extreme it could actually justify Democrats expanding the Court (LOL) if they ever got the chance.

TLDR: They’re just waiting for the right case to screw over gay people.

[Daydreamer]

Can someone with more lawyer experience than me explain? Isn't Davis one of the few people with standing in the country that could even bring such a case? I'm gonna be honest I'm basing that comment on this random abc article https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...y?id=124465302 - and I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wildly off base on the legalese of this.

[Yabby]

I explained it above in a simple way, but if you want more details.

Davis asked to overturn Obergefell, but her case mostly raised fact-specific issues of her being liable as a public official rather than a clean “should we revisit Obergefell.” This is what I mean when I said she shifted her lawsuit after it was sent up to the higher courts. The lower courts had already rejected her legal arguments. The Sixth Circuit held that Davis, as a government official performing state duties, could not claim a free exercise exemption for state action (which is what the filing was really about). Doing that, the lower-court rulings found that Davis had “waived” arguments about Obergefell and that the case was not a clear vehicle to overturn the precedent.

Edit: Just to note, the Supreme Court didn’t give a reason; they simply rejected the case. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m married to one, work with federal judges, and have heard these debates often enough to feel confident in what I said above.

[Tyche]

I think simplest explanation is that the court knew this wasn't a politically expedient case that would help their cause and wanted an off ramp to turn it down without ruling on the merits of the gays ability to marry. I'm skeptical SCOTUS is in any hurry at all to overturn the precedent set by their own court, but I also don't think they want to lay groundwork to reinforce the precedent.

[Daydreamer]

Honestly I was just getting confused as Yabby said earlier there was no standing and from what I was seeing online, there was standing so I was getting confused.

However all that aside, Yabby's explination helps a ton, so thanks for that!

[synistar]

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the Texas redrawn congressional maps along the usual party lines. Very likely that this ruling will make the appeal on the California redrawn maps the same 6-3 as it uses an identical argument: It's a partisan gerrymander.

[Tyche]

Virginia is prepared to go full Scott Walker's Wisconsin on redistricting. +4 seats. 9 Dems to 1 Repub.

There's a very real possibility that the GOP dilluting R+20 districting to crack minority districts will backfire in a catastrophic way if Dems run +15 ahead of 2024.

Looking at Texas changes for instance. There were 5 seats they were putting in play.

TX9 Old D+48, New R+11 (could still lose)

TX28 Old D+8, New D+16 (This is recently pardoned Cueller's old district. It moved SIGNIFICANTLY R in 2024 over the norm due to shifts in Hispanic vote. I doubt they're going to be able to count on that shift maintaining, may not gain this seat)

TX32 Old D+22, New R+17 (Dems running around 15 points ahead)

TX34 - Old D+16, new D+1 (Hispanic majority, GOP hoping it shifts right like in 2024)

TX35 - Old D+40, New R+7 (they'll lose this at current trends)

Very real chance that the 5 they intend to flip produce only 2 or 3 wins. It's a gamble on Latinos continuing to move right despite an administration implementing an arrest first, ask questions later approach to their entire demographic.

[Salodin]

I wonder if ICE can harass enough Hispanics to move the needle enough. Really need them to pick up the pace if they're serious about this

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

IDK how many of you are Hispanics or work with the public, but a friend of mine is constantly told by patients that they'll call ICE on her. He has emboldened incredible racism. I'm 1000% sure that south Texas Hispanic citizens are getting harassed.

Honestly, those "pull the ladder up behind me" Hispanics can get that face eaten by the leopard.

[Salodin]

Mhmm I concur. Beyond frustrated with them. I'm fortunate the women in the family are left leaning, but the last generation of men my God I'm so embarrassed

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Mrbeansman]

Amazing how the vast majority of legal immigrants are completely unwilling to own up to how fucked up the process for legal immigration is. It's student debt all over again "I suffered so you have to as well".

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

IDK how many of you are Hispanics or work with the public, but a friend of mine is constantly told by patients that they'll call ICE on her. He has emboldened incredible racism. I'm 1000% sure that south Texas Hispanic citizens are getting harassed.

Honestly, those "pull the ladder up behind me" Hispanics can get that face eaten by the leopard.

I am both and I'm fucking tired of it

[Lucavi]

Amazing how the vast majority of legal immigrants are completely unwilling to own up to how fucked up the process for legal immigration is. It's student debt all over again "I suffered so you have to as well".

Its a human genetic weakness that exists across countless spectrums. Someone pushes for military reform: the vets hate it because "I suffered so they should as well."

No one wants solutions to happen if it means they can't go back and time and benefit from them when they were personally affected.

What a fucking species we have.

[Tymon]

Some of the people who worked the hardest and had the most challenges of those I know are simultaneously the most cruel to their family and especially their children. Maybe not traditionally abusive but very much "they will get nothing but a bed and food from me and they're out the door on their 18th birthday" because they "need to live the life I had to live" or various other absurd explanations.

A lot of people love to think that people who struggled and endured hardships tend to be the most kind and understanding. I would venture to say it is usually the opposite. In my experience at least, it tends to build hatred and disdain.

[Ayn]

Not denying that.

On the flip side, I'm lucky to have a handful of people in my life who have every reason to be bitter and got dealt a bad hand. They strive to make sure that no one suffers through the pain they did.