It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 6:52 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
I didn't see a thread for generic discussions on SCOTUS cases, if there is one apologies and maybe move this post there.

I hadn't heard this was an upcoming case but read it today: NPR writes
Quote:
The court held that hunting rights for the Crow tribe under a 19th-century treaty did not expire when Wyoming became a state.
...
There isn't "any evidence in the treaty itself that Congress intended the hunting right to expire at statehood, or that the Crow Tribe would have understood it to do so," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.


The Hill adds
Quote:
They also ruled against Wyoming's argument that Bighorn National Forest, where Herrera was hunting, was not "unoccupied lands" as required under the treaty.

Wyoming had pointed to another Supreme Court ruling that found another Native American treaty ended when the state formally entered the union. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion that Herrera's case centered on another ruling that found "Congress 'must clearly express' any intent to abrogate Indian treaty rights."


It is nice to see the court uphold (sadly, in a mostly partisan manner) that US treaties are still valid, no matter who they were made with.

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 8:37 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
I'm pretty sure that there was one at one time, but if so it is many years old, and I think it is fine to just use this one.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:58 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
Not surprisingly, in a 5-4 decision the court's conservatives ruled that political gerrymandering is outside of their jurisdiction, and refused to block the states from doing so, saying that that was a job for either the states themselves, or Congress. In a more surprising decision, again 5-4, the court blocked the Trump administration, at least temporarily, from including a citizenship questions on the census form, basically saying that the reasons given by the administration for including the question didn't make sense in light of the questions that have been raised about the real reasons for adding it. It is unclear what will happen next, as the administration has said that the forms need to go out by the beginning of July and there doesn't seem to be time for the additional lower court hearings that the High Court asked for. Whether the forms will go out without the citizenship question on time, or be delayed, remains to be seen.

Of note is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts wrote both decisions, showing just how much power and influence he has at this point, with Kennedy no longer on the court.

ETA: The Census opinions are among the most complicated that I have ever seen. Here is how the court describes how it breaks down as to the various different parts of the decision: "ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And here is the decision itself, if you feel like wading through a lot of legalese: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/27/census.pdf

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Not surprisingly, in a 5-4 decision the court's conservatives ruled that political gerrymandering is outside of their jurisdiction

:bang:

Seriously? The heart of democracy, free and fair elections, with people choosing their elected officials, not elected officials choosing their electors, but that isn't in the jurisdiction of the courts to decide!? Despite SCOTUS having taken on gerrymandering cases in the past, even the relatively recent past?

Is the court saying the previous courts were wrong to have decided gerrymandering cases?
Quote:
"At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering."


So obviously SCOTUS has felt it was well within their jurisdiction to address before.

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:39 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14273
Location: Florida
elengil wrote:

Quote:
"At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering."


So obviously SCOTUS has felt it was well within their jurisdiction to address before.


But gerrymandering doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965.

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:55 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
yovargas wrote:
elengil wrote:

Quote:
"At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering."


So obviously SCOTUS has felt it was well within their jurisdiction to address before.


But gerrymandering doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965.


Except it can when you are denied your voice due to how district lines are drawn. And obviously SCOTUS has previously believed that gerrymandering can violate them.

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:13 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14273
Location: Florida
Maybe I'm wrong - and I'm sure V-man will correct me if I am - but I believe in order for this to fall under Equal Protection, that one's political party would have to fall under a legally protected status, no?

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:17 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
According to Roberts, racial gerrymandering is within the court's jurisdiction, as the court has said previously, but political gerrymandering (which the court has never addressed previously) is not.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
So I'll reiterate: :bang:

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:23 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
While I don't disagree, there was no way that this court was going to rule any other way in those cases. Based on the oral argument, it appeared that the court would also rule for the administration in the census case, which could have had profound long-term affects. It appears that Roberts had second thoughts, probably do to the additional information that has come to light since the oral argument. Whether it will be an ephemeral victory or not remains to be seen, but as it stands I am overall pleasantly surprised.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:25 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14273
Location: Florida
Do you think that the court should view political gerrymandering as a violation of the EPC, V-man?

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Last edited by yovargas on Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:33 pm 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 10867
Location: the dry land
The census forms must go to print no later than Sunday, June 30. If the DoC has anything up its sleeve, it's going to need to ram it through a lower court fast.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:34 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
Responding to yov: Yes, along with the First Amendment right of free expression, since the decision results in some people's votes being watered down simply because of their political views. And I don't mean to downplay the importance of this decision, which was highlighted by the fact that not only did Roberts read his majority decision from the bench, Kagan also read her dissent from the bench, which for her is very unusual (unlike Ginsburg or Sotomayor). It's just that I felt there was no chance at all that Roberts et al. would do anything different.

x-posted with River. The Commerce Dept said they needed to be printed by June 30. It remains to be seen whether they will say something different now.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:54 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
The Court agreed today to take up the case addressing the Trump administration's attempt to end DACA, guaranteeing that once again they will be making at least one highly politically-charged decision in late June of a presidential election year.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:07 am
Posts: 2382
Location: North Shire
How does the guarantee of free, fair, and regular elections apply if my vote doesn't count due to unfair practices?
*is frustrated & disgusted*

_________________
My heart is forever in the Shire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:14 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14273
Location: Florida
There is no constitutional guarantee of "free and fair" elections and therefore the SCOTUS can't say that not having that guarantee is unconstitutional. If the legislature were to introduce such a guarantee into the Constitution, then it would be unconstitutional.

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:07 am
Posts: 2382
Location: North Shire
yovargas wrote:
There is no constitutional guarantee of "free and fair" elections and therefore the SCOTUS can't say that not having that guarantee is unconstitutional. If the legislature were to introduce such a guarantee into the Constitution, then it would be unconstitutional.

Well then, my bad. I thought that was one of our guaranteed rights. :(
*frustrated and discouraged*

_________________
My heart is forever in the Shire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:49 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14273
Location: Florida
There's frankly a lot of the Constitution that should be wholesale trashed and re-written, but that's pretty unlikely to ever happen so we're stuck with what we got.

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:04 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
Despite twitter claims by Mr. Trump that they were going to delay printing the census forms in order to address the SCOTUS decision (which some Trump supporters are describing as "judicial harassment" :roll: :roll: :roll:), a Justice Dept. spokesman has announced that the forms are going to be printed, without the citizenship question.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... n-n1025971

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:53 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35406
But nonetheless he persisted.

Trump says he is 'absolutely moving forward' with census question, contradicting his own administration's officials

You can't make this stuff up.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group