U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150625123238-will-mullery-justice-scalia-large-169.png

aaaaand here we go:

President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.

Mr. Obama is adamant that he will name a nominee to the court, most likely in the next few weeks. Republicans remain just as adamant that they will not even meet with Mr. Obama’s nominee, let alone hold confirmation hearings.

Then again, the meeting on Tuesday will bring together six men who have rarely been accused of keeping their remarks brief. Besides Mr. Obama, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Grassley, the invited participants include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:33 (three years ago) Permalink

Thomas speaks!

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.

“O.K.,” he said. “So, can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”

Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”

The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:35 (three years ago) Permalink

Chris Christie says there should be hearings. So you can all exhale now.

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:16 (three years ago) Permalink

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

wish I could see video of Eisenstein's reaction to this

crüt, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:29 (three years ago) Permalink

Ha! Yeah, jaw must've hit the floor.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:49 (three years ago) Permalink

"Shit, I thought this was going well - I'm dreaming, aren't I?"

Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:05 (three years ago) Permalink

Dust and cobwebs covering Thomas' mike.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18 (three years ago) Permalink

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

http://i.imgur.com/jrbn9oI.gif

"Wha? Who said that!"

pplains, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:21 (three years ago) Permalink

and of course the motherfucker asks a question to which any non-lawyer could have given a reasonable answer: yeah, many constitutional rights have had court-imposed limits.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:32 (three years ago) Permalink

The cause that inspired Thomas to break a ten year silence: men convicted of domestic violence who wish to own guns.

Voisine v. United States involves a fairly technical question of whether two men with previous domestic assault convictions are subject to federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Justice Thomas, however, appeared deeply troubled by the idea that these men may not be able to carry a firearm.

Noting that the right to carry a gun is ordinarily “a constitutional right” under existing law, Thomas began his questioning by asking if Ilana Eisenstein, the attorney arguing the case on behalf of the federal government, could “give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right.”

There are many possible answers to this question. The Supreme Court has long recognized that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel within the United States, yet a person convicted of a misdemeanor could be arrested and jailed for up to a year. Similarly, the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association” with other individuals, but such an association may be difficult to maintain while an individual is incarcerated. The Constitution also provides fairly robust protections for property rights, but someone convicted of a misdemeanor may lawfully be fined.

In any event, Thomas continued to press Eisenstein for several pages of the argument transcript. At one point, he appeared bothered by the fact that domestic abusers have their right to own a gun suspended indefinitely. At another point, he seemed to suggest that the particular domestic abusers at issue in this case should not lose their ability to carry guns because they’ve never actually “use[d] a weapon against a family member.”

Thomas appeared unmoved when Eisenstein pointed out that “individuals who have previously…­­ battered their spouses, pose up to a six­fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.”

Justice Thomas has a record of near absolutism on the Second Amendment. Last December, while the nation was still mourning the mass killing of more than a dozen people at a facility for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino, California — a crime that was committed with assault rifles — Thomas penned a dissenting opinion suggesting that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.

Indeed, it now appears that Thomas believes that the Second Amendment should be read so broadly that even domestic abusers must be allowed to own guns. And that he is so committed to this cause that it is the only thing that he’s spoken about in ten years of Supreme Court hearings.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754773/justice-thomas-just-broke-his-ten-year-silence-to-complain-that-domestic-abusers-cant-have-guns/

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:42 (three years ago) Permalink

The Notorious RBG at work:

That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.

“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:14 (three years ago) Permalink

However, per the NY Times, if the court deadlocks 4 to 4, the stringent Texas law upheld by the conservative Appeals Court could stay in effect:

Although Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month may have muted the prospect of truly bold action in the case, even a 4-to-4 tie would have enormous consequences because it would leave in place the appeals court decision, which challengers say could drive down the number of abortion clinics in Texas to about 10 from roughly 40. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s death means the court is very unlikely to weaken constitutional standards affecting abortion in the rest of the nation, as the four liberal justices would not go along.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:19 (three years ago) Permalink

yeah this is not a good outcome

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:39 (three years ago) Permalink

TPM publishes one of those speculative pieces:

The current situation has put the chief justice in an awkward position. Senate Republicans have picked this fight with the White House in the hopes that a future GOP president can ultimately pick a Scalia successor, restoring the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they also embroiled the court in the very partisan contentiousness from which Roberts tries to insulate the court.

“He’s in an interesting place, personally, because on the one hand, I’m sure he would like a reliable conservative vote, and on the other hand, I can’t imagine he wants to operate with a court of eight for two terms, which is what it effectively would be,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM. “My guess is he would rather have the position filled and get the court out of this particular spotlight.”

Unless Roberts makes the unlikely decision to speak out about the hardball Senate Republicans are playing, we won’t know how he feels about it. And even if he did object to their refusal to restore the full bench, at least for another year, saying so publicly might only make matters worse. But a review of Roberts’ record suggests the current standoff presents competing interests for the chief justice, and legal experts argue, at the very least, he would be torn.

“In his heart of hearts, he probably has views on these things. It would be very hard not to,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said in an interview with TPM. "He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:44 (three years ago) Permalink

the TRAP laws case is so very infuriating to me; these fuckers trying to pretend their objection is not entirely moral but is about "helping women" is the most hypocritical load of bullshit

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:31 (three years ago) Permalink

"He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

Well, what fun is it to be the Chief Justice of a despised and disrespected institution? People just spit on you in public or chant your name in a funny voice.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:32 (three years ago) Permalink

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes
housing/feeding/clothing the child and the mother however is SOCIALISM and not the state's business. these bastards are willing to put actual lives in danger in practice rather than risk their principals not being fully executed
so angry

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:34 (three years ago) Permalink

Don't we all do that? I mean, don't some of us trade security for freedom/privacy?

schwantz, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:44 (three years ago) Permalink

it's a bit different when you're risking lives of people that you're not even remotely connected to because you want to save their miraculous soul babies but don't give a damn about what happens post partem

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:48 (three years ago) Permalink

Sadly, George Clinton can no longer make Richard Pryor minister od education

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (three years ago) Permalink

Oops, wrong thread

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (three years ago) Permalink

true though

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:55 (three years ago) Permalink

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes

OTM -- these people see themselves as fetus Harriet Tubmans and John Browns.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) Permalink

with respect to the case, it's not a "good outcome" but it doesn't strike me as a worse outcome than you'd likely get if Scalia were alive.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:30 (three years ago) Permalink

i saw this a few weeks ago and some of the actual cases these laws impact are utterly heartbreaking
http://www.trappeddocumentary.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjgVPPEoFt8

Same director as the outstanding 'Gideon's Army'; she spent months at the clinics in question to see what the actual work that they're doing is about and it's utterly damning to the "for the safety of women" argument.

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:33 (three years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIvZuypso4

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 5 March 2016 01:58 (three years ago) Permalink

omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 7 March 2016 15:49 (three years ago) Permalink

Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:04 (three years ago) Permalink

that actress looks like Ginny!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:09 (three years ago) Permalink

that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit

ulysses, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:29 (three years ago) Permalink

I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:34 (three years ago) Permalink

right?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:37 (three years ago) Permalink

that is the same story that DJP linked, no?

micro brewbio (crüt), Monday, 7 March 2016 23:04 (three years ago) Permalink

ah sorry

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 23:11 (three years ago) Permalink

the Scalia Effect in full effect

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:19 (three years ago) Permalink

hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward

were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:22 (three years ago) Permalink

I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:25 (three years ago) Permalink

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:26 (three years ago) Permalink

I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man

tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:28 (three years ago) Permalink

*crumples sketch, fumes*

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) Permalink

(xpost)

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (three years ago) Permalink

The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:30 (three years ago) Permalink

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:37 (three years ago) Permalink

(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:42 (three years ago) Permalink

It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:49 (three years ago) Permalink

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-pinata-scotus-nom

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata."

"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.

When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."

"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 20:11 (three years ago) Permalink

only the best

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 1 April 2019 20:12 (two months ago) Permalink

slow clap

Lil' Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 1 April 2019 20:34 (two months ago) Permalink

Constitution: No cruel punishments allowed.

Gorsuch: Hey! If it's cruel, that's your problem, not ours.

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 1 April 2019 22:23 (two months ago) Permalink

killing people is cruel and unusual punishment /trench

brimstead, Monday, 1 April 2019 22:31 (two months ago) Permalink

The Supreme Court's 5–4 death penalty decision today is beyond appalling. It legalizes torture and effectively reverses 60 years of progressive precedent. It transforms a barbaric view of the 8th Amendment into the law of the land. It is horrific. https://t.co/qYTlgQHT8b @Slate

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 1, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 April 2019 17:59 (two months ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

meanwhile:

In arguments by turn technical and passionate, the Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether the Trump administration may add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census form that will be sent to every household in the nation.

By the end of the arguments, which lasted 80 minutes instead of the usual hour, the justices seemed divided along the usual lines, suggesting that the conservative majority would allow the question.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that adding the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation.

“There is no doubt that people will respond less,” she said. “That has been proven in study after study.”

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, acknowledged that adding the question could depress participation. But he said the information it would yield was valuable.

“You’re always trading off information and accuracy,” he said.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that questions about citizenship had been asked on many census forms over the years and were commonplace around the world.

Much of the argument concerned statistical modeling. “This gets really, really technical,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 23 April 2019 16:49 (two months ago) Permalink

this could be really bad

Heez, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 16:55 (two months ago) Permalink

mitchmcconnellsmirk.jpg

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 23 April 2019 16:55 (two months ago) Permalink

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, acknowledged that adding the question could depress participation. But

uh-huh.

difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 21:05 (two months ago) Permalink

don't worry about nancy, we can just vote him out. we can, right?

Hunt3r, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 23:04 (two months ago) Permalink

Why not take a page from the late, sainted Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and go back to examine the intentions of the Founding Gods Who Wrote the Perfect Constitution and ask the court to notice how they felt about counting undocumented immigrants in the census as opposed to just counting US residents?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Hmmm. Nothing in there about sacrificing accuracy of "counting the whole number of persons" in favor gaining information about what those persons are doing there. Case closed.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 24 April 2019 02:03 (two months ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

Yeah, the piece on Leonard Leo is eye opening. Or not, after all, the corruption is all out in the open. But the idea that this is legal, and even 'charitable' and worthy tax exemption, is a joke.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 22 May 2019 12:38 (one month ago) Permalink

I (and others) wonder how America(ns) will react (or if they'll notice) when the current admin is gone but the courts from the SC on down have been remade as right-wing tribunals largely at odds with (as polled, at least) cultural trends. The argument I've heard is blah blah blah, Federal judges are independent etc., but that's not why they're being chosen.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 22 May 2019 12:41 (one month ago) Permalink

No, they've been very open about wanting a certain kind of judge, one who interprets the law differently than the majority of Americans. The idea that everyone will just agree that it's okay and there's nothing to do about it seems far fetched. Especially once they chose a rapist as the SC pick.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 22 May 2019 13:16 (one month ago) Permalink

that piece going around on teh vitter/deripaska/mcconnell connect line to the federal judgeship is one of the more amazing things where i'm going 'that has to be circumstantial right? it does right, because that's some cartoon level grift shit, and i can keep from crying about politricks, but cmon, that judge, mannnnn.'

we all know that undoing what's getting to done is gonna be as tough as anything else i guess.

Hunt3r, Wednesday, 22 May 2019 17:53 (one month ago) Permalink

Thomas went apeshit again today.

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 May 2019 16:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Do you mean he actually spoke from the bench?

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 28 May 2019 16:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

In today's opinion on abortion, Clarence Thomas focuses on the racism of Margaret Sanger's movement, particularly her work in Harlem & the South. He deals w/ DuBois & the NAACP's concerns about the "ghetto approach" of Planned Parenthood. What's going on? https://t.co/7pwbsM4pPs

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) May 28, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:52 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Adam Cohen, whose book on Buck v. Bell (a bestseller a couple years ago) got cited by Thomas in a footnote, has responded:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/clarence-thomas-used-my-book-argue-against-abortion/590455/

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:55 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Clarence Thomas needs to go back to investigating pubic hairs on his cola cans and die already.

Yerac, Thursday, 30 May 2019 21:24 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Is there an RIP thread for him yet? because dreaming is free.

Yerac, Thursday, 30 May 2019 21:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

just bumped it :)

Ambient Police (sleeve), Thursday, 30 May 2019 21:31 (three weeks ago) Permalink

darling

Yerac, Thursday, 30 May 2019 21:37 (three weeks ago) Permalink

no deaths on the Supreme Court until February 2021 at the earliest, please

she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, 30 May 2019 22:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

and even then why wouldn’t the senate just repeat the Garland episode

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Friday, 31 May 2019 00:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Because the Republicans control the Senate as of today and they only require 50 votes plus Pence to confirm any damn young fool of a conservative to keep that seat warm for another 25 to 30 years. Why would McConnell ever do anything but that?

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 31 May 2019 00:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

love that cohen article title

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Friday, 31 May 2019 03:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

highly probable the senate doesn't change hands for several election cycles. they could keep this shit up for years regardless of who's in the WH.
if it's a Dem then that person is clearly 'illegitimate'

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Friday, 31 May 2019 03:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm sure Biden and Mitch will work something out. Probably a pro-life Democrat.

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Friday, 31 May 2019 13:00 (three weeks ago) Permalink

How will the RBG cult deal? https://t.co/CdFEIpaXYy

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) June 9, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 9 June 2019 13:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

If Kavanaugh hired an all-female group of law clerks, why wouldn't RBG approve of that, even if it was done for motives that have more to do with Kavanaugh openly preening himself on his liberality and open-mindedness than the actual presence of liberality or open-mindedness in his judicial thinking? At least those women have been given a chance to actively demonstrate their ability.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 9 June 2019 18:42 (two weeks ago) Permalink

*future alien historians* "it's a little weird but very human. these x-x females wrote tons of pieces for this x-y male boss, named ka-va-nah, in support of overturning that "Roe" opinion. and later, in recognition of fetal personhood."

Hunt3r, Monday, 10 June 2019 03:18 (two weeks ago) Permalink

🐦[How will the RBG cult deal? https://t.co/CdFEIpaXYy🕸
— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) June 9, 2019🕸]🐦


what is even the point of a tweet like this

brimstead, Monday, 10 June 2019 06:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

#Morbsbait

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 June 2019 10:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

He hired Tiger's Mom's daughter too. Tiger Mom defending him pays off.

Yerac, Monday, 10 June 2019 17:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

these people are going to kill us

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Monday, 10 June 2019 18:01 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Good news:

Finally: A 5–4 decision ruling that the Virginia House lacks standing to defend its racial gerrymander in court. That effectively means its gerrymander is toast.

Majority: Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Fun!https://t.co/7iA2rRb24r

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 17, 2019

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 17 June 2019 14:38 (one week ago) Permalink

Check out who joined the majority!

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 17 June 2019 14:39 (one week ago) Permalink

gorsuch seems like more of an ideologue, like thomas, than apparatchik, like alito/kavanaugh

old cloud yells at man (voodoo chili), Monday, 17 June 2019 14:42 (one week ago) Permalink

do we know why breyer didn't vote in the majority?

old cloud yells at man (voodoo chili), Monday, 17 June 2019 14:47 (one week ago) Permalink

the alliances among the justices seem odd in this case but maybe that is because it is largely a process decision about standing rather than about gerrymandering itself. apparently it is the first incarnation of this particular line-up

Dan S, Monday, 17 June 2019 15:30 (one week ago) Permalink

according to Adam Feldman

Dan S, Monday, 17 June 2019 15:31 (one week ago) Permalink

Yes, it's about standing. This means, though, that the lower court's decision will hold.

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 17 June 2019 15:33 (one week ago) Permalink

so, a good outcome!

Dan S, Monday, 17 June 2019 15:35 (one week ago) Permalink

Good outcome for VA, don't think it has implications for gerrymander in other states.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 17 June 2019 17:06 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.