Reply With Quote
nobody here argued it's a right, Mr. Bad Motorcycle guy
you're boxing in the mirror
lol BM triggered by health
nobody here argued it's a right, Mr. Bad Motorcycle guy
you're boxing in the mirror
Democracy isn't static, wins can become losses and unpredictable combinations of interests can upset established plans
Read through this thread and find something to argue with, I've provided no shortage of topical handles
Say your say
Look for two possible SCOTUS orders today in big fully briefed emergency-docket cases:
whether Trump can deploy the National Guard to Chicago
whether Texas can use its freshly gerrymandered map in the 2026 midterms
Boasberg is back
https://www.do entcloud.org/do e...berg112825pdf/
Boasberg also backhanded the Senate's Stalinesque "rogue judge" hearing
https://dailycaller.com/2025/12/02/f...-rogue-judges/
(Boasberg is a literal pal of John Roberts, I hear)
Trump probably likes this ruling
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/u...ashington.htmlthe ruling from James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the Federal District Court, came after federal prosecutors used a local grand jury convened in D.C. Superior Court to indict a Washington resident accused of having an illegal firearm. A federal grand jury had refused to return an indictment on the same charge.
A magistrate judge balked when prosecutors tried to proceed with the local indictment in his federal courtroom, but Judge Boasberg said in his ruling that the case — and potentially any other — should be allowed to proceed.
Now, what was once an obscure element of Washington’s judicial system — the shared role of federal and local grand juries in the hybrid federal district — could give federal prosecutors new courses of action, experts said.
SCOTUS upholds the Texas racial gerrymander
https://utexas.app.box.com/s/b91ggd9...5fg6p1q302srww
the Kagan dissent
JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom J USTICE SOTOMAYOR and
JUSTICE J ACKSON join, dissenting from the grant of the ap-
plication for stay.
Over the course of three months, a three-judge District
Court in Texas undertook to resolve the factual dispute at
issue in this application: In enacting an electoral map
slanted toward Republicans, did Texas predominantly use
race to draw its new district lines? Or said otherwise, did
Texas accomplish its partisan objectives by means of a ra-
cial gerrymander? The District Court conducted a nine-day
hearing, involving the testimony of nearly two dozen wit-
nesses and the introduction of thousands of exhibits. It
sifted through the resulting factual record, spanning some
3,000 pages. It assessed the credibility of each of the wit-
nesses it had seen and heard in the courtroom. And after
considering all the evidence, it held that the answer was
clear. Texas largely divided its citizens along racial lines to
create its new pro-Republican House map, in violation of
the Cons ution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
The court issued a 160-page opinion recounting in detail its
factual findings.
Yet this Court reverses that judgment based on its pe-
rusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record. We
are a higher court than the District Court, but we are not a
better one when it comes to making such a fact-based deci-
sion. That is why we are supposed to use a clear-error
standard of review—why we are supposed to uphold the
District Court’s decision that race-based line-drawing oc-
curred (even if we would have ruled differently) so long as
it is plausible. Without so much as a word about that stand-
ard, this Court today announces that Texas may run next
year’s elections with a map the District Court found to have
violated all our oft-repeated strictures about the use of race
in districting. Today’s order disrespects the work of a Dis-
trict Court that did everything one could ask to carry out
its charge—that put aside every consideration except get-
ting the issue before it right. And today’s order disserves
the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were
assigned to their new districts based on their race. Because
this Court’s precedents and our Cons ution demand bet-
ter, I respectfully dissent.
If Purcell prevents such a ruling, it gives every State the
opportunity to hold an unlawful election. The District
Court, once again aptly, made the point: Were judicial re-
view so broadly foreclosed, then to implement even a “bla-
tantly uncons utional map,” the “Legislature would need
only to pass” it on a schedule like this one. App. 154–155.
That cannot be the law—except of course that today it is.
According to the majority, Texas had a free pass to redis-
trict in August 2025 for the 2026 House elections. See ante,
at 2. All that the plaintiffs can hope for is better luck in
2028.
The majority today loses sight of its proper role. It is sup-
posed to review the District Court’s factfinding only for
clear error. But under that deferential standard, the Dis-
trict Court’s “plausible” (actually, quite careful) factfinding
must survive. The majority can reach the result it does—
overturning the District Court’s finding of racial line-
drawing, even if to achieve partisan goals—only by
arrogating to itself that court’s rightful function. We know
better, the majority declares today. I cannot think of a rea-
son why.
And this Court’s eagerness to playact a district court here
has serious consequence. The majority calls its “evalua-
tion” of this case “preliminary.” Ante, at 1. The results,
though, will be anything but. This Court’s stay guarantees
that Texas’s new map, with all its enhanced partisan ad-
vantage, will govern next year’s elections for the House of
Representatives. And this Court’s stay ensures that many
Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral
districts because of their race. And that result, as this
Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of
the Cons ution.
the "soft-secession" terminology is new to me
does seem to describe certain actions of contemporaneous US states, e.g., forming regional associations to deal with incipient problems created by cutting Medicare funding and raising health insurance premiums
financial coercion, the destruction of the public sector and illegal enforcement seem to the be master tropes of Trump 2.0 so far
https://mikebakerlaw.com/blog/2025/0...ral-overreach/
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-05-2025 at 02:03 PM.
superficially "soft-secession" sounds like a strong version of federalism, where the states are much more independent and enterprising
as imagined by liberal resisters
wickedly based on previous rulings of sitting Supreme Court justices
The plaintiffs challenged the Texas law six days *before* it was signed by the Governor and became law. That was *too late*.
He wasn't shot.
He didn't win.
He is in the Epstein files.
The corrupt scotus ruled that the ICE GESTAPO - could racial profile which destroyed every precedent. Same with womens health care/abortion.
Same with giving a felon- immunity.
This is not even close that the same guys that flew an upside-down flag in their home and whose wife was on the insurrection team and another guy who hates his skin color so much he just decided to pretend he is white and support white supremacy-
are the same guys who are complicit in the destruction of the us cons ution.
Not sure why you would cheer all of it tho'...? what are you getting out of the destruction of our democracy?
Why are you against americans obtaining health care? Why does the cons ution suddenly matter when you need to point out that health care is not in it?
Shredding it for the reasons i mentioned above is fine with you - but suddenly not so fine when poor and working people need healthcare - why does that wake you up to rail against it?
What harm is there in giving americans what most advanced countries give already? (health care)
How does it help you to all over your fellow humans - just forget the labels (R or D) for a minute?
that cert was granted is puzzling, all of the lower courts tossed it
the trend seems to be that since everything Trump does is a political question, there's no valid judicial or legal checks on the executive b/c, separation of powers
the at ude was much different under Trump's predecessor
and will be if his successor is not a Republican
re: the 14th amendment
some freed slaves were smuggled and not born in the US: the 14th amendment made clear they were US citizens, and anyone born within US territory of whatever parentage, except foreign diplomats and Native Nations. which had been the general custom before codification for all but slaves.
the 14th Amendment was neither colorblind nor xenophobic at its inception
the immunity holding in Trump v US was an unlawful cons utional convention that functionally put Trump beyond judicial and statutory checks on his political decisions
ergo, the Supreme Court itself should come in for statutory limitation of jurisdiction as well as expansion, to reverse its illegitimate alteration of the form of government
putting a finer point on it, the 14th Amendment made smuggled slaves of foreign birth US citizens, and intentionally so
Trump loses emergency appeal, National Guard is stayed from deployment in Illinois
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5a443_ba7d.pdf
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
