Reply With Quote
the argument that these are partisan gerrymanders won't wash -- black folks votes don't count in red states unless they vote for Republicans
SC, Alabama and TN move swiftly to take away black representation
Jim Crow 2.0
the argument that these are partisan gerrymanders won't wash -- black folks votes don't count in red states unless they vote for Republicans
the judiciary is a co-equal sovereign, federal justices are politically appointed
interpreting the cons ution is politics, but the people will have their say too
just throwing this out there, partisan redistricting every two years is contrary to the Guarantee Clause
https://cons utioncenter.org/the-c...-iv/clauses/42The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
sweaty, desperate calvinball
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5-243_f20h.pdfThis is absolutely outrageous. SCOTUS reinstated Texas gerrymander 15 weeks before primary because they claimed it was too close to election to block it but now allowing Alabama to gerrymander one week before primary after trial court found map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters
just popping by
This is a Dred Scott court. They have engaged in the fastest rollback of Black political rights since Rutherford Hayes ended Reconstruction in 1877. One-third of African American seats are threatened. We are not speaking up strongly enough against a court that's rolling back civil rights
Like the dems don't even have to do anything complicated in 2028. Kill the fillibuster and inform SCOTUS that their court will now be held in bum Kentucky and their entire budget is zeroed. You don't even have to pack the court.
SCOTUS has basically rewritten the 14th and 15th Amendments -- which were written to protect the rights of black people from discrimination -- so that neither the courts nor Congress can fix racial gerrymandering
Rep. Lieu: “The Supreme Court is out of control, out of touch with the American people…This is the most corrupt Supreme Court we’ve seen in our history, and reform is going to come next year."
With its recent rulings, the Roberts Court has now entirely perverted the purpose of the 15th Amendment, turning an outright ban on racial discrimination in voting into a right to discriminate against black voters.
Lost cause spotted
According to the majority of wise, juridical heads in Slaughter, President Johnson was wronged by Congress and should have had free hand to wreck the reconstruction:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5-332_qn12.pdf
https://bsky.app/profile/leahlitman..../3mpgpiqhr622n
Last edited by Winehole23; 2 Weeks Ago at 04:14 PM.
Slaughter basically ends executive agency independence; now the president can fire whomever he pleases
Last edited by Winehole23; 2 Weeks Ago at 04:15 PM.
really, really radical stuff
rundown of recent decisions
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/235-h...urisdiction-inJust one overarching note about all of these rulings: Even before the final eight decisions this week (as many as five of which, I fear, could split the justices the usual way), last week’s rulings brought to 12 the number of 6-3 rulings from the Court in cases argued this term, 10 of which had the Republican appointees in the majority and the Democratic appointees in dissent. That’s already three more than last term (and the number will go up), without even getting to the emergency docket. However we define “big” cases, and whichever cases we do and don’t count, any claim that the defining characteristic of the Supreme Court isn’t this 6-3 split is an increasingly tired canard.
https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/131.7...n_wjmbxh9c.pdfMost jurists and scholars today take for granted that the U.S. Cons ution imposes unwritten but judicially enforceable limits on how Congress and the President may construct their interrelationships by statute. This “juristocratic” understanding of the separation of powers is often regarded as a given or inherent feature of American cons utionalism. But it is not. Instead, it emerged from a revanchist reaction to Reconstruction. As an ascendent white South violently returned to power in Washington, its intellectual supporters depicted a tragic era in which an unprincipled Congress uncons utionally paralyzed the President in pursuit of an unwise and unjust policy of racial equality. Determined to prevent Reconstruction from reoccurring, historians, political scientists, and a future Supreme Court Justice by the name of William Howard Taft demanded judicial intervention to prevent Congress from ever again weaving obstructions around the President. This Lost Cause dogma became Supreme Court doctrine in Myers v. United States. Authored by Chief Justice Taft, the opinion was the first to condemn legislation for violating an implied legal limit on Congress’s power to structure the executive branch. It is today at the heart of an ongoing separation-of-powers counterrevolution.
Sotomayor in Slaughter
"Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of Government have been acting in open defiance of the Cons ution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong."
The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.
Even before Humphrey’s, the Court’s precedents likewise made clear that it is the majority’s radical theory of unitary executive power, not the sustained practice of the political branches over the centuries, that is out of step with traditional notions of separation of powers in this country.
No case before the turn of the 20th century suggested that the President’s removal power was not regulable by Congress. In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803),Chief Justice Marshall approvingly recognized that an office with a 5-year fixed-term tenure was “not removable at the will of the executive” and thus was “independent of the executive.” Id., at 162, 172. That protection meant that, “having once made [a fixed-term] appointment, [the President’s] power over the office [was] terminated in all cases.” Id., at 162. Indeed, the historic dispute in that case, over whether Marbury had been commissioned to his office as a justice of the peace, would have been academic if President Jefferson could have removed Marbury at pleasure once commissioned. It mattered only if Marbury, at that point, was safe from removal.12
Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies,shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with responsibility for managing the Nation’s energy supply, see 42 U. S. C. §7171(b)(1); the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which protectsAmericans against harms caused by dangerous goods, see 15 U. S. C. §2053(a); the Chemical Safety Board, tasked with investigating chemical disasters, see 42 U. S. C. §7412(r)(6)(B); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, responsible for the regulation of nuclear power, see 42U. S. C. §§5841(a), (c), (e); and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), charged with ensuring the integrity ofthe civil service, see 5 U. S. C. §1202. The list of agencies potentially modified by today’s decision goes on.
Last edited by Winehole23; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:41 AM.
Seldom, if ever, has this Court worked such a profound bait and switch on a coequal branch: For more than 90years, Congress believed, with this Court’s express approval, that it was allowed to create a workable Government, including by granting certain agencies tasked with certain responsibilities some independence from Presidential control. In rejecting that project, after decades of promising the political branches that structures like the FTC’s were permissible, the Court creates an Executive Branch that Congress never dreamed of establishing and that it now has little hope of ever reining in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
