Supreme Court WTF Thread

[Mickey Massuco]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/court-past-voting-discrimination-no-longer-held/

I don't know much about this issue but the decision sounds bad, as I don't trust conservatives when it comes to modernizing archaic laws. Can someone more educated explain what the results of this will be?

 

[Lazgistics Supervisor]

But the court’s majority said Congress cannot use the same formula from four decades ago, which judged states based on black voter registration and turnout.

Basically, areas that were predominantly black 40 years ago may not be anymore, there's a growing Latino population, etc. It's basically saying that using a law based on societal norms from nearly half a century ago is dumb.

Now, as to the fear that Conservatives may improperly update older laws? That seems like a sound one to me.

 

[NoCalMike]

Antonin Scalia ‏@SCOTUS_Scalia 26 Jun
Yesterday I voted to overturn a legislative body. Today I said it was offensive for a court to do so. The difference is fuck you.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/south-more-racist-north

The results were striking: The researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—required to seek federal approval for election law changes under the VRA.

 

[Brooklyn Zoo]

Color me surprised.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.ibtimes.com/supreme-court-self-incrimination-ruling-no-right-remain-silent-unless-you-speak-1324515

Can't remember if this got mentioned.

If you want to invoke your constitutional right to remain silent, you’d better not be silent.

That’s the circular logic of a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that simply remaining silent is not enough to protect American citizens from self-incrimination.

 

[Precious Roy]

Hey why not. We're already living out 1984, let's go all the fucking way

 

[Jingus]

So now you've literally gotta say "I choose to invoke my right to remain silent" out loud and THEN say nothing? Ugh. How does any sane adult come to that conclusion? Hey, what if the person is mute, or doesn't speak English?

Color me surprised.

See, it's posts like this that really suffer in the context-less POTD thread. Without quoting the previous post, nobody would have any idea about why those three words are hilarious.

Weird anecdote, though: in college recently I became friends with a gay black dude from New York who emphatically stated that all his worst brushes with racism happened in the Northeast, not in Texas. He said that he'd generally found the South to be way more accepting. Maybe he's just a statistical anomaly, I know anecdotal evidence isn't really worth much, but it was still surprising.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

The Supreme Court’s divisive decision Wednesday striking down a Watergate-era limit on campaign contributions was the latest milestone for conservative justices who are disassembling a campaign finance regime they feel violates free-speech rights.

The 5 to 4 decision — striking down the limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors can contribute to candidates and political committees — was the fifth since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the court that agreed with constitutional arguments challenging laws designed to blunt the influence of money in politics.

We need to start taking bets about how much the total money spent on the 2014 and 2016 elections are going to be. Or just how many times larger they'll be than some third world countries annual budget.

Anyone have any bets on the outcome of the contraceptive/hobby lobby thing before SCOTUS right now and just how big the impact will be if they find against the feds?

 

[KOAB]

Eh the limits on campaign donations doesn't really change anything

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

The cumulative effect and precedent does.

 

[KOAB]

Not really since they could just given money to their friends to donate thru them and also use their companies/corporations after they hit their personal limit.

The only thing this changes is now the fact America no longer pretends it's a weird "capitalistic" corporate oligarchy. But most people knew that since the richest of people get close and donate to every candidate that seems like they have a realistic chance at being President all the way down to charismatic politicians in small towns.

All that information has been out there for nearly a decade so it's not like this should be some epic huge change except to the people who know nothing.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

So you don't expect there to be a huge spike in the amount of money spent in the next elections then? Obviously there were lots of ways around it before but that doesn't mean everyone was willing to take those ways. Now it's nice and simple.

 

[KOAB]

I just think we'll have more weird "Cult of Personality figures like the Koch Brothers or sleazy Bernanke types who spread money to multiple candidates who might win. It'll just lead to some news segments on multiple channels that will be mocked by Colbert, Maher, and Stewart while the general public stews about it but nothing comes out of it.

The only thing I think that could be a positive coming out is more foreign donators who own companies here will be exposed and the legitimacy of that will be questioned. But all I see from that is the same type of infotainment coming out of it while Fox defends the ones who donate to the right wing while attacking the ones who donate to the liberal side and vice versa.

Now here's something that actually worries me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

A completely vague conservative pipe dream where no one has any idea how many states have appealed or rescinded their appeals and if those rescinded appeals can be rescinded? I find that a lot less worrying but I suppose anything is theoretically possible.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/supreme-court-dont-treat-drunk-drivers-better-than-pregnant-women/388688/

In the mid-aughts, the United Parcel Service had two policies that seem irreconcilable by any basic standard of fairness. The first was that if a UPS driver temporarily lost his or her license because of a DUI conviction, the company would consider assigning an additional driver to shuttle them around and keep up their job responsibilities. The second was that if a UPS driver became pregnant and was told to avoid heavy lifting, there was a chance that no accommodations would be made to let her continue to deliver packages. In UPS’s eyes, pregnancy deserved no more special consideration than an off-the-job injury.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that undermines those policies—and any others that don’t require employers to lighten the workloads of pregnant employees when exceptions are made for others. In addition to accounting for the needs of employees with DUI convictions, UPS would make exceptions for employees whose high blood pressure or history of accidents prevented them from driving. “Why,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote on behalf of the 6-3 majority, “when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?”

Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy were the 3 against.

 

[Sex Machine Gun]

Two of those aren't surprises, but Kennedy though? Whaaaat?!

 

[NoCalMike]

Kennedy is supposed to be the "middle" one....LOL at that notion.

 

[bigolsmitty]

Remember, Kennedy voted to destroy Obamacare.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/rodriguez_v_united_states_a_huge_win_against_police_overreach_at_the_supreme.html

SCOTUS actually rules to limit the cops for once!

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/25/supreme-court-guide-four-big-decisions-remain/

We've already had two big cases the last couple days but we've still got more to go (not including same sex marriage which this includes)!

1. Execution Methods

Glossip v. Gross
At issue: Whether the sedative midazolam presents an unconstitutional risk of severe pain in executions of condemned criminals.Three men on Oklahoma’s death row claim that midazolam, the anesthetic the state plans to administer before introducing paralytic and heart-stopping drugs to their bloodstreams, is unreliable, exposing them to an unconstitutional risk of severe pain as they are put to death.
2. Power-Plant Emissions

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA et. al.
Issue: Whether the EPA unreasonably disregarded costs when it decided to regulate power plant emissions of mercury and other air toxins. The regulations would cost $9.6 billion annually, according to EPA estimates. But the agency said it was appropriate to consider only public health risks—not industry costs—when it decided to regulate coal- and oil-fired generation plants.
3. Congressional Redistricting

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Issue: Whether a state may transfer redistricting authority from the legislature to a nonpartisan independent commission. Arizona voters in 2000 passed a ballot initiative that shifted responsibility for drawing congressional districts from the state legislature to an independent redistricting commission made up of two Democrats, two Republicans and an independent.

All of these could have some real consequences. Will the conservatives get some wins? Will they suddenly have a change of heart about that whole ABOLISH SCOTUS thing? Or will there be more LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGING!

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Why *should* the EPA have to consider industry costs? "Hey, don't poison the environment unless it costs too much not to, then fuck it, keep on keeping on."

 

[SFH]

The EPA and the DEQ are fucking jokes. I am realistic enough to know that there needs to be give and take, preserve the environment but we do need to have sustainable energy.

I've been thinking about starting a thread to discuss in depth some of the shit I've had to deal with working in the public but specifically local DEQ and EPA branches in 2008/9 let a local business dump "treated oily wastewater" into the water supply after being asked directly by the water district to PLEASE dispose of it elsewhere. They had sized up our area and it was a dog fight, but when your own government doesn't back up your water professionals, you're dicked over.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Court ruled against the EPA (because of course) and in favor of AZ's independent redistricting.

 

[bigolsmitty]

Also ruled pro-death penalty (lethal injection).

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

Well I guess they aren't an activist court anymore! God Bless America!

Although Independent Redistricting may get conservatives a flutter. Still they protected the Death Penalty and fucked with the EPA. GOOD DAY!

 

[bigolsmitty]

I really like the idea of independent redistricting. Although I guess an "independent redistricter" could be just as subject to bias / parochialism as a party-aligned one. I've heard you can also draw districts using software too. I dunno how that works.

 

[KOAB]

Currently proportional political representation is based on the total number of people living in an area. If the lawsuit is successful, only those eligible to vote would be counted when determining political districts and representation. Prisoners, non-citizens (regardless of their legal status), felons, children, etc would no longer be counted. Areas with high numbers of these groups would suddenly find they have less political power while those areas with mostly citizens eligible to vote would gain power. California, which has a significant number of non-citizens, would see its power drop while "fly over" states would see their power increase.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-the-supreme-court-could-overhaul-our-congressional-map-explained/

It's all over, Liebruls.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/scotus_drunk_driving_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html

Justice Sotomayor is assuming that you’re going to lose,” Alito quips, filling the silence. “So she wants to know what your reaction is to that.”

All the justices laugh hysterically, including Sotomayor, who looks down the bench at Alito with a fond grin. Keena stays absolutely stone-faced.


“I don’t like it,” she says quietly. “I don’t like it one bit.” She then quietly retreats.

Another example of why we need cameras in the SCOTUS.

 

[BruiserBrody]

Kinda on topic:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruz-ready-indefinite-supreme-court-blockade?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Early last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accidentally said what he was thinking about Senate Republicans’ tactics regarding the Supreme Court. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” the GOP declared during a radio interview. “I promise you….”

What McCain was describing, of course, was a continuation of a Republican blockade, unprecedented in American history, blocking any high-court nominee from a Democratic president, regardless of merit. A controversy ensued and McCain walked back his emphatic “promise.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), however, is less concerned with appearances. The Washington Post reported yesterday:
Speaking to reporters after a campaign rally for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate here, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said that there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices — appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election.

“You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue,” said Cruz, when he was asked whether a Republican-controlled Senate should hold votes on a President Hillary Clinton’s nominees. “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”
Keep in mind, after McCain’s comments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) conceded that Republicans “can’t just simply stonewall” any Democratic nominee, just because he or she is a Democratic nominee. Yesterday, Cruz effectively responded, “Well, maybe we can.”