The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[dislaxxic]

In my opinion, the "alternative" is to have a genuine discussion about what sorts of real-world impacts that a politicized court can have on the day-to-day lives of American citizens.

Care to opine on THIS situation paesan?

"Most Americans agree that partisan gerrymandering is a scourge to democracy. But is it one that citizens can fix themselves? That’s the theory floated by Justice Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over two major gerrymandering cases. “One of the arguments that we’ve heard is that the court must act because nobody else can,” Gorsuch said. But “is that true,” given that some states have already “provided for remedies in this area” through “citizen initiatives” and “at the ballot box”? Given that fact, why should the federal courts step in when “there’s a lot of movement in this area” already?

As Talking Points Memo’s Tierney Sneed has observed, Gorsuch’s question effectively weaponizes redistricting reform as an argument against federal court intervention. His solution—let the people solve the problem—is absurd for at least two reasons: The court may well strike down independent redistricting commissions, and even if it doesn’t, at least 24 states bar citizens from circumventing the legislature to enact gerrymander reform. In response to this problem, Paul Clement, the conservative attorney defending gerrymanderers, pointed on Wednesday to H.R. 1, the Democratic measure that would compel each state to adopt an independent redistricting commission. But as Clement hinted, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court would also strike down this central provision of H.R. 1. The upshot is that without the support of the federal judiciary, millions of Americans will be powerless to stop partisan redistricting."

Perhaps we should start with that first sentence above...do you agree with that premise?

..

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

In my opinion, the "alternative" is to have a genuine discussion about what sorts of real-world impacts that a politicized court can have on the day-to-day lives of American citizens.

Care to opine on THIS situation paesan?

"Most Americans agree that partisan gerrymandering is a scourge to democracy. But is it one that citizens can fix themselves? That’s the theory floated by Justice Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over two major gerrymandering cases. “One of the arguments that we’ve heard is that the court must act because nobody else can,” Gorsuch said. But “is that true,” given that some states have already “provided for remedies in this area” through “citizen initiatives” and “at the ballot box”? Given that fact, why should the federal courts step in when “there’s a lot of movement in this area” already?

As Talking Points Memo’s Tierney Sneed has observed, Gorsuch’s question effectively weaponizes redistricting reform as an argument against federal court intervention. His solution—let the people solve the problem—is absurd for at least two reasons: The court may well strike down independent redistricting commissions, and even if it doesn’t, at least 24 states bar citizens from circumventing the legislature to enact gerrymander reform. In response to this problem, Paul Clement, the conservative attorney defending gerrymanderers, pointed on Wednesday to H.R. 1, the Democratic measure that would compel each state to adopt an independent redistricting commission. But as Clement hinted, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court would also strike down this central provision of H.R. 1. The upshot is that without the support of the federal judiciary, millions of Americans will be powerless to stop partisan redistricting."

Perhaps we should start with that first sentence above...do you agree with that premise?

..

then what's the alternative to a politicized court? it's designed to not be politicized. it is. it always has been.

pack the court? makes it more politicized. been tried, latest attempt failed. DNC considering it again perhaps.

partisan gerrymandering is a scourge but stating such doesnt resolve anything; it merely regurgitates that there is a problem.

state congressional representatives are charged with drawing districts. you'd need to change that. BUT. who then will draw the districts??? the feds? alexis marks???

the "politicized" courts? is that activism???

[OCanada]

SCOTUS is on the verge of undoing the greatest original contribution in political theory. The first amendment and disestablishment of religion. Clearly acfivism that ignores both the language and the intent of the first amendment and the drafters.

Trump had a list of about 6 strong “conservative” jurists for his first nomination. He ignored them for someone I consider far below any reasonable standard compared to the others

[dislaxxic]

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Legalized Torture

"Pay attention to this language: According to Gorsuch, “the question in dispute” here is whether lethal injection “cruelly superadds pain” to Bucklew’s death. But that language does not come from Baze or Glossip. It comes from Thomas’ separate opinions, which were joined only by Scalia. With one neat trick, Gorsuch has transformed the “superadds pain” test from a minority viewpoint to binding Supreme Court precedent.

Why does this matter? Because since 1958, the Supreme Court has rejected an originalist interpretation of the Eighth Amendment—which would, after all, permit the hanging of children, among other ghastly punishments. Instead, the court has asked whether a punishment violates the “evolving standards of decency” of a “civilized society.” Baze and Glossip did not embrace this standard, but they did not reject it, either. After all, by forcing states to use the less painful of two execution methods, the court adopted a resolutely nonoriginalist view that the Eighth Amendment may require a more “civilized” death. In Bucklew, Gorsuch gutted that logic and replaced it with Thomas’ hard-line originalism."

Conservative Activist A-Hole.

..

[seacoaster]

Some time ago someone (Hoodat?) was talking about term limits for the Justices of the SCOTUS. Here is a pretty interesting view of the issue:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/acad ... rm-limits/

"Should we impose term limits on Supreme Court justices? Many people, of varying political views, have suggested that we should. They argue that requiring justices to step down after a fixed term – the most common suggestion is 18 years – would give all presidents an equal opportunity to nominate justices, depoliticize the confirmation process and ensure that the Supreme Court is never too far out of step with the views of the American public.

Whether adopting term limits would accomplish all of these goals is, of course, disputed. But is there any reason not to try it? In “Term Limits and Turmoil: Roe v. Wade’s Whiplash,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review, we argue that there is a very serious potential downside to limiting justices to 18-year terms. A Supreme Court that welcomes a new justice every two years, and turns over entirely over the course of every 18 years, could wreak havoc on doctrinal stability. Under the current constitutionally mandated system of life tenure, the court changes slowly. Most justices serve at least 20 years and many serve 30 years or more; no new justices joined the court at all between 1994 and 2005. This longevity and stability means that doctrine changes slowly and incrementally. A constantly changing court, on the other hand, might make sudden and radical changes in doctrine.

But is this a realistic fear? Our article tries to assess just how much instability an 18-year term limit would cause. We use a computer simulation to model what is likely to have happened to abortion rights after 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was decided) if term limits had been in place from then until now.

We posit that the most senior associate justice, Justice William Brennan, would have had to retire in 1975, to be replaced by a justice nominated by then-President Gerald Ford and confirmed by the Senate as it was constituted in 1975. Two years later, President Jimmy Carter would have replaced Justice Byron White, and so on. As our hypothetical Supreme Court changes every two years, we predict whether a majority of justices would vote to retain Roe or to overrule it; if an overruling is predicted, we then predict in subsequent years whether a majority would vote to reinstate it (and then whether it would be overruled again, reinstated again … you get the idea!)."

[cradleandshoot]

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Legalized Torture

"Pay attention to this language: According to Gorsuch, “the question in dispute” here is whether lethal injection “cruelly superadds pain” to Bucklew’s death. But that language does not come from Baze or Glossip. It comes from Thomas’ separate opinions, which were joined only by Scalia. With one neat trick, Gorsuch has transformed the “superadds pain” test from a minority viewpoint to binding Supreme Court precedent.

Why does this matter? Because since 1958, the Supreme Court has rejected an originalist interpretation of the Eighth Amendment—which would, after all, permit the hanging of children, among other ghastly punishments. Instead, the court has asked whether a punishment violates the “evolving standards of decency” of a “civilized society.” Baze and Glossip did not embrace this standard, but they did not reject it, either. After all, by forcing states to use the less painful of two execution methods, the court adopted a resolutely nonoriginalist view that the Eighth Amendment may require a more “civilized” death. In Bucklew, Gorsuch gutted that logic and replaced it with Thomas’ hard-line originalism."

Conservative Activist A-Hole.

..

Cry me a friggin river...

[CU77]

I know. We should just torture all the bad guys instead of sending them to prison (which is very expensive). Singapore has the right idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

[OCanada]

Trump has two opportunities to make good appointments to SCOTUS. He failed in the goal of making constructive conservative jurists to the Court, he succeeded in appointing at least one who vote he can count to affirm the president is effectively above the law. To succeed with ztrump you have to place his interests above the law and tradition. The recently resigned SEC found that out. He also wants to abolish judge’s when they don’t support his positions. The FFs would be appalled. One of the pillars of this country and all it has been able to accomplish is the duke of law. There are more than one and he is compromising them all. This is going to exact an economic cost on the country in the end. One of our valid complaints with China is their legal system. We want to impose standards on them Trump doesn’t want to support here

[runrussellrun]

Trump has two opportunities to make good appointments to SCOTUS. He failed in the goal of making constructive conservative jurists to the Court, he succeeded in appointing at least one who vote he can count to affirm the president is effectively above the law. To succeed with ztrump you have to place his interests above the law and tradition. The recently resigned SEC found that out. He also wants to abolish judge’s when they don’t support his positions. The FFs would be appalled. One of the pillars of this country and all it has been able to accomplish is the duke of law. There are more than one and he is compromising them all. This is going to exact an economic cost on the country in the end. One of our valid complaints with China is their legal system. We want to impose standards on them Trump doesn’t want to support here

Please, with this. I didn't support tRump, and the constant bashing is Hillaryous. Bringing the founding fathers into the mix? Oh, yeah....THOSE guys. The ones that held tight that slavery teddy bear (very similar to todays Illegal work force), didn't allow woman and non-monied men to vote. I have always held that the Supremes were there worse creation.....by far. Lifetime?

Also....plenty of POTUSA's and members of Congress feel they are above the law. Insider trading? Not for them.

[OCanada]

I am glad you are amused. Understanding and awareness of the magnitude of the issues involved is not constantly bashing. I care about corruption but but this is far more serious. Apparently you fail to understand the difference. This goes to the core of the health of the country, our economy and our future. So my suggestion is get a grip. This is very different from just banging on Trump and what I read was very thin gruel indeed

[runrussellrun]

I am glad you are amused. Understanding and awareness of the magnitude of the issues involved is not constantly bashing. I care about corruption but but this is far more serious. Apparently you fail to understand the difference. This goes to the core of the health of the country, our economy and our future. So my suggestion is get a grip. This is very different from just banging on Trump and what I read was very thin gruel indeed

I doubt, 4 years ago, you cared one lick about the magnitude of tRumps alleged crimes. Unless you are a victim of his skull duggary. Amazing how many posters on these threads have worked with the guy in some capacity.

But, haven't seen you, on many others, upset about Sen Feinstein's insider deals, making her rich. Nor her ignoring the driver Spy.

Insider trading....besides the guy from Buffalo, Chris Collins, who won re-election anyway, who else in Congress has been charged with insider trading since the STOCK ACT? And, didn't hear a peep from anyone when Obama made it extremely difficult to even check Congress' investments. Collins "trail" timeline is sure being dragged out. TAATS wanna make sure THEY don't get dragged into the spotlite....so treading lightly. Sen. Mitch McConnel own stock in companies that benefit from his votes? Or non-votes? you betcha........but, tRump, tRump, tRump.....like hes the ONLY alleged criminal in DC.

[OCanada]

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between what SCOTUS role is in this country and how much depends on their doing their job with integrity. None of these “issues” you keep raising in your whataboutisms concern me on this topic. They are irrelevant. Try staying focused.

If I were you I would be careful speculating about me or what I know or what I care about because you don’t know.

It’s nothing more than a red herring.

[runrussellrun]

Yes, Dred Scott decision was one for the ages. It was the right, decision, after all, based on the FF article 3 in the US Constitution. Right near the language that the Supremes ignore about Congressional representation and population.

Only "bad" decision these judges have evah had.

Speaking of "integrity", Where did Judge Scalia die again? Book deals? Free trips? Nope, clean as a whistle they are.

And not disparaging what you know, or do, not interested. I do, however, find it interesting that many have had business dealings with the guy. No more than a couple dozen posting on these political threads......what are the chances?

[dislaxxic]

Trump Gets Revenge on the ‘Most Liberal Court,’ Helped by McConnell’s Dirty Tricks

"...for over 100 years, the approval of both home-state senators—called “blue slips”—was required for a judicial nomination to proceed. Back in 2009, McConnell sent President Obama a formal letter, signed by 41 Republicans, alternately praising the “shared constitutional responsibility” of staffing the federal bench and warning that “if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.”

And indeed, with the assent of Senator Patrick Leahy, then the chair of the judiciary committee, Republican senators blocked 18 Obama nominees by refusing to submit blue slips.

To no one’s surprise, McConnell has reversed himself on that sacred principle now that he is majority leader and a Republican is in the White House: the blue-slip is history. The GOP chairmen of the judiciary committee have simply junked the century-old practice, at least as applied to appellate court. As a result, to take one example, Judge David Stras of Minnesota is now a judge with life tenure on the Eighth Circuit, despite then-Senator Al Franken refusing to submit a blue slip amid widespread condemnation from liberals."

..

[seacoaster]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who has done more damage to the institutional integrity and operations of the Senate, as a place where the country's work really gets done, than McConnell.

[OCanada]

Well I confess I have never worked with Trump. But I have met him.

So here you go:

He brought the Trump Princess to Baltimore. There was a gathering at the Inner Harbor. I was attending with a woman who had at one time modeled for Vogue as I recall. Might have been Elle. In the event Trump came over and invited her to dinner and to spend the night on the Princess. A total; stranger tp him. She declined.

I also know somebody who did business with him. He has something like 500 pass through businesses. he frequently only licenses his name to an entity.

Certainly true the Constitution was not a final document. If it were it would have died a long time ago. But it embodies the principles that have been used to modify it and give it life over all these years. Change takes time but eventually most of the egregious items have been modified for the better

His two SC picks have been venal. At no other time in our history would they have been approved. No-one I can recall was appointed because they would place the presidency above the rule of law. One of thew singular strengths of this country is the rule of law. Both the document and the legal system are integral to our great success.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ... " The raison d'être of the Constitution.The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which failed largely because there was not a strong central government. The Constitution was amended before it was approved. it was never intended to be unchangeable

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

https://www.axios.com/federal-judges-ru ... 5e87f.html

[runrussellrun]

I know. We should just torture all the bad guys instead of sending them to prison (which is very expensive). Singapore has the right idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

Expensive? Not the payroll for companies that use slave prison labor, from solar panels to forest fire fighters..........a dollar a day provides the Aspen house hay. You'd think with all the kash, Elon Musk would take the prison slave labor savings and bye a better girlfriend than GRIMES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2EJMd7 ... LE&index=2

Remember all the US Senators on the JUDE committee asking all those economic questions, citizens united, etc..........me neither

[seacoaster]

https://www.axios.com/federal-judges-ru ... 5e87f.html

Good news; until Neil and I Like Beer, Senator tell the lower federal courts that it's really none of the courts' business. We shall see.

[seacoaster]

Another legislative dilution of the vote:

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/72004766 ... sional-map