SCOTUS discussion thread

Fisherman's Worf · Oct 28, 2020

Lanzman said: ↑

No, I mean the mediocre, slow, and inefficient care the typical veteran gets.
Click to expand...

Veterans deserve sub-par healthcare, but the public at large does not.

Asyncritus · Oct 28, 2020

Bailey said: ↑

Similar system here (at least for doctors, some hospitals are government run).
Click to expand...

Same here; there are some more or less "government-run" hospitals. They are not the best ones.

But what is interesting is that no matter which kind of hospital I go to, it is paid for the exact same way by my government-administered insurance system.

Which gives me more choice, not less.

Bailey · Oct 28, 2020

Asyncritus said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Similar system here (at least for doctors, some hospitals are government run).
Click to expand...

Same here; there are some more or less "government-run" hospitals. They are not the best ones.

But what is interesting is that no matter which kind of hospital I go to, it is paid for the exact same way by my government-administered insurance system.

Which gives me more choice, not less.
Click to expand...

It's sad that some people are so brainwashed that they assume the most capitalist system must always have the most freedom.

Order2Chaos · Oct 28, 2020

Nova said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

From FB, courtesy of author David Mack:

There's a chance that sometime next week, the SCOTUS will order some states to prematurely stop counting votes on Nov. 3, in spite of laws requiring all legally cast ballots to be counted.

I hope enough Democratic governors (esp. in PA, WI & MI) have the courage to say, "The Court has issued its ruling; now let them enforce it." And then order the counting to continue.

The important thing to remember here is that the Court's rulings only matter if we let them. If the GOP has shown us anything these past four years, it's that the rules cease to matter if the players no longer acknowledge them.

If Democratic governors ignore a SCOTUS order to halt the counting of votes, you know what SCOTUS can do about it?
Answer: Not much.

We're going to get through this, folks. But buckle up—looks like rough road ahead.
Click to expand...

Started last night.

A sampling of good analysis of what a shitshow it was, even without ACB getting involved:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...s-trump-fraud.html?via=rss_socialflow_twitter
FTA:
As the Senate was voting to elevate Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court on Monday night, the immediate stakes for the entire country were made suddenly clear by a critical election ruling from the court she now joins. On Monday night, Justice Brett Kavanaugh released a radical and brazenly partisan opinion that dashed any hopes he, as the Supreme Court’s new median justice, might slow-walk the court’s impending conservative revolution, while also threatening the integrity of next week’s election. In an 18-page lecture, the justice cast doubt on the legitimacy of many mail ballots and endorsed the most sinister component of Bush v. Gore. America’s new median justice is not a friend to democracy, and we may pay the price for Barrett’s confirmation in just eight days.

Monday’s order from the Supreme Court blocked a federal judge’s order that had tweaked Wisconsin’s voting laws in light of the pandemic. The judge directed election officials to count ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received by Nov. 9, finding that the unprecedented demand for mail ballots combined with Postal Service delays could disenfranchise up to 100,000 voters. An appeals court blocked his decision on Oct. 8, and on Monday, SCOTUS kept it on hold by a 5–3 vote. The court offered no majority opinion, but Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all wrote concurrences. Justice Elena Kagan penned a trenchant dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Kavanaugh’s opinion is the most notable of the bunch because he is the new median justice and the opinion is frankly terrifying. In one passage, Kavanaugh attempted to defend the Wisconsin law disqualifying ballots received after Election Day. He pointed out that “most States” share this policy, explaining:

Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.

Kavanaugh then quoted New York University law professor Richard Pildes stating that the “longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.” (Kavanaugh was quoting an article in which Pildes encouraged states to extend their ballot deadlines, directly contradicting Kavanaugh’s argument.)

It is genuinely alarming that the justice cast these aspersions on late-arriving ballots. In at least 18 states (actually 22 including a multitude of Republican states like MS, KY, and TX) and the District of Columbia, election officials do count ballots that arrive after Election Day. And, in these states, there is no result to “flip” because there is no result to overturn until all valid ballots are counted. Further, George W. Bush’s 2000 election legal team—which included Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts—argued during that contested election that ballots arriving late and without postmarks, which were thought to benefit Bush, must be counted in Florida.

Finally, and most importantly, late-arriving ballots have handed the election to a candidate who was behind on election night on many occasions in the United States—most recently, in multiple California congressional races in 2018. Two years ago, California anticipated this possibility after extending the deadline for mail ballots, a move that signaled no chicanery. Yet Republicans seized upon it to delegitimize multiple Democratic victories. Even putative moderate Republican Young Kim raised the notion when she lost her lead after Election Day. Now the country’s highest court is ready to give any such challenges the ammunition they need heading into one of the most fraught election days this country has ever seen due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a would-be strongman in the White House.

President Donald Trump has taken the pastime of false voter fraud allegations to a dangerous new extreme, repeatedly rejecting the validity of mail ballots that arrive after Nov. 3. Indeed, roughly 15 minutes after Kavanaugh’s opinion came down, Trump tweeted: “Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd.” Twitter concealed his tweet with a warning its content is “disputed and might be misleading about how to participate in an election.” But there is nothing Twitter, or anybody else, can do to warn Americans about Kavanaugh’s lies about “chaos and suspicions of impropriety” when states try to count every ballot next month.

And there was another, even more startling assertion in Kavanaugh’s concurrence. While referencing an earlier case, Kavanaugh dropped a bombshell in a footnote: He endorsed an argument that was too extreme for even the Bush v. Gore majority that decided the 2000 election, one that would give the Supreme Court the wholly new right to overrule state courts on their own election laws. In Bush v. Gore, three justices—William Rehnquist, joined by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—tried to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s own election law. As a rule, state Supreme Courts get final say over the meaning of their own state laws. But Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas argued that SCOTUS must review their decisions to ensure they comply with the “intent of the legislature.” In other words, the Supreme Court gets to be a Supreme Board of Elections that substitutes state courts’ interpretation of state law with its own subjective view of a legislature’s “intent.” Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor balked at this theory, refusing to sign onto it.

Yet Kavanaugh cited Rehnquist’s concurrence as if it were precedent. As Rehnquist “persuasively explained in Bush v. Gore,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws.” It is surreal to read these words. Rehnquist’s concurrence garnered just three votes, so it is not precedent at all. Neither, for that matter, is the majority decision in Bush v. Gore, which warned future courts never to rely on it as precedent. To set a good example, SCOTUS itself has never cited any part of Bush v. Gore as precedent. Its opinions are ghosts that haunt modern constitutional law. Yet Kavanaugh just declared in a footnote that he not only agrees with Rehnquist but actually views his opinion as bona fide precedent.

Monday’s opinion was especially bizarre because the justice has previously gone out of his way to distance himself from the more strident conservatives. In cases involving LGBTQ rights and Dreamers, for instance, he has declined to sign onto Thomas’ and Alito’s partisan rants, presenting himself as a reasonable guy who tries really hard to do the right thing. The most generous explanation of Monday’s frightening opinion is that Kavanaugh started to defend his vote in these election cases and got carried away, digging a deeper hole for himself as he tried to respond to the unanswerable rejoinders in Kagan’s dissent.

The most pessimistic view is that Kavanaugh knows exactly what he’s doing: laying the groundwork to reject enough ballots to hand Trump an unearned second term while daringDemocrats to do something about it, or to potentially decide critical congressional races at least. Perhaps Kavanaugh is planting his flag now, proclaiming that he won’t strike compromises for the sake of the court’s legitimacy; to the contrary, he’ll toss fuel on the fire, confident Democrats are too cowardly to retaliate.
------
More from a separate article:
Let’s Count All the Errors and Lies in Brett Kavanaugh’s Defense of Voter Suppression

Mistake No. 1: Vermont hasn’t changed its election laws in response to the pandemic.

Monday’s order required Wisconsin to disqualify ballots that are mailed by Election Day but arrive shortly thereafter. A federal judge had ordered the state to count these ballots, but SCOTUS shot him down by a 5–3 vote. Kavanaugh defended his vote by writing that some states modified their voting rules in light of the pandemic while some did not. This divided response, Kavanaugh suggested, demonstrates that it’s perfectly reasonable for states to ignore the pandemic’s impact on elections and refuse to make voting easier and safer. Kavanaugh cited Vermont as an example of a state that has “decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules.”

As the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office pointed out on Tuesday, Kavanaugh’s claim is “simply not true.” Because of COVID-19, Vermont chose to mail every registered voter a ballot on Oct. 1 this year. This action limits the risk that voters will receive their ballots when it is too late to mail them back on time. Vermont also authorized ballot processing 30 days out from the election to speed up vote-counting. “Those are our VT specific solutions,” the office wrote. It also provided the relevant state guidance to a commenter who considered sending a correction to Kavanaugh. Clearly, Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos is not happy that a sitting Supreme Court justice spread misinformation about his state’s election procedures.

Mistake No. 2: States declare the winner of an election on election night.

In one shocking passage, Kavanaugh baselessly cast doubt on the validity of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day in language echoing Trump’s. Noting that some states throw out these ballots, he wrote:

These States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.

There are really two errors here. The first is that late-arriving ballots can “flip” an election, which is obviously false; as Justice Elena Kagan retorted in dissent, “there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or ‘improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.”

The second error lies in Kavanaugh’s claim that states “definitively announce the results of the election on election night.” That is untrue: The media may call an election on election night; a candidate may call on election on election night; but the states do not “definitively announce the results” on election night. To the contrary, every state formally certifies results in the days or weeks following an election; zero certify results on election night. There is a good reason why: It takes a while to count every ballot, including those from members of the military, which frequently arrive late. A state’s duty is not to satisfy anxious candidates and voters but to get the count right. It is only cynical politicians who insist that a state must announce the results immediately.

Mistake No. 3: The Supreme Court unanimously endorsed a radical theory during the 2000 election litigation.

The most eye-popping part of Kavanaugh’s opinion was tucked away in a lengthy footnote that sought to retcon a theory too radical for the Bush v. Gore majority into the law of the land. To recap briefly: In Bush v. Gore, George W. Bush’s legal team—which included Kavanaugh, Barrett, and John Roberts—claimed that SCOTUS must police state courts’ interpretation of their own state’s election laws. These lawyers asserted that state courts unconstitutionally usurp power from state legislatures when they construe election laws in a way that SCOTUS doesn’t like. Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy ultimately balked at this theory, favoring a different rationale to hand Bush the election.

On Monday, however, Kavanaugh claimed that a “unanimous” Supreme Court endorsed the very theory that O’Connor and Kennedy rejected in Bush v. Gore. This position never drew support from a majority of the justices, let alone all of them. So how did Kavanaugh pass off this lie? He cited Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the decision that preceded Bush v. Gore. But Palm Beach County did not say that federal courts must police state courts’ interpretation of election law. In fact, it barely said anything at all. Palm Beach County merely asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify an earlier decision. It even included a disclaimer that the decision declined to review “the federal questions asserted to be present.”

In other words, Palm Beach County did not enshrine Kavanaugh’s theory into law. It did not make any law, or even accept Bush’s contention that he had raised a genuine constitutional claim.

Mistake No. 4: There is a rule against federal courts changing voting rules before an election.

Kavanaugh alleged that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election.” That’s false. The Supreme Court has neverstated this rule in a majority opinion. It has enforced it in a series of unsigned orders released without oral arguments, full briefing, or an opinion of the court—the so-called shadow docket cases. Kavanaugh is pretending that these shadow docket orders qualify as bona fide precedent. They do not.

Mistake No. 5: No one thinks they can return their ballot by Election Day if they request it by Oct. 29.

Kavanaugh wrote: “No one thinks that voters who request absentee ballots as late as October 29 can both receive the ballots and mail them back in time to be received by election day.” He cites no support for this assumption, probably because it’s wrong. Many states explicitly allow voters to request absentee ballots even closer to Election Day and instruct them to mail their ballots back. A large number of voters do wait until the last minute to ask for a ballot, which is why a strict deadline disenfranchises so many people. In August, the Postal Service encouraged 46 states to change their deadlines, warning them that ballots requested and returned in accordance with state law might not make it back in time. The Postal Service would not have sent out this warning if “no one” thought the states’ existing deadlines were unrealistic.

There are several other confusing and dishonest aspects of Kavanaugh’s opinion, many of them spotted by Talking Points Memo’s eagle-eyed Tierney Sneed. Here’s a sampling:

● Kavanaugh quoted New York University law professor Richard Pildes warning about the destabilizing effects of late-arriving ballots. But this quote came from an article in which Pildes supported extending the deadline for mail ballots—exactly what Kavanaugh sought to condemn. By plucking the quote out of context, the justice falsely implied that Pildes shared his hostility to counting every ballot.

● Again, one of Kavanaugh’s chief arguments is that only state legislatures have power to alter election laws. He wrote that the Supreme Court has blocked multiple lower court orders “that second-guessed state legislative judgments” about voting rules. The first example he cited was Merrill v. People First, in which the court halted an order that would’ve allowed Alabama counties to offer curbside voting. But the Alabama Legislaturenever banned curbside voting. Its Republican secretary of state simply concocted this ban out of whole cloth. By preserving a ban the Legislature never approved, Kavanaugh violated his own rule that legislatures, not governors or courts, have constitutional authority to make election laws.

● A key premise of Kavanaugh’s opinion is that the Wisconsin Legislature is eager to count ballots as quickly as possible so a winner emerges on election night. But the Legislature has preserved an antiquated law that forbids officials from processing ballots until Election Day. Many other states, including Florida, start processing ballots much earlier so they can get out results quickly. Wisconsin Republicans rejected this reform. There are thus good reasons to question the sincerity of the Legislature’s alleged desire to count ballots fast. Kavanaugh did not even engage with this issue.

By deploying so many falsehoods in his 18-page opinion, Kavanaugh sent a signal to lower court judges: Uphold voter suppression at all costs, even if you have to ignore or contort the factual record to do it. Trump’s dozens of hackish judicial nominees will hear this message loud and clear.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was drunk when he wrote the opinion. We know he likes beer. A lot.

I wonder if writing opinions while drunk, if proven, would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Demiurge · Oct 28, 2020

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Maybe he was drunk when he wrote the opinion. We know he likes beer. A lot.

I wonder if writing opinions while drunk, if proven, would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Several judges have been - including John Pickering, the first federal judge ever to be both impeached and removed.

The latest one was just a few years ago, Mark Fuller, after he beat his wife in a drunken stupor. He was allowed to resign before impeachment, but the House of Representatives told him clearly he would be impeached if he did not do so.

Torpedo Vegas · Oct 28, 2020

I wonder if Susan Collins will lose any votes for voting against the nomination. I doubt it, but it's possible. I really don't think she'll gain any.

Steal Your Face · Oct 28, 2020

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

Lanzman said: ↑

No, I mean the mediocre, slow, and inefficient care the typical veteran gets.
Click to expand...

Veterans deserve sub-par healthcare, but the public at large does not.
Click to expand...

You’re a real piece of shit.

Fisherman's Worf · Oct 28, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

You’re a real piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a veteran.

Steal Your Face · Oct 28, 2020

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

You’re a real piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a veteran.
Click to expand...

I’d pay good money to see you say that shit in person to some of the veterans I know.

Bailey · Oct 28, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

You’re a real piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a veteran.
Click to expand...

I’d pay good money to see you say that shit in person to some of the veterans I know.
Click to expand...

Man they must get those recruiters in schools early over there.

Fisherman's Worf · Oct 28, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

You’re a real piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a veteran.
Click to expand...

I’d pay good money to see you say that shit in person to some of the veterans I know.
Click to expand...

How much?

matthunter · Oct 28, 2020

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Fisherman's Worf said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

You’re a real piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a veteran.
Click to expand...

I’d pay good money to see you say that shit in person to some of the veterans I know.
Click to expand...

How much?
Click to expand...

If it were more than a paper round, he'd be better served donating it to veterans' charities.

That said, I don't agree with this troll. Vets aren't responsible for the dumbass decisions of their governments as to what wars to fight. Only whether they obey the Geneva Conventions.

Bailey · Nov 9, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

The dream is over, leftists.
Click to expand...

Celebrating an administration that is trying to coup the democratic institutions of your country to own the libs.

edit: @GhostEcho and @The Ghost of Crazy Horse described as "fantasy world" a post by Garamet predicting something like this happening a couple of weeks ago, interesting it turns out that the only reason it probably won't happen is that the Trump admin has completely bungled their strategy.

Steal Your Face · Nov 9, 2020

Bailey said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

The dream is over, leftists.
Click to expand...

Celebrating an administration that is trying to coup the democratic institutions of your country to own the libs.

edit: @GhostEcho and @The Ghost of Crazy Horse described as "fantasy world" a post by Garamet predicting something like this happening a couple of weeks ago, interesting it turns out that the only reason it probably won't happen is that the Trump admin has completely bungled their strategy.
Click to expand...

First off; I was celebrating that ACB had been seated on the court. Second; it's not going to happen because there's no need for it. Biden is president elect and nothing is going to change that. Even Fox news agrees with that. So yes, it is a fantasy.

Bailey · Nov 9, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

The dream is over, leftists.
Click to expand...

Celebrating an administration that is trying to coup the democratic institutions of your country to own the libs.

edit: @GhostEcho and @The Ghost of Crazy Horse described as "fantasy world" a post by Garamet predicting something like this happening a couple of weeks ago, interesting it turns out that the only reason it probably won't happen is that the Trump admin has completely bungled their strategy.
Click to expand...

First off; I was celebrating that ACB had been seated on the court.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a couple of weeks ago when absolutely no-one was predicting the Trump admin was gonna try and use the courts to manipulate the election results.

Steal Your Face · Nov 9, 2020

Bailey said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

The dream is over, leftists.
Click to expand...

Celebrating an administration that is trying to coup the democratic institutions of your country to own the libs.

edit: @GhostEcho and @The Ghost of Crazy Horse described as "fantasy world" a post by Garamet predicting something like this happening a couple of weeks ago, interesting it turns out that the only reason it probably won't happen is that the Trump admin has completely bungled their strategy.
Click to expand...

First off; I was celebrating that ACB had been seated on the court.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a couple of weeks ago when absolutely no-one was predicting the Trump admin was gonna try and use the courts to manipulate the election results.
Click to expand...

He can try all he wants, but he will fail.

Bailey · Nov 9, 2020

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

The Ghost of Crazy Horse said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Celebrating an administration that is trying to coup the democratic institutions of your country to own the libs.

edit: @GhostEcho and @The Ghost of Crazy Horse described as "fantasy world" a post by Garamet predicting something like this happening a couple of weeks ago, interesting it turns out that the only reason it probably won't happen is that the Trump admin has completely bungled their strategy.
Click to expand...

First off; I was celebrating that ACB had been seated on the court.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a couple of weeks ago when absolutely no-one was predicting the Trump admin was gonna try and use the courts to manipulate the election results.
Click to expand...

He can try all he wants, but he will fail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because they were unlucky in that they ended up with multiple battleground states and that the counting of votes differed enough from state to state that they couldn't get a consistent message to build on.

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS discussion thread

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Asyncritus Expert on everything

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

Torpedo Vegas Fresh Meat

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

matthunter Ice Bear

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS discussion thread

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Asyncritus Expert on everything

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

Torpedo Vegas Fresh Meat

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

matthunter Ice Bear

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Useful Searches