Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts

Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts (Page 7)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2018, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I'm not sure how protecting a Cabinet member who is at the center of a multi-state lawsuit looks non-partisan, especially following the Kavenaugh spectacle. If anything, it looks like they're signaling that the court has the administration's back now.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, I was thinking out loud why the court may have acted the way it did. And I do think one potential motivation of the minority might have been to avoid further escalating partisan tensions. But you are right, that the court has ultimately moved in a more partisan direction.

I'd really like to be a fly on the wall and know what the other Supreme Court judges really think of Kavanaugh.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2018, 05:29 PM
 
So on further reading, the interpretation I got is this injunction is temporary while the other side gathers discovery. If I understood correctly the stay will have to be re-evaluated at a later date. At that point it might be problematic.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2019, 01:33 AM
 
The supreme court has declined to rule in a pair of partisan gerrymandering cases, in a demurral that advocacy groups warned could amount to a “green light” for abuse by political insiders in charge of redrawing state legislative maps.

Pro-democracy groups had hoped the court would declare partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional and throw out maps in Maryland, where Democratic mapmakers were accused of shrinking Republican influence by distorting district lines; and in North Carolina, where Republican operatives were accused of doing the same to Democrats.

But the court has deferred in both cases concluding that authority over district maps rests with state legislatures and the US Congress, and not the supreme court.
It appears one-person-one-vote is not a right at the Federal level. SCOTUS concluded (straight 5-4 partisan divide) that it wasn't an issue one could seek justice over. At least, not at the national level.

So if a state allowed gerrymandering in their constitution - it would all be good.

Now if I can just get the CA constitution amended, so I'm guaranteed an office. One with high pay, but little responsibility. Public Utilities Commission perhaps - they oversee our ISPs. Between pay + the fat telecom bribes, I'd be sitting pretty.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,