|
|
Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts (Page 7)
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|