Agree Agree:  26
Likes Likes:  21
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 136 to 148 of 148
  1. #136

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Because this happens a lot in my industry, all I say about experience is:
    An idiot with 25 years experience is still an idiot. Brilliance out of college is still brilliance.
    The absolute danger is the idiot straight out of college. This woman is no idiot, but the background for ideologically-tainted decisions is completely there. She can truly join the wrong side.
    Anyway, she is there for only two purposes, and those are well known.
    Last edited by ponchi101; 10-27-2020 at 07:40 AM.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  2. #137

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Sahil Kapur
    @sahilkapur

    This thread highlights factual errors by a Supreme Court justice that would compel a series of corrections and clarifications if they ran in a serious news outlet.
    Tierney Sneed
    @Tierney_Megan
    Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is sloppy AF.

    (A thread.)

    Merrill II is a weird citation here, as the Supreme Court intervened to allow a state election official to unilaterally implement a voter restriction — a ban on curbside voting — that was ~no where~ in the state’s code.


    Wrong! Vermont has made a major change: it’s mailing everyone a ballot! There’s almost no risk of someone receiving a ballot when it’s too late to mail it in, as is the case in Wisconsin.
    https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    Replying to @srl and @AmberMcReynolds
    Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline instead of postmark. We also authorized ballot processing 30 days out. Those are our VT specific solutions, but other states needs are different. Count. Every. Vote.
    This analogy makes no sense. The WI deadline is receipt deadline, not a submission deadline. The in-person voting equivalent is if someone showed up at their polling place before it officially closed but — due to long lines — didn’t get to cast their ballot until after midnight.



    This quote is in the context of an argument for moving ~several~ dates up in the timeline – request dates, dates to begin processing — not just the receipt deadline. WI hasn’t moved up those other dates, and its request and processing timelines among the latest in the country.


    Again, it’s hard to argue that an election day receipt deadline is justified for the purposes of turning around quick results when Wisconsin’s legislature has resisted calls to its tweak processing timelines in a way that will deliver quick results.


    In Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the court said that it was “declin[ing]” to review the very question Kavanaugh is queuing up. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/70/


    Another analogy that makes no sense! The IRS April 15 deadline is a submission deadline, not a receipt deadline.


    There is actually a widespread fear that voters will assume mail moves quickly enough to match the request deadlines. That’s why USPS sent all those states those letters telling them they should change their deadlines!


    Again, Kavanaugh is conflating a receipt deadline with a submission deadline.


    This back up plan really isn't a good failsafe.
    1. it assumes voters will actually be able to get in touch w/election officials to tell them they want to spoil the mail ballots already in the mail on their way back to elections offices


    2. In other states, like PA, the voter in the scenario Kavanaugh describes will have to vote provisionally... which will further delay the process of tabulating the results.

    One final gripe: this is a very rich way to describe how the shadow docket has operated during the pandemic. Only occasionally have the justices explained why they voted to put on hold lower court orders making voting easier and not always as part of majority/per curium opinion
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  3. #138

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Sahil Kapur
    @sahilkapur

    This thread highlights factual errors by a Supreme Court justice that would compel a series of corrections and clarifications if they ran in a serious news outlet.
    Tierney Sneed
    @Tierney_Megan
    Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is sloppy AF.

    (A thread.)

    Merrill II is a weird citation here, as the Supreme Court intervened to allow a state election official to unilaterally implement a voter restriction — a ban on curbside voting — that was ~no where~ in the state’s code.


    Wrong! Vermont has made a major change: it’s mailing everyone a ballot! There’s almost no risk of someone receiving a ballot when it’s too late to mail it in, as is the case in Wisconsin.
    https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    Replying to @srl and @AmberMcReynolds
    Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline instead of postmark. We also authorized ballot processing 30 days out. Those are our VT specific solutions, but other states needs are different. Count. Every. Vote.
    This analogy makes no sense. The WI deadline is receipt deadline, not a submission deadline. The in-person voting equivalent is if someone showed up at their polling place before it officially closed but — due to long lines — didn’t get to cast their ballot until after midnight.



    This quote is in the context of an argument for moving ~several~ dates up in the timeline – request dates, dates to begin processing — not just the receipt deadline. WI hasn’t moved up those other dates, and its request and processing timelines among the latest in the country.


    Again, it’s hard to argue that an election day receipt deadline is justified for the purposes of turning around quick results when Wisconsin’s legislature has resisted calls to its tweak processing timelines in a way that will deliver quick results.


    In Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the court said that it was “declin[ing]” to review the very question Kavanaugh is queuing up. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/70/


    Another analogy that makes no sense! The IRS April 15 deadline is a submission deadline, not a receipt deadline.


    There is actually a widespread fear that voters will assume mail moves quickly enough to match the request deadlines. That’s why USPS sent all those states those letters telling them they should change their deadlines!


    Again, Kavanaugh is conflating a receipt deadline with a submission deadline.


    This back up plan really isn't a good failsafe.
    1. it assumes voters will actually be able to get in touch w/election officials to tell them they want to spoil the mail ballots already in the mail on their way back to elections offices


    2. In other states, like PA, the voter in the scenario Kavanaugh describes will have to vote provisionally... which will further delay the process of tabulating the results.

    One final gripe: this is a very rich way to describe how the shadow docket has operated during the pandemic. Only occasionally have the justices explained why they voted to put on hold lower court orders making voting easier and not always as part of majority/per curium opinion
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #139

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    I mean Squee proof read it and said it was fine so...
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #140

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    We have formally requested that #SCOTUS correct the erroneous claim by Justice Kavanaugh that #VT has not changed voting procedures for the #2020Elections due to #COVID19. When it comes to issuing decisions on the voting rights of American citizens, facts matter.



    Justice Kavanaugh issued a rare public "correction" to his false claim by changing ONE word. Are we satisfied? In a word, NO. We won't sit by while he uses mistruth about the Green Mountain State as cover to erode voter rights. #FactsMatter Full statement: https://sos.vermont.gov/secretary-s-...rrect-opinion/

    southpaw @nycsouthpaw
    Kavanaugh did that thing where he tried simply to make the change look minimal in the document rather than reflecting on and reworking his language to actually account for the screw up—even though everyone watching could see clearly he messed up in a big way.



    (the light yellow box is covering the word “not,” which still appears in the official revised opinion; just some quirk of the court’s track changes software I suppose.) https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20...0a66w_bqm2.pdf

    John Panzer
    @jpanzer
    Replying to
    @nycsouthpaw
    “It now reads: "Other States such as Vermont, by contrast, have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election-deadline rules”

    ...because they made OTHER compensating changes that also mitigated the impact of COVID, he fails to add.

    His “fix” renders his argument unintelligible. It’s not true that some states took no action, they took different actions — ones not longer available to states due to the proximity of the election, which is the thing that SCOTUS is supposed to use to keep from messing w things.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  6. #141

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Mark Joseph Stern
    Alito is delivering the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. He’s using the occasion to defend the group, claiming its members face “harassment and retaliation for saying anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”

    Alito attacks the Judicial Conference for attempting to forbid federal judges from being members of the Federalist Society, and praises the conservative judges who successfully fought the ban.

    UHHH, Alito seems to be criticizing governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to COVID-19. Also criticizes progressives and New Dealers for putting too much faith in scientists and experts.

    Alito says this rule by executive fiat is “where the law has been going for some time—in the direction of government by executive officials who are thought to implement policies by scientific expertise.” Suggests this is a dangerous trend.

    Whoa, Alito is VERY critical of COVID restrictions and “rule by experts.”

    Then he says: “in certain corners, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

    He condemns “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor.” Calls it an “unrelenting attack.”

    Alito now condemns Washington State for requiring pharmacies to carry Plan B, “which destroys an embryo after fertilization.”

    He also criticizes the Colorado civil rights commissioner in Masterpiece Cakeshop who said “freedom of religion” can be used for discrimination.

    Alito criticizes Harvard Law Prof. Mark Tushnet for this notorious blog post, and quotes from it extensively. Says “it’s not dark yet but it’s getting there,” quoting Bob Dylan.

    Now Alito is criticizing the Nevada governor for giving casinos a higher COVID attendance cap than churches.

    He moves onto criticizing the federal judge who suspended the rule that required people to pick up abortion pills in person.

    Yikes. Alito condemns Obergefell, the same-sex marriage decision, and says it has led to censorship of people who believe marriage is “a union of one man and one woman.” Says freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”

    Alito brings up a brief filed with the Supreme Court by five Democratic senators in a gun case warning that the court is becoming too political. He calls the brief “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
    https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/im...s%20FINAL).pdf

    Without saying the words “court-packing,” Alito warns about Democratic efforts to “bully” the court with threats to “restructure” it. Tells a story about a foreign judge threatened with death if he didn’t rule for the government.
    Alito is done.

    That was easily the most political speech I’ve ever seen delivered by a Supreme Court justice. Wow. Same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, contraception, persecution of the Federalist Society ... he really squeezed it all in there. Yikes.

    Probably the strangest aspect of Alito’s speech, other than his attack on COVID restrictions, was his claim that people who oppose same-sex marriage get called “bigots” and this somehow threatens freedom of speech. But how?! Public criticism is not censorship! He knows this!

    Alito is done.

    That was easily the most political speech I’ve ever seen delivered by a Supreme Court justice. Wow. Same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, contraception, persecution of the Federalist Society ... he really squeezed it all in there. Yikes.

    • • •

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...esh=1605232930
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  7. #142

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Because you put the finest minds in the land in the SCOTUS.
    If he dislikes the "rule by experts", what does that make him?
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  8. #143
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    53,562
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    I'm normally appreciative of complexity and am willing to take the time to process complex concepts or principles.

    But Alito's remarks are just a plain, red hot mess. "I'm saying A... But please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying A at all." Over and over again. It's indecipherable.
    Tiz the Dude! Now a winner after his second race!

  9. #144

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions

    By
    Robert Barnes
    November 26, 2020 at 1:37 a.m. EST

    The Supreme Court’s new conservative majority late Wednesday night sided with religious organizations in New York that said they were illegally targeted by pandemic-related restrictions imposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to combat spiking coronavirus cases.

    The 5-to-4 order was the first show of solidified conservative strength on the court since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump chose to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg following her death in September. The decision differed from the court’s previous practice of deferring to local officials on pandemic-related restrictions, even in the area of constitutionally protected religious rights.

    “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” said the unsigned opinion granting a stay of the state’s orders. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”


    The limits were severe, at times capping worship services at only 10 people. But the state said they were necessary to deal with “hot spots” of virus outbreaks.

    The Supreme Court’s order was issued just before midnight, and five justices wrote separately.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who had been the court’s pivotal member in previous emergency applications seeking relief from virus-related restrictions, dissented along with the court’s three liberal members.

    He noted that while the court was considering the petitions, Cuomo, a Democrat, had eased the restrictions, and thus there was no need for the court to intervene now.

    “It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,” Roberts wrote for himself.


    Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court was intervening where it should not.

    “The Constitution does not forbid States from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favorably than comparable secular institutions, particularly when those regulations save lives,” she wrote, adding, “Justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bc2_story.html
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  10. #145

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Just think. To paraphrase the song "and worst is yet to come".
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  11. #146
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,566

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    You can't use freedom of speech to endanger public health and safety. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to use freedom of religion to endanger public health and safety.

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

  12. #147

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by shtexas View Post
    You can't use freedom of speech to endanger public health and safety. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to use freedom of religion to endanger public health and safety.

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk
    Exactly.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  13. #148

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Franklin Leonard
    @franklinleonard
    The Pope subtweeting the hell out of Amy Comey Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
    This was not written after the decision came down - The Vatican doesn't move/react that fast, but it did appear in the NYT today or yesterday.

    Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur

    The Pope publishes this op-ed in the New York Times, less than 24 hours after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision rejecting Covid restrictions on religious gatherings. https://nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opini...cis-covid.html




    This is why people like Covid Barrett consider this Pope a heretic.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •