1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Oct 22, 2015.

  1. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    Is there any language in the ruling that prevents a state from saying electors must vote in accordance with the national popular vote? Because without such language, my points still stand.
     
  2. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    From what I have read, the ruling only applies at the state level. States can, but don't have to, insist that electors vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state.
     
    hobbsyoyo and Sommerswerd like this.
  3. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think it means the popular vote of the state, not necessarily the national popular vote. Remember how back in 2016 there were a lot of articles speculating that the EC could vote however it wanted and that it was basically in place to save voters from themselves. They were saying the electors had the freedom to choose and this ruling effectively takes that away. A good thing imo.

    There are some states making laws that the electors go to the national popular vote. I wonder how this would impact those states
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2020
    hobbsyoyo and cardgame like this.
  4. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    I agree that it's largely a good thing. I still worry cities have way too much power compared to rural communities but that's a problem that has existed long before this ruling.

    If those laws aren't immediately struck down by this ruling, then this ruling is still a bad ruling. Honestly those laws are a slap in the face to the populations of those states. Such laws essentially say to the people "if enough people throughout the nation vote differently than you, then your vote doesn't matter."
     
  5. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    In a democracy, the places with the most people should have more power than those with fewer. Since we have states and vote as states, the rural, less populated areas of the state should have less power than the metro areas unless you advocate have some sort of EC system within states. If the US was stateless and voted as a national block, would you complain and want to give rural voters 2 votes while urbanites would get 1 vote? As tghe population continues to urbanize over time the imbalance will get worse. 1 person, 1 vote is the best over all.
     
  6. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    No. In a democracy everyone has equal power and you don't get to shout down or ignore other opinions or interests simply because you have more people on your side.
     
  7. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's why we have districting in the House and a Senate. The House gives representation to rural voters and the Senate gives little states equal say. Maybe having one branch, the executive, tilt urban isnt a terrible thing.
     
  8. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,845
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    If everyone has equal power, then more people together have more power. That's the definition of democracy.
     
  9. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    15,016
    Location:
    Misery
    Nothing about this is nationwide, it merely allows states to mandate that state-level electors follow the vote of the voters in their state. You know, how representative democracy is supposed to work?
     
  10. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    Cities and large population states still have more say than rural ones in the House. That's why I say if I could remake the US anyway I wanted, I would get rid of the House entirely and reduce the Senate to one Senator per state. That way each state is on an equal footing legislatively.

    That's the ancient definition of democracy. Nowadays we call that tyranny by majority. The modern definition requires that minority opinions receive special protections to ensure they don't get bulldozed by the majority.

    Does this strike down state laws that require electors to vote according to the national popular vote? If not then this is still a bad ruling and certainly is a nationwide issue.

    Also since the Supreme Court is a federal institution their rulings are, by definition, nationwide rulings. Even in rulings where they say it only applies to a specific case, those rulings will be applied by every other court on the nation as legal precedent. So to say nothing about this is nationwide is not only wrong, the complete opposite is true just by the very nature of the institution.
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  11. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,845
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Really? Someone tell that to First Past The Post voting then.
     
  12. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    6,681
    Gender:
    Male
    But when you're talking about the office of President, we can only have 1 at a time. Someone's candidate has to not become President; either the majority's or the minority's. It doesn't make sense that the candidate preferred by more people would be overruled by the candidate preferred by fewer people. That isn't tyranny. That's just an election.

    EDIT: Specifically, it's an election in which each vote is weighed equally. Which isn't what we have right now.
     
    hobbsyoyo, Socrates99 and cardgame like this.
  13. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The ruling is only about electors for the EC voting for president. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the House and Senate. all it says is that a state can compel an elector to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in that state. If I am selected as the elector for the Democratic party in NM and Biden wins the popular vote in NM, I cannot cast my EC vote for Trump or Kanye West.
     
  14. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tax returns, financial records to come Thursday

    President Trump has waged an intense legal battle to keep his personal financial records secret. (Alex Brandon/AP)
    By
    Robert Barnes
    July 8, 2020 at 8:42 a.m. MDT
    Add to list


    The Supreme Court will announce Thursday whether congressional committees and a New York prosecutor are entitled to see President Trump’s personal financial records, after the president has waged an intense legal battle to keep the material secret.

    The court said Wednesday that opinions in all remaining cases would be issued Thursday. The court in May held teleconferenced hearings — with the world listening in — on three cases with potential landmark constitutional consequences.

    All concern Trump’s long-running legal fight to shield years of income tax returns from public view and keep his private financial records from the hands of Democratic-led House committees and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

    Supreme Court debate over Trump’s tax returns, business records points to a mixed outcome

    The court’s decisions will carry major implications for the limits of presidential power and accountability, and could affect the fall election. Two of the cases, Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, concern the attempts of three House committees to bypass the president to obtain his financial records from his longtime accounting firm and financial institutions. The committees say they are needed to check the president’s financial disclosures and inform whether conflict-of-interest laws are tough enough.

    In Trump v. Vance, the president is attempting to stop subpoenas from a grand jury Vance is supervising. He is looking into whether corporate records were altered in violation of state laws to cover up hush-money payments. He, too, is seeking the information from a third-party.

    The cases are similar in that they are seeking much the same information. Included are Trump’s tax returns, which every president since Jimmy Carter has made public but Trump has steadfastly guarded.

    But they also seek much more. The congressional committees “demand information about seven business entities, as well as the personal accounts of President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump,” said the brief filed by the president’s private lawyers, Jay Sekulow and William S. Consovoy.

    The congressional subpoenas followed testimony from Trump’s former fixer, attorney Michael Cohen, who told lawmakers that Trump had exaggerated his wealth to seek loans. Two committees subpoenaed Capital One and Deutsche Bank as part of their investigation into Russian money laundering and potential foreign influence involving Trump.

    Federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C. — at the district court and appeals court levels — moved swiftly by court standards and repeatedly ruled against Trump and to uphold Congress’s broad investigative powers. In Washington, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in October rejected Trump’s assertion that Congress’s subpoena was an unconstitutional attempt to harass the president that lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

    The appeals court upheld a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta, who wrote, “It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.

    A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York substantially agreed in saying Vance’s subpoena was valid.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  15. Gori the Grey

    Gori the Grey The Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    7,243
    Quickly to be followed by "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  16. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,336
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    Which way does DeutscheBank fall, and does the fact that they just sucked up a $150mil fine for continuing to serve Jeffrey Epstein despite his red-flagging sway them in either direction?
     
  17. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Check CNN tomorrow starting at about 10 EDT.
     
    IglooDude likes this.
  18. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,787
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    NY state wins access to Trump records in 7-2 ruling.
     
  19. Kaitzilla

    Kaitzilla Lord Croissant

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    10,464
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    America!
    Uh oh!
     
  20. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,241
    Location:
    On the one spin
    That was my impression as well. It seemed obvious to me without even reading the opinion, but I guess now I'm going to have to go read the opinion.
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.

Share This Page