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. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,220
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Interesting. If this is true it would be a backdoor way of essentially invalidating the Electoral College. If all 50 states did this, it would absolutely kill the EC, even without a Constitutional Amendment, which I believe is at the heart of @Commodore 's objection.
    My understanding is that they did this with some major caveats though... and setup a feedback loop that can't really be resolved. Essentially they said "They have to give up the records, but Trump has some recourse to fight the release of the records, so we're sending it back to the lower Court for him to exercise those options"... which of course is absurd, because they, the SCOTUS, are supposed to be the last recourse...

    I'll be interested to see if the lower Court just says, "Yeah we already ruled on this and all his recourses are denied, again." Will it then go back to the Supreme Court? :crazyeye:
     
    Lexicus and hobbsyoyo like this.
  2. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    Which is precisely why this was a bad ruling. It was already determined a long time ago that states do not have the authority to circumvent the US Constitution, yet this ruling has given them precisely that authority.
     
  3. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
    Shocker, they're mostly blue but yeah it exists.
     
    hobbsyoyo and Sommerswerd like this.
  4. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,780
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I haven't read the rulings yet, but on the surface it looks, to me, like SCOTUS has ruled against Trump, but made it difficult for the Dems to actually use that information before the Election. "Yes the president is not immune from investigation, but we don't want you be able to use that to keep him from being re-elected."
     
    hobbsyoyo and Sommerswerd like this.
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,220
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Thanks for the link. Reading through it I was alerted to something that I didn't realize before. You don't actually need all 50 states to pass laws like this to invalidate the EC. You only need enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. Once you have that, the popular vote winner will automatically receive 270 Electoral College votes, regardless of what the other states do.

    That is my feeling as well. I immediately got the impression that they were trying to make it so that the documents would never be released while he was still in office, even if they were ultimately released. Thus the feedback loop. "Go fight about it some more, and we'll see you again in 5 years."
     
  6. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,839
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Given that it was a unanimous decision, I don't think that it can be fairly rendered a bad decision, unless you're also suggesting that the entire Supreme Court have erred in their judgement simultaneously.
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  7. Kaitzilla

    Kaitzilla Lord Croissant

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    10,464
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    America!
    I wonder if New York can keep from leaking the financial records before election day?
    And if it did leak, how ballistic would republicans go?

    I know if Congress got them, they would leak in 5 minutes.
     
  8. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,780
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The NY case involves a grand jury and leaking grand jury material is more severe.
     
    Kaitzilla likes this.
  9. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    That is precisely what I'm suggesting. It's happened before. Plessy v Ferguson being one of those times. While not a unanimous decision that case was a 7-1 ruling in favor of racial segregation.

    Remember: just because there is overwhelming consensus on a decision doesn't mean it is the right decision. In fact, I would argue that the popular decision is more often than not the wrong one. That's why I'm so against anything being decided solely by popular vote.
     
  10. Gori the Grey

    Gori the Grey The Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    7,243
    The SC said he has the same, but just the same, right to challenge a subpoena as the average Joe. His challenge is baseless. The lower court will say as much and say that the SC gave them the authority to reject his challenge. The NYS prosecutor (and a grand jury) are going to start seeing Trump's tax returns.
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  11. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,780
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    A late October indictment would be pretty nice if possible.
     
  12. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,220
    Location:
    On the one spin
    That's not happening. I'll take suggestions on the brand of barbecue sauce for my hat.
    I though it was a 7-2 ruling, maybe my are confusion me?
     
    Lexicus and hobbsyoyo like this.
  13. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,780
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The two dissents agreed that the President has no blanket immunity from state prosecution, but did not agree that the particular subpoenas were OK.

    And...google Eastern NC BBQ sauces for the best.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
    Sommerswerd and amadeus like this.
  14. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,220
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Which he will then appeal to the SCOTUS, which will be put in the queue aaaaand he'll be out of office by then.
     
  15. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,839
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    What with the new Oklahoma ruling, SCOTUS seems to be firing on all cylinders right now. Have they been hoarding cases during the crisis or something?
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  16. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,780
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Traditionally, they save publicizing important decisions until the end of a term. I think they saved the Trump ones to limit the opportunity for them to be useful in the 2020 election cycle.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  17. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think the SCOTUS opinion on the tax returns was a little less partisan than typical purely because Trump's on the ropes and Biden's his likely successor. If there was ever a poster child for transactional neoliberalism it's...well..the Clintons, but Biden's a close runner up.

    Leaving Trump flapping in the wind is just a way of teeing up a President Biden for some uncomfortable inquiries.
     
  18. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    26,312
    Follow up on this particular comment -
    They really were that dumb. Louisiana legislators thought that after Kavanaugh was seated that this would mean that the court would now go for the exact same law that they had previously rejected, even though Kavanaugh didn't change the overall liberal/conservative balance of the court. You know, the GOP talks a big talk about wasting taxpayer money but when it comes to their pet social issues, they burn barrels of cash passing laws that they know have no chance of passing muster just to virtue signal.

    Commodore is right and wrong - this ruling really has nothing directly to do with the 'Interstate Compact', which is the set of state laws which will bind EC voters to go for the winner of the national popular vote. It would however indirectly support that by making it easier for states to enforce the Interstate Compact by preventing EC voters from straying from the national vote. Commodore is focusing how this might undermine the say of the states in presidential elections but that is only if you put aside that passing the Interstate Compact would also be the will of the states. The Constitution clearly puts the disposition of each state's EC voters in the hands of the states and in the first couple of elections, some states did not even allow citizens to vote for the president at all - the state legislature decided who the EC voters would go for. The system where people vote in a state and that determines who the EC voters go for came about mostly as a political tool to get parties to spend money and political capital in the states.

    In any case, the states can do whatever they want with the EC voters per the constitution, which SCOTUS just upheld. And if they want to enact the Interstate Compact to effectively sidestep the EC, then that's their prerogative as well. It's also worth pointing out that it's only after 2016 that the Interstate Compact became a purely partisan issue. Before that, several red states had passed or were on the verge of passing the Interstate Compact because fundamentally 'one person, one vote' should be central to the election of the president even though it isn't right now. But when Trump squeaked by in the EC in 2016, red states realized the EC was only ever going to work in their favor due to demographic shifts and thus they withdrew.
     
    Birdjaguar and cardgame like this.
  19. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I was watching a clip from Majority Report a couple days ago where they were talking about the EC decision. Sam mentioned a couple pretty interesting points.

    Back when the EC was created it wasn't winner take all for the states. Electors were proportionately assigned. So the EC vote was initially intended to follow the popular vote. Then a few states started implementing a winner take all system and the other states saw that as giving them more power so they followed suit. A lot of people hated it but saw it as a necessary evil. So it really never was intended to work the way it currently does.

    The other was that in '04 if Kerry had pulled off a slim victory in Ohio the EC would already be extinct. He would have won the EC but lost the popular vote. That would have meant that both parties were adversely affected by it in two consecutive elections and nobody would be fine with it anymore. The only reason it's partisan is because it's only helping one side.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2020
    cardgame and hobbsyoyo like this.
  20. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    26,312
    Thanks for that, I had forgotten about the winner-takes-all evolution.

    It's funny to me that the founding fathers get held up as having massive forethought and having built a perfect system of checks and balances when in reality they were making it up as they went - without even authorization to do so as what became known as the Constitutional Convention was expressly forbidden from making a new constitution and was instead only to tweak the Articles of Confederation. And muddying everything is their complete preoccupation with building a nation on a foundation of slavery. While the EC did have a nominal secondary function as a backstop against demagogues, the main reason for its existence was to uphold slave-state power. We have a modern re-interpretation of that as a power-balance of small states against large states but the main power-balance intended was slaveowners against freestaters.
     
    Sommerswerd likes this.

Share This Page