SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search and seize cell phone records, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 decision.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...rant-to-search

Why wasn't that 9-0?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Why wasn't that 9-0?

Good question.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search and seize cell phone records, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 decision.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...rant-to-search

I couldn't believe this was a 5-4 decision, until I read more into it. "Cell phone records" is extremely misleading. This was about location data from cell towers. That being said, I don't mind a decision that we err on the side of requiring a warrant.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Why wasn't that 9-0?

Islamophobia

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Ah, Christian values.

[Slap Shot]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Ah, Christian values.

The jurors are pure scum, but it's hard to find major fault with the courts:

The principle laid down in Peña-Rodriguez with regard to race, Rhines insisted, should logically extend to sexual orientation, as well.

But the Supreme Court, it seems, has no appetite to consider that question. Its hesitation to expand Peña-Rodriguez to gay defendants is regrettable but understandable. The justices grappled with precisely this question during oral arguments in Peña-Rodriguez Chief Justice John Roberts asked Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the defendant, why his argument was limited to race and did not extend to sexual orientation. Fisher responded, in short, that racism is uniquely evil, so the court can create “race-specific rules” in the jury context; “we do not,” he said, “leave any stones unturned when it comes to race.” He added, though, that the justices might later extend the rule to sex and beyond.

The court has not yet had an opportunity to take up Fisher’s offer and extend Peña-Rodriguez to sex. Perhaps that’s for the best; after issuing a major decision that unsettles precedent, the justices prefer to sit back and watch it percolate in the lower courts before revisiting and revising it. Their refusal to hear Rhines, which was apparently unanimous, suggests the court isn’t ready to clamp down further on bias in the jury room. That’s terrible news for Rhines, and for other gay people who face homophobic juries. But it doesn’t forestall a future court from returning to Peña-Rodriguez and broadening it to protect gay defendants.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“ The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider whether it wants to strike down GOP-drawn districts in North Carolina, after the lower court initially found the map to be racial gerrymanders.”

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“ The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider whether it wants to strike down GOP-drawn districts in North Carolina, after the lower court initially found the map to be racial gerrymanders.”

I'm not 100% sure of what the court's angle is here. It could either say 1) all gerrymandering except for race related issues is completely legal, or 2) we're setting a standard for what is and isn't legal. Instead they're in some weird holding pattern by their own design. I think there's one more case left from Texas before them but that's more a racial issue (in this case diluting Hispanic representation).

[GrinCDXX]

I'm not 100% sure of what the court's angle is here. It could either say 1) all gerrymandering except for race related issues is completely legal, or 2) we're setting a standard for what is and isn't legal. Instead they're in some weird holding pattern by their own design. I think there's one more case left from Texas before them but that's more a racial issue (in this case diluting Hispanic representation).

I think their angle is that they set precedent last week regarding who has standing to challenge voting districts. They're ordering the lower court to reconsider their case with that new precedent in mind. Basically, "We punted our cases on technical issues. You need to take another look at your case, because you may find that you're now obliged to similarly punt."

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Sounds like the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump on the travel bans.

[unofan]

Sounds like the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump on the travel bans.

5-4 on party lines. But her emails.

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

5-4 on party lines. But her emails.

Hey, didn't you know everybody to the right of Bernie is equally bad! Besides, I'm fairly certain Hillary would have nominated Gorsuch too.

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Reading Robert's opinion now. Court basically says that President's have unlimited power as long as they can properly lie about why they are doing something, because Courts will not look beyond the facial reason given.

Which is utter horse hockey. Not surprising in the least, but still shiat.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Reading Robert's opinion now. Court basically says that President's have unlimited power as long as they can properly lie about why they are doing something, because Courts will not look beyond the facial reason given.

Which is utter horse hockey. Not surprising in the least, but still shiat.

So, it's up to Congress to check him. And they won't cause they're too busy sucking him off.

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Again, I'm pretty certain this would have happened the same way if the Dems got elected. That's why I stayed home smoking dope on election day while tweeting "there's NO difference between the parties" all night.