SCOTUS rulings today

cctxfan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
21,309
3,531
0
Austin, TX
Kicked the Oregon cake maker case back to the lower courts in light of the Colorado cake baker case (really a win for the cake baker)

Said that double jeopardy doesn't apply and that it's allowed for both the federal and a state government to prosecute for the same conduct (Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissent)

Allowed the overturn of the Virginia racially gerrymandered districts to stand by arguing 5-4 that the VA Republican House had no standing to appeal (thus not rendering a verdict on the merits. Another interesting ruling with Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Thomas in the majority)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acreativeusername

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,334
12,011
0
Won't be many cases where the dissenters are Ginsburg and Gorsuch, for sure.

And SCOTUS really doesn't want to weigh in on gerrymandering, but eventually they will have to.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,014
12,704
0
This ruling is very disappointing. Especially that only 2 justices dissented.
I recently saw a story about a U.S. woman that was prosecuted for a crime somewhere in Central or South America. Maybe it was Costa Rica, so central, but I don't recall. It was a murder case. She was found innocent. They don't have double jeopardy and the prosecutors didn't like the outcome. Naturally, they prosecuted again. She was found not guilty, again. The prosecutors didn't like the outcome so they filed charges, again. She was able to get her passport back and fly the hell out of there before the new charges were filed. She's back in the U.S. now, but has zero plans to ever leave the country again. The foreign government wants the U.S. to send her back. Crazy ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOK2000

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,557
51,039
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I don't know but you don't get to rerun the race.
I think I agree - and that the federal government should take the front seat. And I'm a states' rights guy. But the states, in the constitution, generally, are only afforded rights not specifically granted to the federal government. And while I haven't thought it though all the way, on the surface I don't think it's a stretch to give the government "prima nocta" when it comes to this issue... and then if taken, no mas.
 

J Galt

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 9, 2012
4,314
13,163
0
37
Lake Highlands, Dallas
I think I agree - and that the federal government should take the front seat. And I'm a states' rights guy. But the states, in the constitution, generally, are only afforded rights not specifically granted to the federal government. And while I haven't thought it though all the way, on the surface I don't think it's a stretch to give the government "prima nocta" when it comes to this issue... and then if taken, no mas.
Yep. I’m not a legal scholar so I’m not sure of precedent but I’m inclined to approach it the way you laid out. But regardless of primacy, double jeopardy shouldn’t be violated because the prosecutor changes.
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,780
4,293
0
Yep. I’m not a legal scholar so I’m not sure of precedent but I’m inclined to approach it the way you laid out. But regardless of primacy, double jeopardy shouldn’t be violated because the prosecutor changes.
I’d have to read the opinion, but I bet federalism issues were what drove the opinion. If you look at it from that perspective it’s a slam dunk.
I look at it from an individual rights perspective; from that perspective the holding is repugnant.
 

J Galt

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 9, 2012
4,314
13,163
0
37
Lake Highlands, Dallas
I’d have to read the opinion, but I bet federalism issues were what drove the opinion. If you look at it from that perspective it’s a slam dunk.
I look at it from an individual rights perspective; from that perspective the holding is repugnant.
It’s all Federalism. Two sovereigns = two violations (even if it was a singular act). I just think it violates 5th (and 14th) Amendment principles. Gorsuch and Ginsberg argued that sovereignty does not reside in the government but rather the people, so the violation occurs against only one sovereign (the people) even if there are multiple representatives of the people.

Again, just because the prosecutor changes, doesn’t mean we throw out the Bill of Rights.
 

windycityhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jun 11, 2012
3,474
6,294
0
Wasn't the decision with regard to double jeopardy just a confirmation of the current state of affairs?

The more meaningful decision in my mind was the Virginia gerrymandering decision. In the near term it will make it impossible for legislatures to sue when courts overturn their gerrymanders. And in the farther term, it's probably going to flip at least one house of the VA legislature, if not both.
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,780
4,293
0
Wasn't the decision with regard to double jeopardy just a confirmation of the current state of affairs?

The more meaningful decision in my mind was the Virginia gerrymandering decision. In the near term it will make it impossible for legislatures to sue when courts overturn their gerrymanders. And in the farther term, it's probably going to flip at least one house of the VA legislature, if not both.
Yes concurrent jurisdiction has always been the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,334
12,011
0
Wasn't the decision with regard to double jeopardy just a confirmation of the current state of affairs?

The more meaningful decision in my mind was the Virginia gerrymandering decision. In the near term it will make it impossible for legislatures to sue when courts overturn their gerrymanders. And in the farther term, it's probably going to flip at least one house of the VA legislature, if not both.
How do you think this affected the NC and Texas cases?
 

windycityhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jun 11, 2012
3,474
6,294
0
How do you think this affected the NC and Texas cases?
I don't know about the Texas case, I do remember the oral arguments back in March for cases in NC (GOP gerrymander) and MD (Dem gerrymander). Everyone was trying to parse Kavanaugh's questions during oral arguments. Seems like he'll be the swing vote. We're coming to the end of this year's term so all the radioactive stuff (see also: the census citizenship question) will be coming int the next few days.

BTW I recommend www.scotusblog.com as a good resource for all matters related to the court.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,334
12,011
0
A lot of talk about the census cases, but really at the end of the day they may not make a huge difference in the House.

CA and TX would lose a seat each according to stuff I’ve read...but that would allow Minnesota, New York, or maybe RI to keep one.

Likely a wash I the House.

Given that it’s not likely to change the political landscape let’s just count everybody and not try to intentionally undercount some.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,014
12,704
0

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,983
7,032
0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, malignant tumor. Sounds like she just finished 3 weeks of treatment

**** cancer

Pancreatic is tough to beat but sounds like they caught this one early which is good.
 

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,983
7,032
0
My sympathy is two-fold: the obvious and also that she likely doesn’t feel she can retire and enjoy life.
Yeah there's no chance she'll retire with DJT as Prez. She's obviously hoping the Dems win next November so she can retire.

BTW: I've always wondered why she didn't quit under Obama. I'm sure she thought like everyone else that HRC would win, but still with her medical history why risk having the seat flip.
 

SAhornfan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
30,380
18,411
0
San Antonio, TX
Yeah there's no chance she'll retire with DJT as Prez. She's obviously hoping the Dems win next November so she can retire.

BTW: I've always wondered why she didn't quit under Obama. I'm sure she thought like everyone else that HRC would win, but still with her medical history why risk having the seat flip.
I would guess the odds are pretty good that she won't make it another year.
 

Iz of Texas

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 26, 2012
14,367
10,154
0
Austin
Yeah there's no chance she'll retire with DJT as Prez. She's obviously hoping the Dems win next November so she can retire.

BTW: I've always wondered why she didn't quit under Obama. I'm sure she thought like everyone else that HRC would win, but still with her medical history why risk having the seat flip.
Perhaps she likes her work.
 

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,983
7,032
0
Perhaps she likes her work.
Yes, of course she likes her work, but the point is that Trump getting to replace her would be a titanic shift in the court which would have been avoided had she played it safe and retired under Obama. Knowing Trump he's probably been saving Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG just to stick it to the Dems.
 

Iz of Texas

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 26, 2012
14,367
10,154
0
Austin
Yes, of course she likes her work, but the point is that Trump getting to replace her would be a titanic shift in the court which would have been avoided had she played it safe and retired under Obama. Knowing Trump he's probably been saving Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG just to stick it to the Dems.
Yes of course that's the point. Maybe RBG doesn't care about that point.
 

kennoisewater

Member Who Talks
Nov 19, 2018
501
828
0
In 2016 I really thought I would enjoy a seismic shift in the makeup of the court to a 6-3 or 7-2 Conservative majority for the next thirty years. Now I’m starting to think we’re in “Be careful watch you wish for” territory. I don’t know that it’s healthy for any one political party to get what they want all the time.

I’m afraid that a fundamental rollback of economic and social decisions to decidedly Conservative positions will irritate the liberals to such a degree that Civil War II might actually happen sometime in my kids or grandkids lifetimes. (Damn that was a long sentence!)

The current political climate in America has me more nervous than a narc in a trailer park.
 

Iz of Texas

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 26, 2012
14,367
10,154
0
Austin
In 2016 I really thought I would enjoy a seismic shift in the makeup of the court to a 6-3 or 7-2 Conservative majority for the next thirty years. Now I’m starting to think we’re in “Be careful watch you wish for” territory. I don’t know that it’s healthy for any one political party to get what they want all the time.

I’m afraid that a fundamental rollback of economic and social decisions to decidedly Conservative positions will irritate the liberals to such a degree that Civil War II might actually happen sometime in my kids or grandkids lifetimes. (Damn that was a long sentence!)

The current political climate in America has me more nervous than a narc in a trailer park.
You need a drink.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
13,610
22,773
0
In 2016 I really thought I would enjoy a seismic shift in the makeup of the court to a 6-3 or 7-2 Conservative majority for the next thirty years. Now I’m starting to think we’re in “Be careful watch you wish for” territory. I don’t know that it’s healthy for any one political party to get what they want all the time.

I’m afraid that a fundamental rollback of economic and social decisions to decidedly Conservative positions will irritate the liberals to such a degree that Civil War II might actually happen sometime in my kids or grandkids lifetimes. (Damn that was a long sentence!)

The current political climate in America has me more nervous than a narc in a trailer park.
Civil War II. Good God