I think we are kind of already there. The question is going to have to be “How many votes can a republican lose by and still win before we say enough is enough.”
I guess 4 million wasnt it, so what is it going to have to be? 10 million? 15?
https://twitter.com/the_law_boy/status/1410622732430102532?s=21
Also lolololol we’re still doing this
They don’t have to steal elections if all of these restrictions on voting stand.
It’s over. It’s time to decide if you want to live in post democracy (if we ever really had one) US, or somewhere else.
One of the biggest failures of Supreme Court logic (putting aside outright partisanship) is the failure to accept harms at the aggregate level because they can’t know with certainty that those harms occurred to any individual.
A recent example is the Wisonsin gerrymandering case, where SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing - even if the aggregate voting result was incredibly biased, none of the plaintiffs’ individually had their rights violated.
Another example is the biased application of the death penalty. In McClesky v. Kemp (covered in a great 5-4 episode), the court ruled that even if an individual provided compelling evidence that the death penalty is applied broadly in an obviously racially biased way, that’s not enough - the individual has to show that in his/her individual case, the death penalty was applied in an obviously-biased way.
Imagine using this kind of logic with drug trials: Yes, it appears that people who took the Pfizer vaccine were 90% less likely to contract COVID than those with the placebo. But if we look at an uninfected and vaccinated individual, how can we possiby know if they remained uninfected because of the vaccine or simply because they weren’t exposed to the virus? Therefore, we can never know if the vaccine works.
This kind of logic opens the door for all kinds of laws that are obviously biased against certain groups, and for which the court will never provide a remedy because no individuals will be able to show personal harm.
2 Likes
The idea that there is such a thing as aggregate harm, the idea that groups and not just individuals should have rights, is the very foundation of identity politics. I support the existence of idpol.
Yeah Breyer not retiring is way worse than any of this stuff because it means Biden won’t be able to replace him before 2022.
Uhhh… from the WAPO article on the AZ voting rights:
Even the Biden administration had concluded that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had erred in condemning the Arizona laws. So the outcome was not a surprise.
Full article here:
Eh, Breyer not retiring is bad but it’s like throwing a pick six when you’re already down 21 with 4 minutes left. Is it bad? sure. Does it actually matter? fuck no. The court is gone and short of Ds holding the white house for 20+ consecutive years it’s never coming back so who gives a shit? It doesn’t matter if we lose 6-3, 6-2, or 7-2; we’re still losing every single case of any significance until we wake up and either a) pack the court or b) get a POTUS who has the balls to do something like “John Roberts has made his ruling, now let him enforce it”.
1 Like
I’m holding out hope for them all going out to a bar to celebrate screwing America and letting Kavanaugh drive afterwards. [Feel free to pick some other fanciful scenario where a bunch of them die. I can come up with quite a few.]
I mean if this is your argument it was all over when Trump won in 2016. Which is fair, I suppose.
Very true. I mean at the time I think we all acknowledged as much here but humans are always looking for hope and ways out so it’s natural to latch on to shit that has zero relevance and attach great importance to it. I do it all the time with this shit even though I know better. It’s miserable knowing what they need to do to fix things and watching them piss away the opportunity when they have the power to do it, but I guess that’s the story of American politics from the beginning.
In before Biden decides to “properly honor their memory” by nominating the same split of conservatives and liberals when he reseats them. It would be wrong not to!
1 Like
1982 was awesome. Just got MTV and skateboarded all day in much less crowded SoCal. Suck it libs!
So ruling florist illegally discriminated stands.
My mom was a florist most of her adult life. I don’t get how 1) a florist exists who would do this 2) someone would want a florist who didn’t want to work for them. But I am glad the lower court decision stands for now. Clearly SCOTUS wants something better to codify homophobia.
Interesting lineup:
According to a tally published by the court, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas voted in favor of taking up the case.
Why interesting? Seems like the most likely 3 to want to take the case.
That was opaque, sorry. Interesting that Kavanaugh and especially Barrett didn’t want to take it.
Its probable that there was clear evidentiary discrimination on the florists part (I havent read much about this case) and the they are waiting for something less cut and dry to provide cover for codifing the discrimination into law.
Also, while I’ll say that while I agree with a lot of the WAAF talk in here about how they’re holding back with truly hideous decisions on stuff like voting rights until there’s no threat of retribution, I really do think that when it comes to the social issue stuff, a lot of these justices are gonna actually make legally defensible decisions and not just be a slave to their personal beliefs.
That’s where my hope is that maybe 20 years from now when we look back at Gorusch/Kav/Barrett’s records, maybe a couple of them are hopefully seen as a relative disappointment to the GOP.
2 Likes