The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

Democrats raised a number of concerns with Rushing, who is a partner at the D.C.-based law firm Williams & Connolly. She worked for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization that has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. She has argued that there were “moral and practical” reasons for banning same-sex marriage. And some lawmakers said she simply lacks the experience or legal ability to be a federal judge.
“She has practiced law for nine years. How many cases has she tried to verdict or judgment? Four. Has she been the lead attorney on any of those cases? No,” Sen. d!(k Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor. “That is the most scant, weakest legal resume imaginable for someone who’s seeking a lifetime appointment to the second-highest court of the land.”
Click to expand...

 






I can’t fathom why anyone is willing to associate with this party. There weren’t even 3-4 Republican senators who saw a problem with confirming her? WTF?

From the same article:

Eric Murphy, 40, is up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He has fought to make it easier to disenfranchise voters and argued against marriage equality in the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case before the Supreme Court.
Chad Readler, 46, is up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He filed a brief on behalf of the Trump administration in favor of striking down the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing coverage requirement. He has also defended efforts to weaken voting rights and defended Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My quote was messed up so I’ll put my comment here. 

The above is one of many reasons it’s so damn important to fix gerrymandering and get rid of the electoral college. The people who want the above are in the minority. The minority are ruling the country right now. The GOP as it was in 2010 should have died off and been reborn as a better party. Instead they clung to their s#!ttiness and redrew the maps so they could, despite their minority, keep winning elections.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought this was an interesting article and a very good review of the case.   It also questions how much of an 'originalist' Kavanaugh may or may not be.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/25/brett-kavanaugh-flunks-his-first-test-as

Thomas and Gorsuch are both self-avowed originalists, so it is fitting that they would either explain (Thomas) or at least acknowledge (Gorsuch) their heterodox views in a major constitutional case such as Timbs. For an originalist judge, it is often an uphill battle, and one of the best ways to gain ground in the war of ideas is by writing a persuasive opinion, typically penned in concurrence or dissent. How else are you going to change minds and set the foundation for winning future cases?

Which brings us back to Brett Kavanaugh. Where, you may be wondering, was the Court's newest self-described originalist in last week's Timbs legal wrangling? Did Kavanaugh also explain where he stands on the crucial debate over the original meaning of the 14th Amendment? Did he say whether or not he agrees with Thomas? Did he perhaps lay out a different originalist take of his own? Alas, Kavanaugh did none of those things. He did not bother to weigh in at all.

If Brett Kavanaugh is a committed originalist, you would never know it based on his complacent behavior in Timbs v. Indiana.
Click to expand...

 
It's a shame, but if SCOTUS screws up this citizenship question and allows the GOP to continue to rig things like the census to entrench their own power, we need to have a strong discussion about ways to depoliticize and fix the court.

That will have made two decades in a row the GOP has found new ways to cheat the system for their own political advantage.


 
This, on the other hand, seems far more appropriate.

The typical Republican judicial response of "We rule this way without fear or favor regarding politics [so we're advertently going to rule in ways that help our party]" really doesn't fly well with me, particularly at the level of SCOTUS. We should eradicate these types of political ploys to gain and keep power no matter who is doing them.


 
Danny Bateman said:
It's a shame, but if SCOTUS screws up this citizenship question and allows the GOP to continue to rig things like the census to entrench their own power, we need to have a strong discussion about ways to depoliticize and fix the court.
Click to expand...


The question it's self is not unconstitutional.  What is done with the information can be.

 
Danny Bateman said:
This, on the other hand, seems far more appropriate.

The typical Republican judicial response of "We rule this way without fear or favor regarding politics [so we're advertently going to rule in ways that help our party]" really doesn't fly well with me, particularly at the level of SCOTUS. We should eradicate these types of political ploys to gain and keep power no matter who is doing them.
Click to expand...
I just saw this, but with a glimpse at the map I can tell you exactly why district 14 was drawn that way and why 11 snakes around it. Pontiac and that section of Detroit proper have pretty high minority populations, mostly black and some Hispanic in Pontiac. They are generally poorer neighborhoods. Pontiac cut it's police department about 5 years ago because it could not afford it. District 11 is where you will find your CEOs and excutives living in Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham. The western areas of 11 are middle class suburbs. Districts 8 an 10 are white middle class suburbs, and 9 is a bit of blue collar and upper middle class, but poorer areas too (more of a toss up). 12 and 13 have the highest Muslim population in the nation and some more poorer sections of the metro. 

Just being generous and assuming 12  and 13 would vote mostly Democratic, they drew the district 5 to 3 in favor of those most likely to vote GOP... I'm going to go look and see if I can find 2016 totals to confirm.y hunch...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From wiipedia... I was pretty close 9 was actually more Democratic than I thought. That maybe due to higher union participation since there are a lot of assembly plants in that area.

Screenshot_20190717-174030.jpg

 
Ginsburg being treated for tumor on her pancreas.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753699013/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-underwent-another-round-of-cancer-treatment-this-sum

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just completed three weeks of radiation treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed Friday.

The radiation therapy, conducted on an outpatient basis, began Aug. 5, shortly after a localized cancerous tumor was discovered on Ginsburg's pancreas. The treatment included the insertion of a stent in Ginsburg's bile duct, according to a statement issued by the court.

Doctors at Sloan Kettering said further tests showed no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. The treatment comes just months after Ginsburg was operated on for lung cancer last December. The 86-year-old justice has been treated for cancer in various forms over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...

 
Back
Top