Senate The Supreme Court

Thank G-d. Although to be fair, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement two days after the end of her final term, so it could still happen.

And despite the ruling on the travel ban, this is reassuring--at least for now.

 

Did the Supreme Court actually decide anything of note this year? Besides reinstating parts of Trump's Travel Ban until they make the final decision this fall?

 

Several smaller cases that have big impact. Like, you know, destroying the separation of church and state and First Amendment limitations therein.

 

It did reaffirm Obergefell in a limited way.

Thing to note about that: Where as Roberts was a part of the 5- 4 dissent two years ago, he went was a part of the 6 - 3 majority in this case.

 

Not really. The important thing about that isn't that ruling, but the fact that 4 justices don't hold Obergefell as law -- which means the TX Supreme Court basically stripping LGBTQ citizens of equal rights will come up again, meaning it'll be reargued. If Kennedy goes away, so do gay rights.

 

What case are you referring to?

 

It's just a matter of time, really. All rights will be gone unless one is white, xtian and male.

 

Nice to see you bring your apocalyptic attitude into another thread.

 

Nice to see you bring your apocalyptic attitude into another thread.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rate_the_divide_between_church_and_state.html

 

Not really. The important thing about that isn't that ruling, but the fact that 4 justices don't hold Obergefell as law -- which means the TX Supreme Court basically stripping LGBTQ citizens of equal rights will come up again, meaning it'll be reargued. If Kennedy goes away, so do gay rights.

Congress could remedy this by adding LGBTQ individuals to the federal Civil Rights Act. Given the rising support for equal rights for gays nationwide, if the Supreme Court were to vacate Oberfell, I'm fairly certain the next Democratic Congress and President would take steps to reverse it.

Also, Gorsuch's written dissent accepts the basic tenets of Oberfell, and does not seek to overrule it. While one should not read into such things, it isn't that beyond reason to think he might be reluctant to vacate the ruling in the future. Roberts, as usual, joined the majority not as a proponent of Oberfell, but with the image of the Court in mind. However, this is probably as far as we will ever see stare decisis carry him.

And appleseed, no need to respond that we'll never have another Democratic Congress and President. Thanks.

 

Do you really think that LGBTQ protections will be added to the CRA? I mean, c'mon...

Also, something I missed am I'm usually pretty good about it: SCOTUS will be hearing a case to legalize sports betting in the country (i.e. NJ's case to overturn Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992). //popcorn

 

Do you really think that LGBTQ protections will be added to the CRA? I mean, c'mon...

In our current political environment, no.

If the Court vacated Obefell or Lawrence v Texas and a rash of state anti-gay legislation were suddenly to appear, maybe.

Look at the reaction to the bathroom laws--public outcry, economic boycotts. Trying to force gays back into the closet is likely to result in enough of an electoral backlash to at least make what I suggested legislatively possible (whereas at the current time, it isn't). At the very least, cities and states would act, as well as corporations.

When there's a monetary cost, policies change. Sad, but a fact of American life.

 

They won't.

1. They understood the consequences of letting members of the bench being attacked as "biased" and "Mexican."

2. They understood the consequences of refusing to schedule hearings for a Supreme Court vacancy for over a year

3. In light of the Massey Energy case, where they literally ruled that electoral spending on behalf of a candidate created the appearance of corruption, they knew the consequences of Citizens United when they did that, too.

A large faction of the Court just doesn't care. There's nothing that convinces me that they would intervene now when they haven't before.

 

Fixed. Even your average liberal doesn't care enough to go vote. The Republicans blocked Merrick Garland for a year, and liberals weren't the least bit outraged that Obama had tried to meet them halfway and got this as a response. We'll go to the inconvenience of boycotting companies who do business with Trump, but we can't be bothered to show up at the voting booth once every two years.

 

Yep. The only way the Court will do anything is if Trump literally threatens to have the justices arrested. And even then, only if he's threatening the conservative ones. The liberal ones no-one will lift a finger to save (at least, not in our current environment).

 

Electronic filing coming to the Supreme Court.

 

SCOTUS: immigrants have no rights, can be detained indefinitely

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...rules-immigrants-can-be-detained-indefinitely

 

^ This could be fixed with legislation if Congress so desired.

 

Also, public sector unions are about to go extinct.

 

I hope Kennedy understands this as well as the rest of us do.

 

He's the leading proponent of the unions dying, so...

 

If the Court reverses Oberfell, or even Lawrence, the backlash will be enormous. The next Democratic Congress and White House will simply add LGBTQ to the Civil Rights Act, and that will pretty much be the end of it. It might take 50 years, but it will eventually happen (or not).

I am surprised though, at how strongly Kennedy attacked the union's attorney during oral arguments. I'd expect that from Gorsuch or Alito perhaps, but not Kennedy. Also interesting is that in the deportation case, Thomas and Gorsuch filed a separate opinion stating that the Court lacked jurisdiction to even hear Rodriguez's appeal.

Regardless, Democrats and left-leaning Americans as a whole would do to well to win elections and pass laws enshrining their positions, as the Court is going to move hard right. It's inevitable. Kennedy will leave before 2020, and Trump will pick his replacement, which will be another Gorsuch. At that point, it will take winning elections and passing laws, not the courts, to protect our rights. The Supreme Court is gone. We're going to have to get used to that fact.

 

To be fair, the Second Circuit already ruled in favor of gay discrimination being a violation of the CRA as of yesterday (and they ground it in judicial ruling because "sex cannot be divorced from sexual preference") -- this will leave out Trans folks for now, until a case comes up that explicitly defines it -- so unless SCOTUS overturns that, then there's some precedent on the books...