• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

That’s a misleading tweet.

The case was tossed because of a lack of standing and it now appears that Trump won’t have Census numbers before the 20th.

If he gets numbers and tries to excluded undocumented immigrants the case becomes ripe and can be brought again.
 
It’s misleading because it implies that undocumented immigrants are going to be excluded from the census numbers.

It’s not a bullshit decision. SCOTUS doesn’t rule on hypothetical issues.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
It’s misleading because it implies that undocumented immigrants are going to be excluded from the census numbers.

It’s not a bullshit decision. SCOTUS doesn’t rule on hypothetical issues.
Click to expand...

I don't see what is misleading about the tweet. The Trump administration is trying to do something, it was challenged, and that challenge was thrown out. There can be additional challenges, but it is not misleading to say that this challenge was thrown out and barring further action then he will succeed in excluding undocumented people from census numbers (provided they get to him by January 20th)
 
Its not hypothetical that this racist administration tried pretty hard to scare undocumented people from answering the census and thats bull shit.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I don't see what is misleading about the tweet. The Trump administration is trying to do something, it was challenged, and that challenge was thrown out. There can be additional challenges, but it is not misleading to say that this challenge was thrown out and barring further action then he will succeed in excluding undocumented people from census numbers (provided they get to him by January 20th)
Click to expand...

The challenge wasn’t thrown out because it wasn’t meritorious. It was thrown out because it was premature.

It would be like a coach challenging a targeting call before there had been a targeting call. There is literally nothing to challenge at this point and it will likely be moot.
 
deaconson said:
Its not hypothetical that this racist administration tried pretty hard to scare undocumented people from answering the census and thats bull shit.
Click to expand...

Well that doesn’t actually fall under SCOTUS’ purview so direct your ire elsewhere.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Well that doesn’t actually fall under SCOTUS’ purview so direct your ire elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Facts baby. My post was not a direct response to this scotus decision.

Though I will say it really gave them an out.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
The challenge wasn’t thrown out because it wasn’t meritorious. It was thrown out because it was premature.

It would be like a coach challenging a targeting call before there had been a targeting call. There is literally nothing to challenge at this point and it will likely be moot.
Click to expand...

Where exactly does it say in the tweet that it was thrown out on its merits?
 
And you argument on the Court doesn't decide hypothetical cases is also wrong. Obviously stated better in the dissent than I will do:

We have said that plaintiffs need not “demonstrate that it is literally cer­tain that the harms they identify will come about” to estab­lish standing. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013). Rather, an “allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or there is a “‘“substantial risk’” that the harm will occur.’” Driehaus, 573 U. S., at 158 (quoting Clapper, 568 U. S., at 414, n. 5). Looking to the facts here, the memorandum pre­sents the “substantial risk” that our precedents require.

Of course Trump put his foot in his mouth with his racism again and it should have backfired, but his court is giving him cover.
 
junebug will be along shortly to defend the original words of the constitution regarding the census. Something about counting every person living in the country...
 
This is exactly why Dems need to get a bigger majority (DC/PR statehood- 22 election) and expand the Supreme Court to 15.
 
So glad more than half the Supreme Court is not fit to serve on it.
 
deaconson said:
So glad more than half the Supreme Court is not fit to serve on it.
Click to expand...

And just think, they're only getting started. Lots more decisions coming on abortion rights, minority rights, affirmative action, voting rights and gerrymandering, separation of church-and-state issues, gay rights, the ability of government to regulate and monitor corporations, and all the rest. Whoopee!
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

It's truly remarkable how easily people can be worked into a lather by misleading tweets when it comes to SCOTUS decisions.

These cases are moot because the only relief the plaintiffs sought was prospective relief--i.e., an injunction precluding Trump from competing with them. Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump was no longer even arguably violating the emoluments clause, so the cases were moot. It's so open and shut, the plaintiffs conceded that their case was moot upon Biden's inauguration.

Further, and dispelling the notion that this is all part of some conservative ploy to protect Trump, no justices dissented from the ruling. For those of you keeping score at home, that means that Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed the case was moot.

Knee-jerk reactions to basic decisions like these do nothing more than undermine the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. Maybe that's what people are trying to do, but it's dangerous. We need to try to de-politicize the courts, not bring the rancor and partisanship that permeates the legislative and executive branches into them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top