D
the official new supreme court thread - Very political
- Thread starter plama
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
deaconson
Exhausted
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 24,149
- Reaction score
- 7,745
nice try. NYT's is fake news. can't believe a word they say!
WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,727
- Reaction score
- 22,715
Legitimate apolitical discourse. Nothing to see here.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,727
- Reaction score
- 22,715
Good Ezra Klein podcast with Jamal Greene, constitutional law professor at Columbia.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000550053012
“Getting race wrong early has led courts to get everything else wrong since,” writes Jamal Greene. But he probably doesn’t mean what you think he means.
Greene is a professor at Columbia Law School, and his book “How Rights Went Wrong” is filled with examples of just how bizarre American Supreme Court outcomes have become. An information processing company claims the right to sell its patients’ data to drug companies — it wins. A group of San Antonio parents whose children attend a school with no air-conditioning, uncertified teachers and a falling apart school building sue for the right to an equal education — they lose. A man from Long Island claims the right to use his homemade nunchucks to teach the “Shafan Ha Lavan” karate style, which he made up, to his children — he wins.
Greene’s argument is that in America, for specific reasons rooted in our ugly past, the way we think about rights has gone terribly awry. We don’t do constitutional law the way other countries do it. Rather, we recognize too few rights, and we protect them too strongly. That’s created a race to get everything ruled as a right, because once it’s a right, it’s unassailable. And that’s made the stakes of our constitutional conflicts too high. “If only one side can win, it might as well be mine,” Greene writes. “Conflict over rights can encourage us to take aim at our political opponents instead of speaking to them. And we shoot to kill.”
It’s a grim diagnosis. But, for Greene, it’s a hopeful one, too. Because it doesn’t have to be this way. Supreme Court decisions don’t have to feel so existential. Rights like food and shelter and education need not be wholly ignored by the courts. Other countries do things differently, and so can we.
This is a crucial moment for the court. Stephen Breyer is retiring. And in this term alone, the 6-3 conservative court is expected to hand down crucial decisions on some of the most divisive issues in American life: abortion, affirmative action, guns. So this is, in part, a conversation about the court we have and the decisions it is likely to make. But it’s also about what a radically different court system could look like.
We discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on vaccine mandates, why Greene thinks judicial decision-making is closer to punditry than constitutional interpretation, the stark differences in how the German and American Supreme Courts handled the issue of abortion, Greene’s case for appointing nearly 200 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, why we even have courts in the first place and much more.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000550053012
“Getting race wrong early has led courts to get everything else wrong since,” writes Jamal Greene. But he probably doesn’t mean what you think he means.
Greene is a professor at Columbia Law School, and his book “How Rights Went Wrong” is filled with examples of just how bizarre American Supreme Court outcomes have become. An information processing company claims the right to sell its patients’ data to drug companies — it wins. A group of San Antonio parents whose children attend a school with no air-conditioning, uncertified teachers and a falling apart school building sue for the right to an equal education — they lose. A man from Long Island claims the right to use his homemade nunchucks to teach the “Shafan Ha Lavan” karate style, which he made up, to his children — he wins.
Greene’s argument is that in America, for specific reasons rooted in our ugly past, the way we think about rights has gone terribly awry. We don’t do constitutional law the way other countries do it. Rather, we recognize too few rights, and we protect them too strongly. That’s created a race to get everything ruled as a right, because once it’s a right, it’s unassailable. And that’s made the stakes of our constitutional conflicts too high. “If only one side can win, it might as well be mine,” Greene writes. “Conflict over rights can encourage us to take aim at our political opponents instead of speaking to them. And we shoot to kill.”
It’s a grim diagnosis. But, for Greene, it’s a hopeful one, too. Because it doesn’t have to be this way. Supreme Court decisions don’t have to feel so existential. Rights like food and shelter and education need not be wholly ignored by the courts. Other countries do things differently, and so can we.
This is a crucial moment for the court. Stephen Breyer is retiring. And in this term alone, the 6-3 conservative court is expected to hand down crucial decisions on some of the most divisive issues in American life: abortion, affirmative action, guns. So this is, in part, a conversation about the court we have and the decisions it is likely to make. But it’s also about what a radically different court system could look like.
We discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on vaccine mandates, why Greene thinks judicial decision-making is closer to punditry than constitutional interpretation, the stark differences in how the German and American Supreme Courts handled the issue of abortion, Greene’s case for appointing nearly 200 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, why we even have courts in the first place and much more.
WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
bym051d
I AM VERY IMPORTANT
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 39,389
- Reaction score
- 5,183
If minorities don’t like their gerrymandering, they should vote in other people.
Shooshmoo
Well-known member
I'm sure Roberts is like, shit, I'm a racist old white conservative, but damn, this crew....
Shooshmoo
Well-known member
"In his dissent, Roberts wrote that the lower court "properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.""
Yeah, that shit doesn't matter anymore, Roberts, you naïve fool.
Our racist board lawyers JH and Junebug will, once again, pathetically and incorrectly defend.
Yeah, that shit doesn't matter anymore, Roberts, you naïve fool.
Our racist board lawyers JH and Junebug will, once again, pathetically and incorrectly defend.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
Where is our resident constitutional "expert" to smugly tell us how this is constitutional?
Shooshmoo
Well-known member
This is more likely the reasoning behind Roberts' decision:
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,727
- Reaction score
- 22,715
Yep. We’ll see the same “resistance” from the Roberts conservatives on the boards. They get it both ways. They get what they want and can claim to be above it.
demondeacfreak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,190
- Reaction score
- 148
Looks like Alabama’s old map is about the same as the new with both plans having 1 majority African American district. Alabama’s share of African Americans has actually declined from 26.1% to 25.8% comparing 2010 to 2020 data. Is it really that clear that the new map is unconstitutional? Seems like that question, plus the fact that the election in AL is not far off, was the majority’s reasoning.