The Supreme Court

[Green Habit]

Cert granted in the travel ban case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front...

Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely.

You disagree with the travel ban ruling or just dislike what it means for Trump going forward?

Both. Trump himself has so comically ruined his own case with his tweets. But all it takes is to count to five justices, we'll see if he has them.

Here's an article that explains this post better, sorry.

http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/n ... e-gorsuch/

[Bi_3]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/justices-agree-weigh-travel-ban-allow-parts-go-effect/

Seems reasonable actually.

[B]

"Americans have a better chance of being killed by their own clothing than a Muslim terrorist."

[Green Habit]

This would make some high stakes for the 2018 midterms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/01/535085491 ... ive-collea

But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.

[Simple Torture]

This would make some high stakes for the 2018 midterms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/01/535085491 ... ive-collea

But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.

If I remember correctly, most people think the Dems will easily take the House in 2018 but not the Senate; only the latter matters in this case. Would Dems prevent a vote for 2 years as payback?

[The Argonaut]

At this point, yes, they would. The system as it stands right now is broken.

[Green Habit]

This would make some high stakes for the 2018 midterms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/01/535085491 ... ive-collea

But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.

If I remember correctly, most people think the Dems will easily take the House in 2018 but not the Senate; only the latter matters in this case. Would Dems prevent a vote for 2 years as payback?

The Senate map is brutal for the Dems in 2018. Even under ideal conditions, after Heller and Flake the third seat to attack may very well be Ted Cruz for any chance to take control. If they fail, they'll have to try to influence the likes of Susan Collins or Lindsey Graham to prevent the Court from lurching heavily to the right.

[B]

[Green Habit]

Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN19W1UZ

It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.

[malice]

Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN19W1UZ

It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.

they can view the tweets, but they can't reply, according to the article... public dissent of the government, etc.

Seems pretty unconstitutional, doesn't it?

[Green Habit]

Posting this here because it goes far beyond Trump:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN19W1UZ

It's my understanding that one can still view a Twitter account even when blocked if that person is not logged in. If that's the case, then I don't yet see the First Amendment problem, as one still has an avenue to read it. Is logging out or viewing in a different browser enough of an inconvenience to constitute viewpoint discrimination? Still thinking this one through.

they can view the tweets, but they can't reply, according to the article... public dissent of the government, etc.

Seems pretty unconstitutional, doesn't it?

They can tweet their thoughts about Trump's tweets all they want, they just can't tweet directly to Trump. The right to speak does not translate into a right to an audience. And with Twitter, that's potentially a big deal given its recurring problem with policing harassment. It could be a headache for public officials much weaker than Trump.

[malice]

Ok, so trump just doesn't want to see dissenting replies when he tweets

I guess i don't get the point of his tweeting about everything because by nature, it's a public medium, unlike say, a press release, and part of that would have to include dealing with the dissent his chosen public venting of his opinions brings.

nm, it's not relevant to the topic, and there's a good chance he doesn't have the presence of mind to put out an intelligible press release.

Can you elaborate on what the ramifications are of the plaintiffs losing their suit? Or what the big picture could look like?

[Green Habit]

Ok, so trump just doesn't want to see dissenting replies when he tweets

I guess i don't get the point of his tweeting about everything because by nature, it's a public medium, unlike say, a press release, and part of that would have to include dealing with the dissent his chosen public venting of his opinions brings.

nm, it's not relevant to the topic, and there's a good chance he doesn't have the presence of mind to put out an intelligible press release.

Some would argue that his tweets should be press releases!

https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot

Can you elaborate on what the ramifications are of the plaintiffs losing their suit? Or what the big picture could look like?

A few things that go through my mind:
--Are all accounts run by public officials considered to be public information? Or are they allowed to have personal accounts in which they can determine who can and cannot participate?
--If personal accounts are allowable, do you have to set the default to private view if you want to block people? In other words, does the 1A demand that you either have to let everyone in the public comment, or no one, but not only some?
--Are there certain types of content that can be blocked (i.e., harassment, threats--and how are those defined) while still passing 1A muster?

Maybe I'll think of more later.

[malice]

Yeah, i read about the tweets as official press releases. It's mind boggling his staff can't stop him from tweeting, im rather scared this guy is actually going to start a military conflict as a result of his tweets.

Re - you comments: the part about allowing some but not all reply... That's a good one. Meaning, what possible criteria for 'who gets to reply and who doesn't' can be used that would be uniform or equally applied to everyone without being discriminatory.

You don't have to answer that, it was just something that came to mind

[Green Habit]

Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argum ... ting-case/

[Jammer XCI]

Neil Gorsuch is a piece of shit cunt too.

[4/5]

Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argum ... ting-case/

Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?

[digster]

I still feel a bit murky on what the potential implications of a ruling against political gerrymandering would be. Would that mean what's basically happened since 2010 would be deemed illegal? I understand the problem, just not what the potential solution could be from the Court.

[4/5]

I still feel a bit murky on what the potential implications of a ruling against political gerrymandering would be. Would that mean what's basically happened since 2010 would be deemed illegal? I understand the problem, just not what the potential solution could be from the Court.

It would depend how sweeping any anti-gerrymandering ruling is. I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence. What Kennedy wrote in a previous gerrymandering case was that there would need to be a workable test to determine whether the redistricting/gerrymandering in question was too extreme. The claimants in this case essentially presented their version of the test they think the Supreme Court should use:
1. Was the intent of the new map to benefit one party over the other?
2. Does the map significantly discriminate against one party over a sustained period of time?
3. Is there any reason other than partisan gerrymandering that one party is continuously at a disadvantage?

[Green Habit]

Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argum ... ting-case/

Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?

Only Kennedy knows for sure. I wouldn't mind Trump launching a few angry tweets in his direction if he votes in favor of a result Trump doesn't like. The travel ban case would have been perfect but it sounds like they're going to moot that one.

I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence.

I really dislike that line of thought that Roberts used. The entire job of the courts is to address litigation.