US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

[DireWolfSpirit]

It's about time.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Harris' blackness is often undercut, and it comes from many sources. Kamala the cop was an attacked used against her during the primary, for example. That she's married to a white man is another. She's unfairly attacked in this way and this just seems like another example of it.

This isn't fully accurate. The Kamala was a cop "attack" was from leftists, no doubt, but it was liberals who retaliated with, "That means you're ignoring her blackness." No, it was a criticism people were pointing out about a spotty record. I've come around on Kamala, but there are caveats with her past, and none of them undercut her blackness. To say it's unfair to hold her accountable--and plenty of legal scholars came out against her--on her record is disingenuous to say the least. You're rewriting history in your head to match the decisions you made as "correct."

ETA: This is the kind of shapeless, directionless approach that liberals take as taking a stand "against racism." 

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Damn right..Brett Kavanaugh?

I had a similar reaction, but if he's a textualist it makes sense. I know textualists are referring to the Constitution explicitly, but implicitly they're also adhering to capitalism in its strictest sense. If you're a "capitalist" then people should be paid for their work according to the market, and colleges have abused this for a long time. I will give Kavanaugh this--I know plenty of politicians who claim to be capitalists but will make excuses all over the place in cases like these. Kavanaugh has a principle. I suppose he's kind of a classic capitalist, which we don't really have many of anymore. Even "moderate" republicans like Romney are creators of the hypercapitalism that has destroyed the middle and working class.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

This isn't fully accurate. The Kamala was a cop "attack" was from leftists, no doubt, but it was liberals who retaliated with, "That means you're ignoring her blackness." No, it was a criticism people were pointing out about a spotty record.

I agree that the attacks from the left on Kamala as prosecutor are, by and large, not racially motivated.  However, I wish the people leveling these incendiary offensives would take into account she was/is an ambitious black female politician and why that obstacle influences a lot of the prior behavior they object to at the time.

22 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I had a similar reaction, but if he's a textualist it makes sense.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far.  "Textualism" is still largely a bullshit "ideology" built on a house of cards that every conservative jurist will readily abandon if they happen to disagree.

[Tywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

This isn't fully accurate. The Kamala was a cop "attack" was from leftists, no doubt, but it was liberals who retaliated with, "That means you're ignoring her blackness." No, it was a criticism people were pointing out about a spotty record. I've come around on Kamala, but there are caveats with her past, and none of them undercut her blackness. To say it's unfair to hold her accountable--and plenty of legal scholars came out against her--on her record is disingenuous to say the least. You're rewriting history in your head to match the decisions you made as "correct."

ETA: This is the kind of shapeless, directionless approach that liberals take as taking a stand "against racism." 

Klobuchar has an equally spotty record from her time as Hennepin County prosecutor, but it was largely a nonissue during the primary. Klobuchar is also one of the most moderate Senators while Harris had one of the most liberal voting records. It’s hard for me to conclude that race didn’t play a role in the attacks on Harris.

[TrackerNeil]

59 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

ETA: This is the kind of shapeless, directionless approach that liberals take as taking a stand "against racism." 

I find that about 50% of what liberals do about racism is purely performative. And I am a liberal!

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Klobuchar has an equally spotty record from her time as Hennepin County prosecutor, but it was largely a nonissue during the primary.

I don't think Klobuchar is a good comparison.  No one ever really thought she'd win the nomination.  For a time, people did think Harris might.

[Zorral]

I continue to wish tRumpoggoth incarcerated in Guantánamo ... it could have happened.  He proposed Covid-19 infectees be incarcerated there ... this would include infected him.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/559369-trump-discussed-sending-infected-americans-to-guantanamo-bay-book

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Going back to the Simone family v State of California (or Kamala Harris as they put it).

 

I think this might be actual settlement.

Only skimmed through it. Somebody who speaks legalese (particularly the American English dialect) like Scot or Zabz can feel free to point out comprehension errors on my part.

But the main issue seemed to be.

Nina Simone wrote a will that left her estate (almost in its entirety) to the foundation to promote the musical education of kids in parts of Africa. Her daughter contested that by means of the French inheritance law (where Simone spent her final years), thus claiming half of her Simone's estate (going against Nina's will obviously) and taking money away from Simone's charity. Enter the Cali. AG office (Kamala Harris) as the legal representation of the charities in the state of California. Apparently Simone Kelly also misused funds in her funcion as trustee of the Simone Charity (at least that can be read between the lines there).

The short of it. The AG agreed to drop the investigation in the financial shenanigans, if  Simone Kelly agreed to stop trying to overwrite Nina Simone's will (likesay trying to fight it in a French court with the French inheritance laws). Furthermore Simone Kelly is barred from serving as a trustee on charities in Cali and has effectively been cut loose from Nina Simone's legacy. So she can't benefit from her mum's name financially (with a few named exceptions).

Oh yeah, and it looks like Harris wasn't even the lead council on this one, her Deputy Sonja K. Berndt has put her name under the settlement.

[Fez]

Besides the NCAA case, another kinda interesting SCOTUS opinion from this morning is this one: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf

Less for the case itself, which was a relatively technical one around the sale of securities, than for the meta-level court watching stuff. It's basically a 5-4 decision, written by Barrett, with Roberts, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Kagan joining her. Sotomayor dissented from the left, and Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented from the right. That alone is pretty interesting, you don't see many cases with that kind of line-up; and certainly not with the most junior justice getting the opinion assignment.

But beyond that, both Sotomayor and Gorsuch (writing for Alito and Thomas) couched their dissents as much as they could as partial concurrences. This is Barrett's first more contentious opinion, and I get the sense that everyone is trying to be as nice as possible to her (this also popped up in a decision last week where Breyer surprise-joined a concurrence of hers). It makes me wonder if her vote is unusually up for grabs so far and everyone's trying to get on her good side.

The other SCOTUS decision this morning was also somewhat noteworthy https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. Mostly for how convoluted the line-up is:

Quote

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II.

At the core of it though, it's a 5-4 decision with Thomas joining the liberals in dissent. Making this one of the first examples of a 5-4 decision flipping because Ginsburg was replaced by Barrett. Also, it's not a good ruling, from my limited understanding of the topic. Though it is a pretty small one, all things considered.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I agree that the attacks from the left on Kamala as prosecutor are, by and large, not racially motivated.  However, I wish the people leveling these incendiary offensives would take into account she was/is an ambitious black female politician and why that obstacle influences a lot of the prior behavior they object to at the time.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far.  "Textualism" is still largely a bullshit "ideology" built on a house of cards that every conservative jurist will readily abandon if they happen to disagree.

That some people claiming to be textualists abandon textualism to arrive at a desired result doesn’t make “textualism” bullshit.  It makes the people claiming to be Textualists liars.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't think Klobuchar is a good comparison.  No one ever really thought she'd win the nomination.  For a time, people did think Harris might.

Sure, no one thought she had a chance, but it stood out to me during the primary process that the white moderate, pro-cop, former prosecutor wasn't catching much flak for her time in that role while Harris certain was getting a lot of shit for her time as DA and AG.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That some people claiming to be textualists abandon textualism to arrive at a desired result doesn’t make “textualism” bullshit.  It makes the people claiming to be Textualists liars.

Nah, it's all bullshit.  Find me a judge that views every war since WWII as illegitimate and counts "all other persons" as 3/5ths of white people.  Oh, and can't establish judicial review.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nah, it's all bullshit.  Find me a judge that views every war since WWII as illegitimate and counts "all other persons" as 3/5ths of white people.  Oh, and can't establish judicial review.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments superceded the 3/5ths clause.  Being a Textualist doesn’t make Stare Decisis meanless.  And being a Textualist doesn’t mean there are not vague and contradictory terms and clauses within the US Constitution.  Making the President the “Commander in Chief” without explicitly requiring a declaration of war before the CIC power can be invoked is a vague term.

 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Being a Textualist doesn’t make Stare Decisis meanless.

Yeah, it does.  Being a "textualist" means, by definition, not considering any non-textual intent.  Which would mean no judicial review, no war without congressional declaration.  The 14th amendment negates the 3/5ths compromise yeah, but ask someone with the last name Paul about that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, it does.  Being a "textualist" means, by definition, not considering any non-textual intent.  Which would mean no judicial review, no war without congressional declaration.  The 14th amendment negates the 3/5ths compromise yeah, but ask someone with the last name Paul about that.

How do you poset that a Textualist will deal with contradictory or vague text?  If the text is clear… follow the text.  If the text is not clear… things are much more complicated.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How do you poset that a Textualist will deal with contradictory or vague text?  If the text is clear… follow the text.  If the text is not clear… things are much more complicated.

I...don't know how to answer this question.  As I'm the person saying textualism is a bullshit ideology at its bases, I can't really speculate on what someone espousing that bullshit ideology would do.  I will, however, apologize to Chris Paul.  He's going through enough right now already, and I didn't mean to malign him with the "anyone with the last name Paul" comment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I...don't know how to answer this question.  As I'm the person saying textualism is a bullshit ideology at its bases, I can't really speculate on what someone espousing that bullshit ideology would do.  I will, however, apologize to Chris Paul.  He's going through enough right now already, and I didn't mean to malign him with the "anyone with the last name Paul" comment.

Textualism simply means look to the text first.  Give priority to the written words of the Constitution and statute.  That’s not bullshit.  

Intent should only matter if there is a vague or contradictory terms, again, that’s not bullshit.  It just not an easy answer to all problems that ar me brought before the court.

And, for the record, textualism is not originalism even if originalism has elements of textualism in its judicial philosophy.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Textualism simply means look to the text first.  Give priority to the written words of the Constitution and statute.  That’s not bullshit.

Any "ideology" that pretends there isn't inherently interpretation of a very short and vague document is, unquestionably, bullshit.  That goes for "textualism" or "originalism" or whatever the fuck white supremacists want to dream up to mask their racism.  Not that they're really trying to hide it anymore.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Any "ideology" that pretends there isn't inherently interpretation of a very short and vague document is, unquestionably, bullshit.  That goes for "textualism" or "originalism" or whatever the fuck white supremacists want to dream up to mask their racism.  Not that they're really trying to hide it anymore.

I prefer textualism.  Always have.  Are you suggesting I’m a white supremicist because I do?  Why write down anything at all if you can, via “interpretation”, make a legal document say anything you want it to say.

[DMC]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I prefer textualism.  Always have.  Are you suggesting I’m a white supremicist because I do?

No.  I think you're preferring to identify with a made up ideology espoused by white supremacists.