The US Supreme Court and its decisions

ATTENTION: If you had an account that was created before September 1st 2021 you will need to re-create your account again. We apologize for this inconvenience. This should not happen again.

Xaaron

Member
Citizen
They do on paper, at least. A quick search of Arizona law turned up this:

"Ineffective assistance of counsel has two components: a party must show both that counsel's representation fell below prevailing professional norms and that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

I don't know the ins and outs of that state's precedent, but it looks like it is conceived of, under law.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
https://theconversation.com/supreme...nal-maps-in-the-2022-midterm-elections-182407

In the upcoming midterm elections, states may use maps that a federal court has found unlawful.

You read that right: The U.S. Supreme Court recently barred federal courts from requiring states to fix their newly adopted, but unlawful, congressional maps before the 2022 midterm congressional elections.

In Merrill v. Milligan, the Supreme Court in February 2022, stayed the decision of a lower court that ruled Alabama had improperly redistricted its congressional seats. The lower court found Alabama’s maps resulted in Black and Democratic voters wielding less political power in Alabama’s congressional delegation than they otherwise would or should. It required Alabama to redraw its congressional map immediately.

The Supreme Court left Alabama’s congressional redistricting – deemed a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the lower court – in place through the 2022 midterm elections, without deciding for itself whether the maps are unlawful.
 

Rhinox

too old for this
Citizen
This is exactly what you get and should expect with a hijacked court. Clarence Thomas will do his damnedest to make certain the GOP remains in power. He and his wife do not care about law at this point, but about providing cover for their benefactors.
 

Teufel

Member
Citizen
Armed man threatening Kavanaugh's life arrested near his home.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that an armed man who made threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh was arrested near the justice’s house in Maryland.

The man was arrested about 1:50 a.m., court spokesperson Patricia McCabe said in an email.

The California man, in his 20s, was armed with a gun and a knife, according to a law enforcement official. The man, whose identity has not been released, arrived in a taxi early in the morning and told law enforcement officers he wanted to kill Kavanaugh, the official said.

The official was not authorized to publicly discuss details of the ongoing investigation and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The Washington Post initially reported the arrest, quoting sources who said the man also was carrying burglary tools. He told police he was upset by a leaked draft opinion suggesting the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade, the court’s landmark abortion case, the Post reported. He was also said to be upset over recent mass shootings, according to the newspaper.

The home addresses of the conservative justices were published by abortion activists last month and this kind of stuff is the obvious end result.
 

Ironbite4

Active member
Citizen
Yeah and? I fail to see how this affects me after what SCOTUS has done to empower right wing nutjobs and actual facists.

Ironbite-if they don't want to be public servants when the public comes calling, resign.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone#

web18-100miborder-map-2400x1000px-v01.jpg
 

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
Nope. Not true at all. Everything they say is just, like, their opinion, man. They even call their own statements "opinions". The whole system is predicated on the admission that no human being is an infallible arbiter of absolute truth.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
And until we course correct the two stolen seats on the Supreme Court by expanding to 11 the Court has lost all legitimacy. I don't give a crap about it anymore. No respect.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
Not 11, 13.
In the federal system, 94 district courts are organized into 12 circuits, or regions. Each circuit has its own Court of Appeals that reviews cases decided in U.S. District Courts within the circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit brings the number of federal appellate courts to 13.

Pre-civil war, whenever a new circuit was added, a new Supreme Court Justice was added to represent that circuit. This practice only stopped around or after the civil war, but it does mean there is historical precedent for a 1:1 with the circuits, and additionally it would make logical sense if each Justice has to come from each circuit's judges, instead of just picking from anywhere.
 

The Mighty Mollusk

The bold ever fight on, their lives echoed in song
Citizen
The problem is that new Justices have to be approved by the Senate. Lich McConnell will just sit on it forever and refuse to do anything about it. And then should the GOP win the Presidency again in 2024, they'll have precedent for packing the Court even further.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
That's why the best option(if expanding the court) is to go for the 13, with the reasoning above. By re-establishing and relying on the previous precedent, it doesn't leave any loopholes for expanding further without breaking up the existing court circuits, and doing that would take far more effort.
 

The Mighty Mollusk

The bold ever fight on, their lives echoed in song
Citizen
So......nothing will actually change, because cops aren't held accountable for anything already anyway. What's new?
 

Plutoniumboss

Active member
Citizen
Even in the event police are no longer required to inform arrestees of their rights, those rights still exist, and it becomes necessary for the people themselves to inform the people of these rights.
 

Coglestop

Grand Emperor of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
More of a reason why vouchers for charter/private schools are a bad idea, not a hard blow to separation of church and state. The real issue is the privatization of public schooling, not the fact that some of these schools happen to be religious.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
More of a reason why vouchers for charter/private schools are a bad idea, not a hard blow to separation of church and state. The real issue is the privatization of public schooling, not the fact that some of these schools happen to be religious.
Both parts are bad, but the religion part definitely makes it worse because, while no private schools are actually held to the standards that public ones are, in practice it's mostly only the religious ones that fail to meet them.

The Supreme Court basically just said "If your parents are creationists and/or racist, you don't have to get to learn about evolution or the civil rights movement."
 
Top Bottom