|
Orange Devil posted:And yet other countries manage this problem. American exceptionalism, we refuse to believe that any other country could actually do anything better than we can because we have been personally blessed by god almighty himself. see: healthcare, education, gun-control, etc
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:And yet other countries manage this problem. We do solitary a little... differently here. So, "Yes?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:And yet other countries manage this problem. quote:For the duration of that time, Woodfox was held in the cell for 23 hours a day. In the single remaining hour, he was allowed out of the cell to go to the “exercise yard” – a small area of fenced concrete – but was shackled and kept alone there as well. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/albert-woodfox-released-louisiana-jail-43-years-solitary-confinement PS. His cell was 6 feet by 9 feet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Yeah solitary confinement in America is specifically intended as punishment and basically generally packs any psychological torture they can think of into it. It is not "not having a roommate".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Prisoners refer to it as "the hole" so yeah, it's not just the solitude- as previous poster stated, it's designed to be far worse than the everyday conditions most inmates in America face, which are pretty grim already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
I wouldn't say Americans are uniquely bad people, we're sort of a mash-up of all sorts of bad that you can find all over the place, plus a dash of exceptionalism and a pinch of narcissism regarding being "the best democracy in history." So all sorts of bad you find elsewhere, but now all in one place.We slice, we dice, we commit people to decades of confinement and psychological torture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/albert-woodfox-released-louisiana-jail-43-years-solitary-confinement Also his conviction was overturned in 1992 (and again in 2008) but he was kept in prison because our criminal justice system is a totalitarian farce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Also his conviction was overturned in 1992 (and again in 2008) but he was kept in prison because our criminal justice system is a totalitarian farce. What, like refusing to try a 12 year old girl with schizophrenia as a minor because you'll fear that'll mean she'll "get away" with murder? No, no, our criminal justice system is fine...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Also his conviction was overturned in 1992 (and again in 2008) but he was kept in prison because our criminal justice system is a totalitarian farce. I'm not quite sure what the legal term is, (vacate vs. overturn vs. reverse vs. exonerate?) but apparently the 1992 judgement entitled him to a new trial, not to be set free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Useful to note that Louisiana's DOJ would like you to believe they were not held in solitary confinement but instead in Closed Cell Restricted units (CCRs), which is a pointless acronym used in place of solitary to make it sound nicer in reports. Here in California we lie to the feds the same way, except it's called Administrative Segregation (AdSeg) because that's even more newspeak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenAlexander/status/955632318307356673 Gorsuch doesn't even pretend to not be a blatant republican political hack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Judges having dinner with other public servants, without more, is not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:public servants LOL good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Scotus is eventually gonna review the Pennsylvania gerrymander decision and overrule it, guaranteed Hopefully the halt of appeals doesnt shut down the proposed remedy before that happens
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Scotus is eventually gonna review the Pennsylvania gerrymander decision and overrule it, guaranteed They cannot review or overturn it because there is no federal question and the case was exclusively over state law. State supreme courts are the final arbiter on state specific laws. They didn’t overturn the NC case they just said they didn’t have to draft entirely new districts by next week. This was the SCOTUS overturning a lower federal court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They cannot review or overturn it because there is no federal question and the case was exclusively over state law. State supreme courts are the final arbiter on state specific laws. they can find a bullshit hook if they really, really want to
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they can find a bullshit hook if they really, really want to Election laws are primarily state laws and the only oversight laws congress has passed are election date laws and requirements for single member districts. There's no federal question to answer because as of now there's no federal law remotely on point. Congress has never enacted anything with regards to how states district themselves so there is no way for them to touch this directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Election laws are primarily state laws and the only oversight laws congress has passed are election date laws and requirements for single member districts. Watch them pick up some horseshit gorsuch-grade case saying map changes to ensure an equitable representation of voters violates equal protection. It doesn't even have to make sense for them to try it. That claim doesn't even make sense because gerrymandering goes against equitable representation and reducing or removing it is a move in the right direction but the types of people challenging this are the types of people who believe civil rights are a zero-sum contest and they are harmed when someone isn't being oppressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
They already have multiple state gerrymandering cases and are certain to come up with some sort of applicable standard for when a state is too partisan and thus violates the VRA. That's what the federal court held in NC and I'm pretty sure that the other cases before them have similar thrusts. They're all federal cases, though, and all based on federal law. The Pennsylvania case is not based around any federal law whatsoever. It's around a state law where states have direct constitutional control. There is zero superseding federal laws to create conflict. In the absence of a federal question, state supreme courts are the final arbiter of state law. This is by constitutional design. Federal courts defer to state supreme court interpretations of state laws (including SCOTUS).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
It's going to win appeal because of the bit where the judiciary is drawing the districts. There is a constitutional argument that only the state legislatures have this power, not their judiciaries - or at least that's the argument they are making in the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's going to win appeal because of the bit where the judiciary is drawing the districts. There is a constitutional argument that only the state legislatures have this power, not their judiciaries - or at least that's the argument they are making in the appeal. Wasn’t that a “if you don’t comply we’ll have to do this” thing? Federal courts have been tossing districts for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's going to win appeal because of the bit where the judiciary is drawing the districts. There is a constitutional argument that only the state legislatures have this power, not their judiciaries - or at least that's the argument they are making in the appeal. But does that power include the ability to delegate it per statute? Or better yet, is the process of the judiciary simply voiding a map and ordering the legislature to draw a new one in accordance with law something that can be considered "drawing the districts?" They aren't drawing the districts, they're ruling the districts unlawful and ordering the legislature to follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's going to win appeal because of the bit where the judiciary is drawing the districts. There is a constitutional argument that only the state legislatures have this power, not their judiciaries - or at least that's the argument they are making in the appeal. No judiciary is drawing districts. They're saying the districts as drawn don't fit whatever legal standard is required. In the federal cases it's the VRA. In the PA case it's PA state law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's going to win appeal because of the bit where the judiciary is drawing the districts. There is a constitutional argument that only the state legislatures have this power, not their judiciaries - or at least that's the argument they are making in the appeal. Courts have drawn legislative districts for decades, its not controversial. The legislature always gets first crack at it but when they are unwilling or unable to draw a legal map after they have been given a few chances, the courts have stepped in and the SCOTUS has always shrugged and went "OK fine, I guess they had no choice" edit: and as others have pointed out, the court isn't drawing the map yet, they are ordering the state to try again. But if they eventually did draw a map after the state tries and fails multiple times, then that alone is not a fatal flaw on appeal. Rigel fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:But does that power include the ability to delegate it per statute? Mr. Nice! posted:No judiciary is drawing districts. They're saying the districts as drawn don't fit whatever legal standard is required. In the federal cases it's the VRA. In the PA case it's PA state law. The specific ruling is that the judiciary will draw the districts if the legislature fail to comply. Claiming the power to draw the districts is the only reason this ruling matters, or it would be like the countless other rulings on this sort of issue where the legislature would simply fail to comply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The specific ruling is that the judiciary will draw the districts if the legislature will fail to comply. As many other judiciaries have done for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:As many other judiciaries have done for decades. Can you cite one of those? Especially one where that previously came up before the Supreme Court? It would certainly make me feel a lot better about things, and I have people I want to share it with. All I know that is that the narrative for those who oppose the ruling and are trying to appeal it is based on that activity being unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
I wonder how detailed the PA SC decision is in outlining the nature of the state constitutional violation, e.g. is it more a "spirit" thing or a "letter" thing. They certainly would have authority to determine violation of state constitutional rights but they're more nebulous than citing a specific statute where the map's effect shifts the outcome beyond x away from the raw vote totals. I also wonder if the state laws have a process to accommodate this and it's already outlined where the legislature has granted the court the authority to redraw the map. If that's the case, wouldn't that simply fall under "that's the legislature making the call?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder how detailed the PA SC decision is in outlining the nature of the state constitutional violation Right now, not at all. quote:In Monday’s decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court split along party lines in striking down the state’s House map, with the court’s five Democrats in the majority and its two Republican judges in dissent. The majority did not lay out its reasons on Monday, saying they will be explained in a later written opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can you cite one of those? Especially one where that previously came up before the Supreme Court? It would certainly make me feel a lot better about things, and I have people I want to share it with. In 2012, Texas was forced to use a court-drawn map. There was a bit of a battle that went to the supreme court where the state won a partial victory, but in the end the state still had to use a court-drawn map that they weren't really happy with. They quickly came up with a new map for the 2014 elections which is fine, the legislature can always try to replace a court-drawn map with yet another attempt to draw a map which they can use if they finally decide to comply with the law. (briefly, the court ignored the legislature's map, started with the old 2010 map and did their own thing. The state tried to get the court's ability to draw any map at all thrown out completely, and the supreme court came down in the middle. The SCOTUS ruled that since the state failed to come up with a legal map despite multiple opportunities, then it was now time for the court to impose a map on the state, BUT they couldn't just simply ignore the legislature's attempt. The SCOTUS ordered the court to start with the legislature's map, and then modify it as necessary until it became a legal map) https://www.texastribune.org/2012/02/28/court-delivers-election-maps-texas-house-congress/
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Rigel posted:In 2012, Texas was forced to use a court-drawn map. Georgia had one in 2004 as well, ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. Larios v. Cox, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2004) posted:The Georgia General Assembly was unable to meet the March 1, 2004 deadline and as yet has submitted no new plans for review by the Court or the Department of Justice. Accordingly, it fell to this Court to draw interim reapportionment plans for use in time for the orderly conduct of the November 2004 elections. . . By Order dated March 1, 2004, we appointed Mr. Joseph Hatchett to serve as Special Master pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on March 2, 2004, we adopted a series of guidelines to inform the Special Master in the process of preparing reapportionment maps for the Senate and the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of Georgia ("March 2 Guidelines").
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder how detailed the PA SC decision is in outlining the nature of the state constitutional violation, e.g. is it more a "spirit" thing or a "letter" thing. They certainly would have authority to determine violation of state constitutional rights but they're more nebulous than citing a specific statute where the map's effect shifts the outcome beyond x away from the raw vote totals. They do not explain their reasoning in the least. They give no explanation of how the districting scheme violates the state constitution, only that it does. This vagueness is a good thing for people who support the decision because it cuts down the avenues for federal appeal. I vaguely remember a rule (but can't find a citation) that when a state constitution borrows language from the federal constitution it is presumed to also borrow its meaning, the final arbiter of which is the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, for example, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling based on section 8 of the Commonwealth's constitution (a verbatim copy of the US Constitution's 4th amendment) would be reviewable, but one based on section 7 (quite a different phrasing of freedom of speech than the First Amendment) would not be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I vaguely remember a rule (but can't find a citation) that when a state constitution borrows language from the federal constitution it is presumed to also borrow its meaning, the final arbiter of which is the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, for example, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling based on section 8 of the Commonwealth's constitution (a verbatim copy of the US Constitution's 4th amendment) would be reviewable, but one based on section 7 (quite a different phrasing of freedom of speech than the First Amendment) would not be. I don't think that's true, actually. I vaguely remember a example (but can't be bothered to find a citation) of a state constitutional provision identically worded to a federal constitutional provision but interpreted differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:They do not explain their reasoning in the least. They give no explanation of how the districting scheme violates the state constitution, only that it does. This vagueness is a good thing for people who support the decision because it cuts down the avenues for federal appeal. This is temporary. The Order in Question posted:Opinion to follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I vaguely remember a rule (but can't find a citation) that when a state constitution borrows language from the federal constitution it is presumed to also borrow its meaning, the final arbiter of which is the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, for example, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling based on section 8 of the Commonwealth's constitution (a verbatim copy of the US Constitution's 4th amendment) would be reviewable, but one based on section 7 (quite a different phrasing of freedom of speech than the First Amendment) would not be. The rule is whether SCOTUS can determine whether the lower court's decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds. So the question is: did the state supreme court rule only under the umbrella of state law (no federal issue), or did the state supreme court rule on the state law issue by construing/applying federal law because the state constitution follows the federal constitution (yes federal issue)? The wording of the state constitution might play a part in the state supreme court deciding whether the state constitution follows the federal constitution, as a matter of state law, but that's not something that a federal court would be deciding. If the state court is not clear one way or another in its opinion, I believe the current rule is to assume that it was decided solely on state grounds (because federalism), but that is subject to whether SCOTUS really hates the state court and the way it ruled. I believe SCOTUS has gone back and forth on what to presume when the state court decision is ambiguous as to whether it is based on an adequate and independent state ground, though, and the constitution wording argument might have been made by some SCOTUS Justice at one point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:
You'd think this would be the rule, but you'd be wrong. In fact, unless it is clear that a state court decision was based on AISG, the Supreme Court will assume that the decision was based on federal law. See Michigan v. Long. Check out the Stevens dissent for a dissection of how weird that is. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jan 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You'd think this would be the rule, but you'd be wrong. In fact, unless it is clear that a state court decision was based on AISG, the Supreme Court will assume that the decision was based on federal law. See Michigan v. Long. Check out the Stevens dissent for a dissection of how weird that is. You're ignoring the predicate from Michigan v. Long that the case appear to be based on federal law. quote:[W]hen, as in this case, a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible [463 U.S. 1032, 1041] state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. In the PA case the Court, even in its order, was clear that the violation was PA constitutional and only PA constitutional. quote:First, the Court finds as a matter of law that the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis, we hereby strike it as unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Yeah that seems like a pretty unambiguous statement that the decision rested solely on PA law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Watch them pick up some horseshit gorsuch-grade case saying map changes to ensure an equitable representation of voters violates equal protection. https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/956940239808864256
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Election laws are primarily state laws and the only oversight laws congress has passed are election date laws and requirements for single member districts. have you met my friends the conservative wing of the supreme court just because it would fly in the face of legal logic and be transparent nonsense for political purposes has never stopped them before, you can always come up with a federal question if you really, really want to
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 19:46
|
|