Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#1001

Post by RVInit »

MN-Skeptic wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:29 pm :lol:

I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#1002

Post by bob »


To recap: A 3-judge panel ruled Alabama's map violated the voting rights act.

On a 5-4 vote on the shadow docket, SCOTUS stayed that ruling pending appeal. Which, in effect, allowed Alabama to use its map in 2022.

Now, SCOTUS rules, again 5-4, the original 3-judge panel was correct. The only vote to change was Kavanaugh's.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#1003

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

RVInit wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:34 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:28 pm The cynic in me says that Roberts is trying to claw back some of the court’s credibility.
I was wondering the same thing. Unless I'm mistaken I think he voted in past cases to pretty much destroy the Voting Rights Act.
You are not mistaken. This article refers to that as it analyzes the Allen case. Roberts makes clear in the new case that 1) precedent on Section 2 has been upheld since 1986 when the Gingles three prong test was introduced and 2) never has Congress seen a need to modify Section 2.

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysi ... f-alabama/
Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Out of Alabama

Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights A
Almost exactly 10 years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion gutting Sections 4 and 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA). “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2,” he wrote at the time.

Despite that promise, a case directly challenging Section 2 wound up before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. But today, June 8, 2023, Roberts made good on his promise. In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that Alabama’s congressional map diluted the voting strength of Black voters.

The majority — in clear and no uncertain terms — upheld Section 2 of the VRA and its current application, a massive victory for voting rights and for Black Alabamians who will have the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.

:snippity:

“Gingles has governed our Voting Rights Act jurisprudence since it was decided 37 years ago. Congress has never disturbed our understanding of §2 as Gingles construed it,” the Court explained. “And we have applied Gingles in one §2 case after another, to different kinds of electoral systems and to different jurisdictions in States all over the country.”“Gingles has governed our Voting Rights Act jurisprudence since it was decided 37 years ago. Congress has never disturbed our understanding of §2 as Gingles construed it,” the Court explained. “And we have applied Gingles in one §2 case after another, to different kinds of electoral systems and to different jurisdictions in States all over the country."

In the final section, Roberts rejected two more of Alabama’s far-flung attempts to undermine Section 2 of the VRA.

Alabama attempted to argue that Section 2 didn’t apply to redistricting at all and instead only applied to voting practices that directly impacted ballot access, such as voter registration policies. However, Roberts noted that Alabama’s understanding could not be reconciled with the Court’s “unbroken line of decisions stretching four decades” that applied Section 2 to redistricting maps.

(As a note, Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent made the same unfounded argument as Alabama that Section 2 does not apply to redistricting. Five justices rejected that today.)

The Court also rejected Alabama’s attempt to strike down Section 2 as unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By doing so, the nation’s highest court confirmed the law’s constitutionality.

Today’s decision did not restore previously weakened sections of the VRA, but it maintained the status quo. While Alabama voters unfortunately voted under this illegal map in the 2022 midterm elections, the state will now have to redraw new, fairer districts. The impact will reverberate in at least nine other states, but most immediately in Louisiana where litigation was paused pending this decision.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#1004

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

SCOTUS

#1005

Post by June bug »

RVInit wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:36 pm I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.
What biography was that?
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

SCOTUS

#1006

Post by Frater I*I »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:33 pm My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?
Because the QOP believe that women aren't persons, rather they are just human incubators....
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#1007

Post by RVInit »

June bug wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:44 pm
RVInit wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:36 pm I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.
What biography was that?
Sorry, it was a Frontline special about Thomas and his wife. It includes some biographical background on both of them.

There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

SCOTUS

#1008

Post by June bug »

Thank you for this link, RV. It was both informative and fascinating.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#1009

Post by RVInit »

:bighug: Yes, I'm glad it popped up on my feed and I decided to listen to it while cooking dinner one night. There were many things I had not been aware of, I found it really interesting.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

SCOTUS

#1010

Post by Foggy »

Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:28 pm The cynic in me says that Roberts is trying to claw back some of the court’s credibility.
Too late.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#1011

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Frater I*I wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:51 pm
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:33 pm My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?
Because the QOP believe that women aren't persons, rather they are just human incubators....
I keep forgetting that, Frater! "Thanks" for reminding me! :(
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#1012

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1ciuA7
Ruff day in court: Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in dispute with makers of dog toy

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel's reason to raise a glass, handing the company a new chance to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels dog toy.

In announcing the decision for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful mood. At one point while reading a summary of the opinion in the courtroom Kagan held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle.

Kagan said a lower court's reasoning was flawed when it ruled for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court did not decide whether the toy's maker had violated trademark law but instead sent the case back for further review.

“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court. At another point, Kagan asked readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it's probably there)" before inserting a color picture of it.

At the center of the case is the Lanham Act, the country's core federal trademark law. It prohibits using a trademark in a way “likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods.”

A lower court never got to the issue of consumer confusion, however, because it said the toy was an “expressive work” communicating a humorous message and therefore needed to be evaluated under a different test. Kagan said that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”

Kagan also said a lower court erred in its analysis of Jack Daniel's claim against the toy company for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.”

The case is Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#1013

Post by Gregg »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:37 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1ciuA7
Ruff day in court: Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in dispute with makers of dog toy

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel's reason to raise a glass, handing the company a new chance to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels dog toy.

In announcing the decision for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful mood. At one point while reading a summary of the opinion in the courtroom Kagan held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle.

Kagan said a lower court's reasoning was flawed when it ruled for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court did not decide whether the toy's maker had violated trademark law but instead sent the case back for further review.

“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court. At another point, Kagan asked readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it's probably there)" before inserting a color picture of it.

At the center of the case is the Lanham Act, the country's core federal trademark law. It prohibits using a trademark in a way “likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods.”

A lower court never got to the issue of consumer confusion, however, because it said the toy was an “expressive work” communicating a humorous message and therefore needed to be evaluated under a different test. Kagan said that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”

Kagan also said a lower court erred in its analysis of Jack Daniel's claim against the toy company for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.”

The case is Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.

I just gotta say, she usually doesn't care too much for politics, but Biscuit is not happy with this decision.

Image
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#1014

Post by bob »

538: The Supreme Court's New Ruling Could Help Democrats Flip The House In 2024:
The Supreme Court just handed Democrats a massive victory in their quest to retake the House of Representatives in 2024. In a 5-4 decision that was as surprising as it was consequential, the high court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to draw a second predominantly Black congressional district.

Not only does that mean Democrats will very likely gain a seat in Alabama next year, but the decision will probably also force other states to redraw their congressional maps as well. And with Democrats needing to flip only five House seats in 2024 to win the majority, this decision could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the House.
The article notes the ruling like will cause only one additional Democratic representative from Alabama to be voted in (and one fewer Republican). But also notes similar pending lawsuits in Louisana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. And there's also North Carolina (which technically isn't a section 2 case).

So, a representative here, another there, could determine the House.
Image ImageImage
jemcanada2
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:12 am

SCOTUS

#1015

Post by jemcanada2 »

Biscuit! :lovestruck: :lovestruck:

Will there be a secret mission over the Supreme Court with only pupperoni and doggie squeak toys left behind? :shh: :shh: :batting:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#1016

Post by Gregg »

bob wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 6:32 pm 538: The Supreme Court's New Ruling Could Help Democrats Flip The House In 2024:
The Supreme Court just handed Democrats a massive victory in their quest to retake the House of Representatives in 2024. In a 5-4 decision that was as surprising as it was consequential, the high court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to draw a second predominantly Black congressional district.

Not only does that mean Democrats will very likely gain a seat in Alabama next year, but the decision will probably also force other states to redraw their congressional maps as well. And with Democrats needing to flip only five House seats in 2024 to win the majority, this decision could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the House.
The article notes the ruling like will cause only one additional Democratic representative from Alabama to be voted in (and one fewer Republican). But also notes similar pending lawsuits in Louisana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. And there's also North Carolina (which technically isn't a section 2 case).

So, a representative here, another there, could determine the House.
That was my very first thought.

It alone could mean as many as 7 seats flipped, and I would hope that 2 of the 4 in New York where Biden carried a district that a Republican won, including George Santos, BTW....

If they Democrats can just split those mentioned, it flips the House.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#1017

Post by bob »

Gregg wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:33 pm It alone could mean as many as 7 seats flipped, and I would hope that 2 of the 4 in New York where Biden carried a district that a Republican won, including George Santos, BTW....
I would not be surprised if someone in New York filed a lawsuit in response to SCOTUS' latest ruling.

But I have doubts this latest will cause a new map for New York.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#1018

Post by Gregg »

What I am pissed about is Ohio, where I vote.

New York was a mirror of Ohio, a Judge in New York told them to change the generally favoring D maps and they did. So net R +1 or 2

A judge told our legislature that the generally favoring R map was unconstitutional and they just said "oopsie, no time to change it now!". Another R +2

:mad:
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#1019

Post by raison de arizona »

Woot. I'll take what I can get.
Supreme Court declines to review North Carolina’s decision to nix license plates with Confederate flag

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t review North Carolina’s decision to stop issuing specialty license plates with the Confederate flag.
:snippity:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s ... erate-flag
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#1020

Post by Gregg »

You mean it got that far that someone had the right to have a treasonous flag on their license plates?

At least my veteran plates are for the winning side.

Image
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

SCOTUS

#1021

Post by Dave from down under »

I'm glad to see that the supporters of treason continue to lose..

"In 2015, the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ Texas chapter claimed Texas was wrong not to issue a specialty license plate with the group’s insignia. But the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Texas could limit the content of license plates because they are state property."
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

SCOTUS

#1022

Post by Volkonski »

Texas made a very small contribution to the Confederate war effort.

In those days Texas' white population was relatively small. The Yankee forces took control of the Mississippi River in southern Louisiana very early in the war. By early July in 1863 with the fall of Vicksburg the Yankees controlled all of the river.

That and the Yankee blockade of Confederate Gulf Coast and Atlantic
ports made it very hard for manpower and supplies from Texas to reach the Confederate forces in the east.

Texas is not a place that should be celebrating a glorious Confederate past.
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

SCOTUS

#1023

Post by Foggy »

Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 :roll:). They didn't grow cotton or tobacco. They didn't really identify with the Southern gentry that ran the Confederacy.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

SCOTUS

#1024

Post by neeneko »

Foggy wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:23 am Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 :roll:). They didn't grow cotton or tobacco. They didn't really identify with the Southern gentry that ran the Confederacy.
It is almost like the identification has nothing to do with the conflict itself,...
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#1025

Post by raison de arizona »

neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 5:05 pm
Foggy wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:23 am Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 :roll:). They didn't grow cotton or tobacco. They didn't really identify with the Southern gentry that ran the Confederacy.
It is almost like the identification has nothing to do with the conflict itself,...
I've seen confederate flags on Long Island, NY. It's not so much identifying with the confederacy in these times, it's more a statement of, "I'm a racist asshole."
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”