SCOTUS

[RVInit]

I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.

[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.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

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.



“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.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?

[June bug]

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?

[Frater I*I]

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....

[RVInit]

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.

[June bug]

Thank you for this link, RV. It was both informative and fascinating.

[RVInit]

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.

[Foggy]

The cynic in me says that Roberts is trying to claw back some of the court’s credibility.

Too late.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

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!

[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.

[Gregg]

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.

[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.

[jemcanada2]

Biscuit!

Will there be a secret mission over the Supreme Court with only pupperoni and doggie squeak toys left behind?

[Gregg]

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.

[bob]

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.

[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

[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.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s ... erate-flag

[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.

[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."

[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.

[Foggy]

Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 ). They didn't grow cotton or tobacco. They didn't really identify with the Southern gentry that ran the Confederacy.

[neeneko]

Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 ). 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,...

[raison de arizona]

Also, Texas didn't become a state at all until 1846 (OK, ass end of 1845 ). 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."