New Developments III

[Sabin]

I'll be honest, I wasn't sure this was going to happen. They just have a different politics there.

[jack]

So, British politics, huh.

It’s hilarious. Johnson was a clown of a prime minister.

[Okri]

So, British politics, huh.

[Sonic Youth]

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

Maybe. But this guy is freaked out.

https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-co ... -january-6

"A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6"

And that was only 18 months ago. I remember pronouncements of potential events being the greatest threat to democracy since Pearl Harbor and the Nazis. Today, you don't have to go that far back.

Look, it's very bad. I'm not denying that. But there's still an Election Clause in the Constitution, and as long as that Clause is there - and the Supremes are not going to strike that down - the Feds have the final say. In any event, I think Jim Crow would be a State matter, not a Federal matter, and if the State Constitution forbids such legislation, then that proposal would immediately die. Moore does nothing to change that.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably explaining this inartfully, but I don't think I'm inaccurate. If I am, please correct me.

[taki15]

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

Maybe. But this guy is freaked out.

https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-co ... -january-6

[Sonic Youth]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

According to a lawyer guy I read at Vox the plaintiffs argue that the constitution declares that state legislatures bear the sole responsibility when it comes to elections. Gerrymandering is only a part of it. If these people win that means that the governor and the state courts can't veto or strike down any law that pertains to elections, no matter how much it violates the state constitution.

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

[taki15]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

According to a lawyer guy I read at Vox the plaintiffs argue that the constitution declares that state legislatures bear the sole responsibility when it comes to elections. Gerrymandering is only a part of it. If these people win that means that the governor and the state courts can't veto or strike down any law that pertains to elections, no matter how much it violates the state constitution.

[Sonic Youth]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

[OscarGuy]

Unless the House and Senate can pass laws mandating voting requirements, then yes. Conceivably, the South can reinstitute Jim Crow.

[taki15]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Moore v Harper sounds scary.

Judicial coup shit.

Yesterday, I was looking at the ages of the judges and I thought to myself that it's possible we won't have the opportunity to reclaim the court for twenty years. If this passes, that's optimistic. I think we're probably done, right? 2016 was the ballgame, unless it was actually Citizens United.

Saw a good tweet yesterday: "Truly weird to wake up in America and be like "What hath the council of six decreed today?""

[OscarGuy]

Everyone see what the Unsupreme Court is doing? They've been eviscerating almost everything the Biden administration is trying to do. It doesn't matter what they try to do outside of codify Row is going to work. Example: if they were try to open federal facilities to abortion clinic renters, it will be blocked and stayed until they can rule on it next year. At this point, nothing short of abolishing the filibuster is going to fix this crisis and that's not going to happen as long as St. Manchin and St. Sinema permit it. I think they need to be more forceful about the options on the table whether they will be blocked or not, but let's not kid ourselves that the government as it's currently split, is going to do anything about it.

[Okri]

Moore v Harper sounds scary.

[Sonic Youth]

We were born too soon.

In 200 years, if the earth is still here, a future generation of filmmakers will only be making films about this time in the U.S. as farce. It will be completely alien to the culture.

And they’ll all be made in Europe and Asia. Or really, anywhere where filmmaking is still permitted.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
We were born too soon.

In 200 years, if the earth is still here, a future generation of filmmakers will only be making films about this time in the U.S. as farce. It will be completely alien to the culture.

In 200 years, human beings will be known as "Toasties."