Jason Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-felons-in-florida-seeking-to-regain-the-right-to-vote/2020/07/16/2ede827c-c5dd-11ea-a99f-3bbdffb1af38_story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 will of the people doesnt matter in this shithole country (we knew that though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 I’m not paying for the Washington Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 The state court might rule in favour of the voters in the end, but the state will conveniently push the ruling until after the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Can someone explain to me how the court decides which cases to take? I’ve always wondered this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Can someone explain to me how the court decides which cases to take? I’ve always wondered this. 4 of the 9 justices have to agree to take a case for a writ of certiorari to be issued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Though I disagree, I think the SCOTUS has kicked many of these voting related cases back to the states. This doesn’t surprise me. Unless it implicitly clashes with the constitution they seem fine to let the states decide how badly they’ll fuck up federal elections and disenfranchise voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Can someone explain to me how the court decides which cases to take? I’ve always wondered this. 4 minutes ago, Pikachu said: 4 of the 9 justices have to agree to take a case for a writ of certiorari to be issued. What Pikachu said. But there is also a lot of wrangling behind the scenes because, for instance, with the current court the 4 liberals justices will sometimes pass up on a case they would otherwise take because they know/suspect they don't have the 5th vote to win. On issues such as abortion the consersatives are likely to take the case anyway because they have a preferred outçome, but on some issues they will let the case lie. Or, in other frustrating cases, the lower court will give a conservative decision. The liberals won't grant cert because they know they'll just lose 5-4 and now instead of having a 5th circuit precedent(bad) you have a SCOTUS precedent(much worse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 23 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: Though I disagree, I think the SCOTUS has kicked many of these voting related cases back to the states. This doesn’t surprise me. Unless it implicitly clashes with the constitution they seem fine to let the states decide how badly they’ll fuck up federal elections and disenfranchise voters. I mean, fundamentally, aren't states allowed to apportion the electoral college votes however they like? My understanding is that Georgia's state legislature could just vote to give all EC votes to Kanye West, if they wanted to. So with that in mind (if that's the case), I could see how SCOTUS would basically see voting as 100% the state's issue, since there is no actual requirement for any vote to take place at all (or at least even if voting is required, the results of the vote don't actually matter if the state decides otherwise). Someone correct me if my understanding is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Voting is so fundamental to citizenship that SCOTUS should have stepped in and immediately stayed any of Florida’s garbage disenfranchisement schemes that violate the new law approved by voters. I mean, they should actually invalidate all disenfranchisement laws nationwide, but that would be a good start here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Voting is so fundamental to citizenship that SCOTUS should have stepped in and immediately stayed any of Florida’s garbage disenfranchisement schemes that violate the new law approved by voters. I mean, they should actually invalidate all disenfranchisement laws nationwide, but that would be a good start here. Maybe if they wanted to vote as citizens they should have signed up for a stint in the Mobile Infantry. *I just watched Starship Troopers last night 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: Maybe if they wanted to vote as citizens they should have signed up for a stint in the Mobile Infantry. *I just watched Starship Troopers last night Would you like to know more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said: I mean, fundamentally, aren't states allowed to apportion the electoral college votes however they like? My understanding is that Georgia's state legislature could just vote to give all EC votes to Kanye West, if they wanted to. So with that in mind (if that's the case), I could see how SCOTUS would basically see voting as 100% the state's issue, since there is no actual requirement for any vote to take place at all (or at least even if voting is required, the results of the vote don't actually matter if the state decides otherwise). Someone correct me if my understanding is wrong. You're correct in that States can require electors to vote however they like. This was recently at issue in a couple "faithless elector" cases, and SCOTUS ruled unanimously that States can do as they please. However, that ruling has little to do with the constitutional amendments (15, 19, 26) that outline an individual's right to vote. So there very much is a constitutional basis for SCOTUS to rule in a case like this one, and all we can do is speculate as to why they don't feel like getting into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 31 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Would you like to know more? Haha, wow, I was just reading that! Very good article/piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.