Talk About Tennis 2.0

Probably but Mr Henchmen and Mr Rioter stacked the courts for the past 4 years after Mr Henchmen said no judge the previous 4 years.

I think there's a good chance that parts of the law get overturned while others stand. The reappointing election boards part seems so blatantly undemocratic that even the conservative Supreme Court may gave difficulty keeping it. I think it will go to a lower court first though, possibly the Georgia Supreme Court?

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:00 pm Can this be challenged in the SCOTUS? It is so blatantly discriminatory that it would seem easy to shot down, but we know what the SCOTUS composition is now.

SCOTUS? No. It can be challenged in Georgia courts or in a US District Court. Only in extremely rare circumstances can something be challenged directly to SCOTUS. But is there a chance that this law be ruled invalid in the courts in general? Absolutely, a very good chance. Even some of the most conservative judges have previously mentioned that some of what GA threw in here being undue burdens, such as forbidding handing out food and water to those waiting in line.

Will SCOTUS eventually take this up if a District Court overturns it and a a Circuit Court upholds that ruling? Possibly. And there could be an issue then because Roberts who has been somewhat of a level headed justice at times trying to not let the country become the worst version of itself, has helped to gleefully gut the Voting Rights Act in the past. A lot has transpired that he doesn't appear as on board with in the last couple of years so we'd have to see. This might be a bit too obviously Jim Crow for some of them to put their name on. But the assumption would be upholding the GA law, not invalidating it with the current court makeup if it gets there.

That being said, the District and Circuit Courts are different animals and I would look for overturning the GA law at those levels. The SC is much more likely to hear a review if say, the GA and AZ laws are similar and overturned, but similar laws in IA are upheld. This is wait and see right now if it'll reach the SC and a long way off, but at the district court level, rest assured those filings are being prepared as we speak.

@JazzNu: are you by any chance a lawyer? You seem to know a lot about stuff like this.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:29 pm @JazzNu: are you by any chance a lawyer? You seem to know a lot about stuff like this.

Why yes, technically I am. I do more research and analysis than anything else though.

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:38 pm
Sorry to take this off topic for a moment, but I'm now wondering is there a similar kind of dynamic between formerly enslaved and former slavers in any other country where slavery was abolished in mid 19th century or later. I'm particularly wondering about Brazil since in the Caribbean the number of fully white people remaining is very small. I've not heard of anything like that, but I could just be poorly informed...

This is a good question. I think this is often overlooked for Brazil. Now it seems there is more of a colorism issue since the population is majority-mixed and the white minority is now formed of more recent, post-abolition of slavery European immigrants. But historically there were issues of institutional segregation similar to the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ery_(1888)

He is underwater in his handling of gun violence? Then what about the GOP? Nothing gets done because of them.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:26 am He is underwater in his handling of gun violence? Then what about the GOP? Nothing gets done because of them.

Democrats expect progress, Republican voters expect the past, but are happy with the status quo, so Republican politicians benefit from doing nothing.

$3m - $5m range maybe?

Supreme Court to decide if Ky. attorney general can intervene to defend abortion restrictions

by
Robert Barnes
March 29, 2021 at 2:55 p.m. EDT


Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron delivers an address during the Republican National Convention. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

The Supreme Court will decide whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s restrictive abortion law against the wishes of its Democratic governor, the justices announced Monday.

The law would effectively ban after 15 weeks a common procedure used to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester. A trial court struck down the law as unconstitutional and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed.

But the case, which the Supreme Court will hear in the term that begins in the fall, does not ask the court to reconsider its abortion jurisprudence.

The question instead is whether the appeals court was right to bar Attorney General Daniel Cameron from taking over the case to further challenge the ruling. Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander, an appointee of Gov. Andy Beshear, decided against further defense of the law.

The law was passed in 2018 by Kentucky’s majority-Republican legislature and signed by the state’s governor at the time, who was a Republican.

“I promised Kentuckians that I would defend our laws all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and that’s what we’ve done,” Cameron said in a statement. “Since day one in office, we’ve fought to defend House Bill 454, even when the Beshear administration refused to defend it. This law reflects the conscience of Kentucky.”

Beshear, who as the state’s attorney general until 2019 had said he would not pursue additional defense of the law, said during his gubernatorial campaign that he would not defend abortion laws he considered unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court declined to take up a second issue presented by Cameron’s petition. It asked how the court’s ruling last term striking a restrictive Louisiana abortion law affects the legal reasoning the 6th Circuit used to block the Kentucky law. The 6th Circuit ruled just days before the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo.

“This case is only about whether the attorney general, after having sat on the sidelines of this lawsuit, can jump in at the last minute in an effort to revive an unconstitutional law,” said Andrew Beck, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, which represented a Kentucky clinic challenging the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ium=social

The audio is at the link.

No need to listen to the audio. It says Koch-backed. That says everything.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:12 pm No need to listen to the audio. It says Koch-backed. That says everything.

But... her emails...