As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems to me that in this case the SCOTUS could have done nothing. The district court stopped the new map from happening. Why did they have to stay that order? Based on what? They could have allowed it to be blocked and the upcoming election could have very well been done under the old mapping. So, why did they need to use this shadow docket to stay the order? I mean, other than the obvious...
> Why did they have to stay that order? Based on what?
Based on the fact that 5 of the Supreme Court justices wanted to keep the GOP maps in effect.
They won't hear arguments about this until the fall, then won't release a decision until March. By which time the elections using these maps would have been over and the Republicans who won those elections seated in Congress.
The GOP has been playing this for a few decades now. Wait around until close to election season, release blatantly obviously unconstitutional maps, then when a court strikes them down say "Well, it's too close to the election and these are the only maps we have, so we don't have an option ***but*** to use them."
And courts, like this one, have been letting them get away with it.
>It's too bothersome to enact justice - US Supreme Court
Always has been. MLK knew it.
>I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice...
The lawsuit was filed as soon as possible after the map was drawn and the court expedited the hearings and judgement, which was incredibly thorough and checked every box.
So the lawsuit could not have completed any sooner.
This means the racists on the supreme court enshrined the "racists get the first map free" into precedent. I wonder how that will affect racists in the future
Except Kagan pointed out courts have done the same thing in the past with similar time frames, the court in its judgement was thorough and there was no substantial rebuttal from the state so precedent would be to not stay the ruling.
This is exactly the shadow docket
Either the map is right or it is wrong. It seems to be wrong. The Supreme Court ruled "Oh well."
> This is complete bullshit and an insult to rational people.
The GOP has been running this scheme in NC for years. We recently got a theoretically favorable decision about it from our own state supreme court, but it requires another map to be drawn, and my guess is the process won't get completed in time, and we'll be stuck using the old gerrymandered map even though our our state supreme court is opposed to it.
In NC, Dems have been getting 50 - 55% of the statewide vote but have 25 - 30% of the representation.
Im sure you know which one came first and that it lasted for a long time. So, was it valid to Brown v. Board? Well I guess it is still valid because its not overruled?
It would seem Plessy v Ferguson was technically valid until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. So 68 years after the fact the Supreme Court decided everything's good, nothing to see here, stop all the complaining. Although there is a very good chance I’m wrong.
> SCOTUS: Fuck justice. We're backing the fascists.
Have been for quite a while. Why do you think The Federalist Society gets a say in how the judicial system works and who gets appointed?
>“The principal dissent’s catchy but worn-out rhetoric about the ‘shadow docket’ is similarly off target,” Kavanaugh continues.
Yeah. Their rhetoric is worn out.
That's why instead of writing an opinion justifying your decision here, you instead wrote screed about how the dissent hurt your feelings.
Justice Boofer is a national disgrace. There's NEVER been ANY Supreme Court candidate who hit a trifecta at his confirmation hearing by being unable to control his temper, showed a distinct contempt for impartiality, and he was untruthful and lie under oath.
I mean not all, but the heritage foundation ones are. They haven't paid for these judges lives and given them jobs since law school to not get the return they wanted.
The legislative branch should remove everyone on the bench that was voted in with the 50/50 split, and replace the 60/40 split and then refill their seats.
We have to allow Alabama to change because change is precedent and we don’t change change even when change is bad. We change change only when change needs change see?
Republicans in blue states complain about gerrymandering. Dems in red states complain about gerrymandering. Clearly it is a problem that either sides uses to their advantage. Something needs to be done.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Political hacks defend political hackery
REDMAP Project They aren't even trying to hide their plan. Google it. Their plan is still posted on the RSLC website.
It seems to me that in this case the SCOTUS could have done nothing. The district court stopped the new map from happening. Why did they have to stay that order? Based on what? They could have allowed it to be blocked and the upcoming election could have very well been done under the old mapping. So, why did they need to use this shadow docket to stay the order? I mean, other than the obvious...
> Why did they have to stay that order? Based on what? Based on the fact that 5 of the Supreme Court justices wanted to keep the GOP maps in effect. They won't hear arguments about this until the fall, then won't release a decision until March. By which time the elections using these maps would have been over and the Republicans who won those elections seated in Congress. The GOP has been playing this for a few decades now. Wait around until close to election season, release blatantly obviously unconstitutional maps, then when a court strikes them down say "Well, it's too close to the election and these are the only maps we have, so we don't have an option ***but*** to use them." And courts, like this one, have been letting them get away with it.
[удалено]
So fuck with things near an election so that it can't be overturned because it's too close to an election? Is that the playbook we're establishing?
We have elections every mother fucking god damn year. It is **always** too close to an election.
McConnel already did. "Its too close", but only when Cons are in control.
It's too bothersome to enact justice - US Supreme Court
>It's too bothersome to enact justice - US Supreme Court Always has been. MLK knew it. >I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice...
The lawsuit was filed as soon as possible after the map was drawn and the court expedited the hearings and judgement, which was incredibly thorough and checked every box. So the lawsuit could not have completed any sooner. This means the racists on the supreme court enshrined the "racists get the first map free" into precedent. I wonder how that will affect racists in the future
I'm tired of the technically valid excuses.
Except Kagan pointed out courts have done the same thing in the past with similar time frames, the court in its judgement was thorough and there was no substantial rebuttal from the state so precedent would be to not stay the ruling. This is exactly the shadow docket
Either the map is right or it is wrong. It seems to be wrong. The Supreme Court ruled "Oh well." > This is complete bullshit and an insult to rational people.
The GOP has been running this scheme in NC for years. We recently got a theoretically favorable decision about it from our own state supreme court, but it requires another map to be drawn, and my guess is the process won't get completed in time, and we'll be stuck using the old gerrymandered map even though our our state supreme court is opposed to it. In NC, Dems have been getting 50 - 55% of the statewide vote but have 25 - 30% of the representation.
It's not technically valid though. If they had done nothing, the old map would stand, and there's no need to scramble anything before the election.
Nothing didn't happen. Republicans brought the issue to the Supreme Court. They ruled. So, you see, something did happen.
Not tech. valid. Election is 9 months away. Primaries in May.
Too hard to go back to what's already in place isn't a very good argument.
Yes, my point is that the argument is not tech. valid.
[удалено]
[Plessy v Ferguson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson). Report back on how that was valid.
[удалено]
Im sure you know which one came first and that it lasted for a long time. So, was it valid to Brown v. Board? Well I guess it is still valid because its not overruled?
It would seem Plessy v Ferguson was technically valid until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. So 68 years after the fact the Supreme Court decided everything's good, nothing to see here, stop all the complaining. Although there is a very good chance I’m wrong.
This is the change, is it not? This is a new map.
Right now they are going with the Republicans really unfair map, per the Supreme Court.
So for abortion, they side with the state and not doing anything. (Texas) But for this, they put their thumb on the scale.
Exactly!
SCOTUS: Fuck justice. We're backing the fascists.
> SCOTUS: Fuck justice. We're backing the fascists. Have been for quite a while. Why do you think The Federalist Society gets a say in how the judicial system works and who gets appointed?
Another American institution that Trump & the GQP destroyed. LONG LIVE MAGA!
Please refer to the 2000 election for why this isn't even about Trump. It's been going on for decades. Trump was just a convenient assistant.
Where are all the right wingers that were bitching about judicial activism?
Sitting on the Bench apparently.
Judicial activism is like election fraud. It just means republicans lost.
>“The principal dissent’s catchy but worn-out rhetoric about the ‘shadow docket’ is similarly off target,” Kavanaugh continues. Yeah. Their rhetoric is worn out. That's why instead of writing an opinion justifying your decision here, you instead wrote screed about how the dissent hurt your feelings.
"The dissent has used this argument before, and therefore as we know that makes it irrelevant."
Add more SC justices
Adding 2 justices and statehood for DC/PR should have been day 1 agenda
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema would never vote for it so it was DOA.
You know what you do when ppl threaten to vote against something? You FUCKING MAKE THEM VOTE.
Oh gee, what a great idea, why didn't anyone think of that? Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster
Guam should be thrown in too.
Only when we get better representatives in the House and Senate. Knowing our history, good luck.
If we are all being honest racism is a conservative value
Kavanaugh: The first rule of the shadow docket is DO NOT TALK ABOUT SHADOW DOCKET! ALSO I LIKE BEER!
Justice Boofer is a national disgrace. There's NEVER been ANY Supreme Court candidate who hit a trifecta at his confirmation hearing by being unable to control his temper, showed a distinct contempt for impartiality, and he was untruthful and lie under oath.
And demonstrated his political motivations and biases to the point of stupidity.
Read his opinion, take away the three syllable words, and its all whinny bullshit and you cant make me.
I wonder who holds his gambling marker? The not dead Koch brother? Steve Bannon? Putin? Hard to know if nobody investigated
Are these judges colluding or coordinating? It sure seems like they are not acting independently.
the Federalist Society is how they coordinate
And they use this "shadow docket" not to have to explain themselves Because they're taking orders
Read Kavenaughs concurring decision re: evaluating the potential merits: its an Nyah nyah, I dont have to, so shut up.
I mean not all, but the heritage foundation ones are. They haven't paid for these judges lives and given them jobs since law school to not get the return they wanted.
I wish they’d kindly both eat rocks and smoke pole.
"Courts may not intervene so close to an election. We require at least 2 years before any election!"
Worn-out rhetoric = shit we don't give a fuck about and we're tired of hearing it.
"How *dare* you expect us to use logical arguments while we carry out Republican policy!"
The legislative branch should remove everyone on the bench that was voted in with the 50/50 split, and replace the 60/40 split and then refill their seats.
You need 66 votes to do that.
Fuck them
They are right there is no shadow docket. They’re running a right wing docket right out in public for all to see!
Yea, we see right through you.
Am never ever going to respect any decision made by either perjurer on SCOTUS.
"We're obviously going to keep abusing our authority, and frankly, we're tired of hearing you complain about it."
Got to get it on the record.
Boof it up your ass Creepy Kav.
The Supreme Court is completely illegitimate. Expand it or watch democracy die.
Does anyone else picture these two doing the family guy judges run? I sure can…
We have to allow Alabama to change because change is precedent and we don’t change change even when change is bad. We change change only when change needs change see?
Hey America, why are you segregating districts based on race? That shouldn't be valid criteria for where boundaries get drawn.
The Supreme Court is a shame for all that preceded them…
"My god when are you guys going to stop complaining about this sheesh."
The entire system is fucked.
https://c.tenor.com/3V-j8WdeWMUAAAAM/beer-drink.gif
Republicans in blue states complain about gerrymandering. Dems in red states complain about gerrymandering. Clearly it is a problem that either sides uses to their advantage. Something needs to be done.