The ACLU defends the Constitution against all foes, regardless of party affiliation. If it tends to be Republicans that step on the Constitution, that is not the ACLU’s doing.
I don’t know … I voted for Hillary … but you, me, and the Ninth Circuit Court all want to know … those ten thousand strawmen are already in this country … try exporting Wyoming coal to China and watch how frantic Union Pacific gets fixing their railroad beds in Oregon … [wolfish grin] …
I’m not sure what case you’re referring to, but any such Republican statements about voter suppression would be relevant because it shows that the state law was based on racially discriminatory intent, which is constitutionally prohibited.
Unlike race or religion, oil companies are not a protected group. If any democrats had publicly stated their quest to end oil company tax breaks, such statements would not show any prohibited discriminatory intent, and would thus not be a basis to challenge any laws passed to end their tax breaks.
The Constitution protects all persons, protected class or not, from bills designed to punish them for supposed wrongdoing. Punishment for illegal acts is not in Congress’ bailiwick. They decide what is legal and illegal. They cannot use the law or the tax system to punish.
Previous thread on issue: Voter id rules suffer string of court losses
It’s mentioned in there that the 4th Circuit upheld a District Court decision that struck down changes to the voting rules that were designed to suppress African-American votes. Don’t have a link to the decision itself.
They can certainly decide what commercial practices should be regulated or in some cases outlawed.
Not so convinced on that…I thought Roberts’s philosophy (that led to his decision disliked by conservatives in the ACA cases) was for the judiciary to show great deference to the legislature. I am not sure what his jurisprudence is about deference to the executive branch, but I imagine it might be similar.
My WAG is that Kennedy is the more likely one to break with the other 3 conservative justices in this case. He certainly seems more attuned to issues of discrimination.
Only when it suits him. Roberts was the one who strategically engineered the circumstances for Citizens United to be re-argued under a greatly expanded scope that was entirely unnecessary. In the process, he showed such “great deference” to the legislature that the Court under his leadership not only reduced the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act (BCRA) to a smoldering pile of rubble, but sowed such a swath of destruction that the Court managed to overrule not just one but two of its own recent precedents – McConnell v. FEC in part and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in its entirety. It was one of the most flagrant acts of judicial activism in modern history. That kind of “deference to the legislature” we don’t need.
Many suspect that the ACA was not a particular ideological hot button with Roberts and the Court’s moderate rulings were a low-cost way to try to establish a legacy of credibility so that the big guns could be brought out on the really important issues, as indeed they were. One of the cases seeking to overturn the ACA – King v. Burwell – was so laughably frivolous that it should never even have been heard.
Non-existent terrorists are trying to prevent coal shipping? 
You don’t think there’s anyone in the USA right now capable of a terrorist act … and that just shutting down the borders will absolutely prevent any terrorist act in the USA? … a people who ride their bicycles around town buck naked once a year …
Okay … The Donald has been asked to submit evidence to this effect into District Court and I guess we’ll find out then …
True, but they can’t pass bills with the intent of harming the businesses, and if they say out loud that this is their intent, then conservative courts can use that to throw the regulations or taxes out.
Hmmm…I see your point.
Do what you will with this, watchwolf, but you’ve used up your allotment of ellipses for the next eighty years. When you use them in this fashion, your posts read like a stream of consciousness that’s constantly losing itself in eddies.
Yes, I just skip over your posts now, watchwolf49, and don’t bother reading them.
It’s easier once you master ellipse reading.
You’re welcome …
ETA: The puncturation has nothing to do with my poor writing skills
In case no one has heard, the 9th Circuit has had a judge sua sponte request a vote on having an en banc hearing. The parties are requested by the Court to file briefs on the need for an en banc hearing by Thursday, Feb. 16.
Can you elaborate on what that means? Is it a judge speaking for the Court, or a single judge initiating it?
A single judgeinitiating it.
Many politicians have said the desired effect of raising taxes on tobacco was to reduce smoking, ie designed to harm tobacco companies. You figure they could get those taxes struck down? Personally, I think you are utterly wrong.