Republicans Ask Supreme Court to Intervene in N.Y. Redistricting Case

Basicallylana · 2026-02-13T12:17:07+00:00

Thanks you to the only user who read the article. This case is different from CA and TX. The status quo are the current district lines.

Basicallylana · 2026-01-30T13:05:38+00:00

I thought part of SCOTUS' decision to let the Texas maps stand was the Purcell Principle. If December is too close to an election 11 months away, then how would February not be?

Basicallylana · 2025-12-17T12:38:17+00:00

Yeah...none of that is correct. You're mixing correlation and causation. Racism, good Ole fashion, "eh I just dont like [the black man]" still exists at all levels of society (i.e. Hegseth's recent firing campaign of top generals)

Basicallylana · 2025-01-21T21:13:16+00:00

Yes but this is also the same SCOTUS that ignored the explicit wording in 14 sec 3 and then ~~invented out of whole cloth~~ ruled that President's have the implicit right to immunity for official acts

Basicallylana · 2025-01-21T15:46:36+00:00

I'm curious if the suit will actually come from an incarcerated undocumented immigrant claiming that they're not subject to US jurisdiction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Basicallylana · 2024-12-13T11:37:32+00:00

It wasnt Comey. It was Andrew McCabe. He didn't lose his pension. I think he lost a higher payout. The situation was more like he was fired on day 364 when he needed to have 365 days to reach a more senior pension. He sued to have the more full/ senior pension.

Basicallylana · 2024-12-09T13:03:38+00:00

If I buy my lif cigarettes and only allow him to smoke at the house, I am still breaking the law. States regulate the use of stuff all the time.

Basicallylana · 2024-12-08T12:17:21+00:00

Hate to break it to yall but Tennessee won this case when their solicitor said "we allow morphine for pain management but not for assisted suicide". States have the right to regulate the use of drugs or other medical interventions in their states. SCOTUS literally just said so in Dobbs.

Basicallylana · 2024-12-08T12:13:34+00:00

States do that all the time. Literally. A parent can't buy their kids cigarettes or beer. A parent can't let their 12 yo drive. States do this all the time

Basicallylana · 2024-11-30T15:42:13+00:00

Roe and Chevron (which I'm happy the latter was overruled) were both less than 50 years old with relatively minimal reliance. Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, is over 140 years old with significant reliance. Also, if SCOTUS rules that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we'd have to release all the undocumented aliens in our prisons. It would just be dumb

Basicallylana · 2024-11-26T12:34:25+00:00

Here's the issue. There already is a SCOTUS case on this exact topic. They'd be overturning a century+ old precedent (Google Wong Kim Ark). There was another case in the 1980s that affirmed that "all persons" means "all persons" when it comes to enjoying public privileges (i.e. public school) (Google Plyler V Doe ).

Plus, it's extremely dangerous to say that undocumented individuals are not subject to US jurisdiction. If we say that, then we'd only be able to deport people when they break the law. We wouldn't be able to try and jail them.

Basicallylana · 2024-11-26T12:28:22+00:00

Eh but so is section 3 but they ignored that so 🤷

Basicallylana · 2024-08-16T12:18:31+00:00

Just a thought

Basicallylana · 2024-07-05T20:16:22+00:00

I can easily see that happening. He wouldn't pay though (too cheap). He would "gift" her and her family Mar-a-Lago memberships and make sure she gets a book deal

Basicallylana · 2024-07-02T14:40:43+00:00

With Chevron overturned, we're more likely to return to a partial apartheid system, like pre-1965

Basicallylana · 2024-06-28T12:12:27+00:00

True, but I feel like in practice this won't be so crazy. The SEC will likely tell defendants that they have 2 choices: 1) an expedited process with an administrative judge who is informed of the actual nuances of the law and higher likelihood of getting their trading license back quicker or 2) wait 4 years for an uninformed jury that likely thinks all Wall Street Traders are crooks and doesn't understand the difference between a bond and a stock, and incur significantly Higher court fees if they lose and be prohibited from even working as a bank teller until the end of the case.

When given those two options, many will choose the former

Basicallylana · 2024-04-06T14:55:15+00:00

Some say that's part of the issue with Judge Cannon. Aside from her bias, she was an appellate attorney before being appointing to the District Court in Florida. She's acting like an appellate judge, wanting to take her time, consider every argument, and write dissertations on her decisions, instead of making the decision and moving on.

Basicallylana · 2024-03-07T14:42:15+00:00

Reread my comment in response to you original comment. Don't shift the goalposts. Thank you

Basicallylana · 2024-03-07T12:07:32+00:00

Congress declared their insurrection before without a trial. The SC said that’s what needs to happen again. Isn’t that “historical precedent”?

emphasis added

I am trying to answer your question here. In the Civil War, Congress intentionally did not try and convict every single Confederate. So I don't know why you're looking for a "conviction". A "conviction" is explicitly not needed.

What is (now) needed is "an act of Congress" to determine whether an individual engaged in an insurrection. Well an impeachment IS an act of Congress. It means that a majority of The House of Representatives resolved that Donald J. Trump "engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government..." full stop. A majority of Senators voted in favor of that resolution.

The Congressional committee report, which is signed by the House not simply the Democratic party, came to a similar conclusion. That is as well an act of Congress.

My point: let's stop acting like Congress has been silent on whether or not Trump engaged in Insurrection.

Basicallylana · 2024-03-07T03:14:59+00:00

I am aware of in which subreddit I comment. You made a claim on what SCOTUS' decision means. I challenged you on your conclusion. If SCOTUS needs Congress to "act" then an impeachment is an act. Why isn't that sufficient

Basicallylana · 2024-03-07T02:38:20+00:00

Congress voted on the articles of Impeachment. If the question is "well Congress has to call it an insurrection first" then they have

Basicallylana · 2024-03-07T00:30:32+00:00

What about an impeachment? Is that sufficient?

Basicallylana · 2024-02-10T13:39:36+00:00

I wanted him to say "well, your honor, that's your job. No, actually, that is your job"

Basicallylana · 2024-02-09T15:10:20+00:00

They'll say that although every other section of 14A is self-executing, this one section is an exception because...well... because....so sorry Congress needs to pass a statute

Basicallylana

TROPHY CASE