#same Supreme Court

[big-bird-nerd]

I think when talking with Americans who are convinced the world will burn alive if you dare question voting for Biden or whatever, it's important to address the strategy of inoculation when it comes to organizing. In particular, voting for Biden in no way guarantees Trump doesn't wind up winning anyway, so inoculation is doubly important, which is to say, these people need to be asked; what happens if Trump wins? They need to say these things out loud. Why is it that such things would happen? What forces that be allow for them? And with that, the question then needs to be asked, what will be done when this worst case scenario inevitably happens? Are they prepared? Because a vote for Biden still leaves the worst case scenario as fully and completely possible, and the "vote blue no matter who" crowd needs to be made aware that they cannot in any way rely on an unreliable and corrupt voting system to hold back the worst case scenario. After all, if you actually care about trans people and immigrants, then you should be doing more than just hoping people will vote, hoping the right old fart in the White House will protect you - you should be organizing your community to fight back against these constant attacks. People fall into this "vote blue no matter who" trap because their anxieties are used to blind them to the fact that they're being played. Inoculation is necessary to calm these anxieties and make it clearer that a vote is less than the barest of bare minimums to actually protecting your loved ones from the very real problems that are making people anxious.

Vote for whoever the fuck you want, I'm Canadian and I don't really care, but stop putting the focus on the vote and the vote alone and start talking with your community members about what you'll do if (and dare I say when) the worst case scenario happens and you have four years without a vote to rely on.

Also like, people are allowed to criticize any and all leaders. That is like, supposed to be the whole freedom of speech thing. If your candidates just suck so much shit that you can't give a reason to vote for them beyond "the other choice is worse," you aren't convincing anybody. Somebody who is not voting for the other option is not going to be convinced to vote differently if said option that they aren't voting for is worse. They will simply continue to not vote. It's not a convincing talking point. It is literally untrue that voting anything non-blue is a vote for red, that's not how politics works and you are sounding increasingly out of touch with reality and increasingly more like the qanon conspiracy guys.

Not sure where this post was going. Just sick of seeing the same cyclical talking points with no progress whatsoever and am dumping my own thoughts on this.

[shinelikethunder]

With less than a week to go, SCOTUS' partisan wing sends the message loud and clear that their attitude towards rubber-stamping outrageously illegal election-interference bullshit is "try and stop us, you jumped-up little shits."

However, in this particular case, you can still vote if Virginia has wrongfully purged you from the voter rolls. As of 2022, VA offers same-day registration and provisional ballots (where you follow up with documention after the fact), as long as you vote in the correct precinct.

Official Virginia page to look up the polling place for your address

Official Virginia same-day registration info

Official Virginia page to check your registration status

Ballotpedia state-by-state info on same-day registration

Ballotpedia state-by-state info on provisional ballots and what happens to ones cast in the wrong precinct

ACLU Know Your Rights voting fact sheet

Multilingual voter protection hotlines (English: 866-OUR-VOTE)

For anyone who became a citizen since their last DMV visit, or who suspects they made an error filing out their paperwork that would have booted them from voter lists, there are still ways to cast a ballot in next month’s elections. Registrars and election workers won’t turn eligible voters away from polls if they wish to utilize same-day registration or a provisional ballot, according to Henrico County Registrar Mark Coakley. [...] With a provisional ballot, voters will still need to follow up with their local registrar office to provide additional documents that can help verify their identity or other facts, like if they are residents of Virginia and the city or county they voted in, and whether they are U.S. citizens or have had their voting rights restored after a previous felony conviction. [...] Coakley said that when using a provisional ballot, voters are also given instructions to help with the follow-up procedures. “They’ll get a letter attached to their provisional ballot, giving them all the information of ‘This is the reason why (you may have this ballot)’ and ‘Here’s the ways to get hold of us to present evidence if you choose to do so,’” he said. Chesterfield County Registrar Missy Vera stressed that same-day registration can happen at any early voting location as well as on Election Day, which is Nov. 5.

[politijohn]

Source

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

Still think your vote doesn't matter?

[shinygemstone]

THEY FUCKING OVERTURNED THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE WHAT THE FUCK

WE KIND OF NEED THAT

It's only, like, the ruling that gives the EPA (and all other federal agencies) the power to define environmental law when actual laws aren't specific enough. Tell me, do you want lead in your water?

If not, you'd better move out of the US!!!

This is appalling. We want experts handling our water and air quality, not politicians who have no idea what they're talking about!!

Call your senators. Call your house representatives. Hell, send hate mail to the asshats who overturned Chevron (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Niel Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh). This is appalling.

Source 1 | source 2

[whenweallvote]

Good news in voting rights coming out of Montana! 🎉

Yesterday, the Montana Supreme Court struck down four major voter suppression laws passed in 2021, which:

🔹Eliminated same-day voter registration in most cases

🔹Made it more difficult to vote with a student ID

🔹Outlawed absentee ballots for new voters who would turn 18 by Election Day

🔹Banned paid ballot collection and reduced other forms of ballot return assistance

The Court’s decision is a MAJOR victory for Montana voters, specifically Native American voters, young voters, and voters with disabilities who would be disproportionately impacted by these laws.

[gold-dust-angel]

Good to see this trending even though I have no idea why suddenly today but—

A historic debate on marriage equality and legalising same-sex marriage is underway in the Supreme Court of India. The Union govt. is against it of course but the SC judges and the lawyers representing the petitioners are very progressive. The recordings of the live hearings are up on youtube and worth watching because the arguments in favor are just ✨chef's kiss✨ The verdict is yet to be out but I'm really hopeful. Anxious but hopeful. So far the CJI's statements point to a positive outcome for the queer community but let's wait and watch. It's gonna be epic🌈

[kkglinka]

Visiting my besties means access to a television, which means enduring mainstream media coverage of the presidential campaign, which means witnessing how completely gop originating propaganda has infused news pundits, and the effects of simple repetition and selective omissions has on lifelong liberal Democrats. Absolutely stunned at all the moronic suggestions about how he should just step down and let harris take over from ostensibly informed allegedly liberal pundits. She has no funding, biden's can't be transferred to her, no media presence and it would make the party as a whole look incompetent and unreliable regardless of her qualifications.

[the-voice-of-night-vale]

now im not saying anything about whether or not you ~should~ vote for the immigrant-hating palestinian-killer who happens to be a "democrat" but i swear if i see one more post about how "if everyone had just voted! trump never would have gotten in office and we don't want that to happen again!!" i'm gonna go chimp mode

trump didn't even win the popular vote, you idiots. am i the only one who remembers the weeks of protests because of it?

[tanadrin]

The latest 5-4 episode, on Hans v Louisiana, highlights a big problem with the history of the Supreme Court in the U.S., which is that a lot of Supreme Court decisions are the product of really specific political pressures--in this case, the lack of political will by the federal government in 1890 to enforce federal power against the Southern states thirteen years after the Compromise of 1877--for which the Court often acts as a release valve. But, because of the nature of the court and the structure of American law, these high-context political decisions have to be framed as eternal and general principles of law, which exert a heavy influence on later decisions of the Court. Sometimes, as with Hans (which made enforcement of civil rights more difficult) this might be consonant with the political outlook of the original decision, but sometimes it's just complete chaos. Cases like Bush v Gore that have no systematic principle behind them, but nevertheless have to be framed that way, to the detriment of future case law.

I don't know that this is a fully solvable problem! Certainly the small size of the Supreme Court introduces more variability into its decisions; that plus its highly politicized system of appointments makes it a really obvious place to fight for power; and the lack of a clean separation between its role as an appellate court and its role as a constitutional court muddles things further. But even if you could go back in time to expand the court massively, have cases heard by randomly-selected panels, split off the constitutional function into a separate court, and try to implement some kind of non-partisan appointment commission (all of which would require significant constitutional changes), I don't think you would necessarily get a different outcome in Hans, just because of how fundamentally apathetic the federal government was at the time to political dysfunction in the South, and how clearly they had demonstrated an unwillingness to actually follow through with the premise of Reconstruction.

I'd say that the thing that might help most in preventing decisions like Hans becoming millstones around the neck of future generations would be a willingness to call out obviously political bullshit masquerading as timeless legal principles, but I think nowadays people are pretty willing to do that. Bush v Gore, DC v Heller, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas's corruption scandals, and various other cases and stories have been a sharp reminder in recent years to anyone who was laboring under the illusion that SCOTUS really was an impartial machine of law, and even people who think it could or should be that are not very likely to claim it is right now.

But if the Supreme Court is going to be an ordinary political organ, I sort of think we should treat it like one, and just directly elect justices for fixed terms. Would that introduce grubby, messy electoral politics into the august body? Of course. But grubby, messy electoral politics is already there, the augustness is a sham, and presently the way that the court functions makes it a weird, tiny, by-appointment-only, members-serve-for-life third chamber of Congress, an American version of the Guardian Council, which is really bad for the coherent functioning of the political system.

[aheartofdawn]

SCOTUS just handed down the most important ruling of all- one giving the President near unlimited authority to do as they please.

The only question that matters in this election (and every election going forward) is who do you trust with that much power? Elect a tyrant just once, and it's game over for democracy.

Whichever side of the political spectrum you are on, this should absolutely terrify you.

[todaysdocument]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. 

In U.S. v Windsor, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples. 

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files

Transcription: 

[Stamped: " FILE COPY "]

(Bench Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2012            1  [Handwritten and circled " 1"  in upper right-hand corner]

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307.  Argued March 27, 2013---Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in

2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.

Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-

ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act---a

law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and

the whole realm of federal regulations-to define "marriage" and

"spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in

estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service

denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-

olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth

Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified

the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department

of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re-

sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of

Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's

constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On

the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-

constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax

with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has

not complied with the judgment.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos-

ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District

Court, but the Executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali-

[page 2]

2                  UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies

introduces a complication. Given the Government's concession, ami-

cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case

should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu-

ment elides the distinction between Article Ill's jurisdictional re-

quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are "es-

sentially matters of judicial self-governance." Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to

support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re-

fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is "a real and immediate econom-

ic injury," Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S.

587, 599, even if the Executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind-

sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay

thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction.

Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919.

Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be "con-

crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon

which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti-

tutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204. Unlike Article

III requirements---which must be satisfied by the parties before judi-

cial consideration is appropriate---prudential factors that counsel

against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considera-

tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc-

tance to exert judicial power." Warth, supra, at 500-501. One such

consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the

issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de-

fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. See Chadha,

supra, at 940. Here, BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for

§3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise

might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which

the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is

appropriate for the Executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat-

utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment

or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense

ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question,

which is of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to

hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5-13.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of

persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13--26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of mar-

riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the

separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate

the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but

DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U.S._ (2013)           3

Syllabus

the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its

operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New

York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the

validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and

traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area

that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the

States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state

responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to

the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband

and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,"

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws

may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each

State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State's decision

to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a

dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government

uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose---to impose re-

strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury

and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty

protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as

alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the

same class the State seeks to protect. New York's actions were a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the

community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in-

stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning

of equality. Pp. 13--20.

(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,

DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap-

plicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of

equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de-

sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate

treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting

state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of

the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of

their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose

and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state

law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a

disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter

into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority

[page 3]

4           UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that

interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred

by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than

an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's

arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.

DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates

New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality

into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of

state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples

married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights

and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes

within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-

ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of

federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic

personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and

protect. Pp. 20-26.

699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a

dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to

Parts II and III.

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U. S. _ (2013)          1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,

D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-307

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN

WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2013]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married

in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith

Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New

York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire

estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax

exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from

doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Mar-

riage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the

definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal stat-

utes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge

the constitutionality of this provision. The United States

District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this

portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the

United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted

certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's

favor.

I

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the

concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74

[daily-table21]

Video: Table News: Who needs Two Ears Anyway?

Status: Public

Link: Table News: Who needs Two Ears Anyway? - YouTube

Date Posted: literally today (July 22nd 2024)

[sadbeautifutragic]

the idea of project 2025 unfolding makes me nauseous

[this-world-of-beautiful-monsters]

The fact that queerphobia is treated as “free speech” and being queer where other people can see is treated as a sex crime to be prosecuted by the fucking national government makes me want to bury myself in a hole and scream until I spit blood. 

[deadpresidents]

I'll co-sign this and add it to the list of recommended Supreme Court books. I've read Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court by Jan Crawford Greenburg (BOOK | KINDLE) and it's excellent and frighteningly prescient about what would happen ten years later under the successful Trump/McConnell push to finally reshape the Court and the federal judiciary, possibly for decades to come. And look at what that conservative-dominated Supreme Court has done in just the past three years.