Support NeoGAF

[rokkerkory]

Amazing how this was legal in the first place for them to try it.

Shouldn't someone go to jail or something after this.

 

[SwiftDeath]

So this is good news but does it stop legislators from enacting new voter id laws completely or just that any new voter ID law will be taken to court and lose?

If its the latter then is there any reason to think the GOP won't just enact voter id legislation right before a major election *cough*2020 presidential election*cough*, enact the voter suppression during the election and then it gets overturned once it makes it back to court?

Or will this now be like Trump's muslim ban where basically a judge at any level will put the legislation on hold pending a court decision?

 

[Futureman]

did the new Supreme Bro vote on this?

 

[Zolo]

did the new Supreme Bro vote on this?

Seems he abstained.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Wow. Isn't Thomas the farthest right judge on the bench too?

Decisions of the Supreme Court are often more complex than a simple "left" v "right" binary.

Thomas' opinion points out that he was in the dissent in 2001 where this same district was allowed to stand as non-racially biased. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easley_v._Cromartie. All of the "conservatives" on the court at the time, except Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented in that case, whereas the "liberals" allowed the racially biased NC district to stand.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Amazing how this was legal in the first place for them to try it.

Shouldn't someone go to jail or something after this.

This is America, you don't go to jail for political disagreements when the Supreme Court rules against you. When the Supreme Court struck down parts of campaign finance reform, should it have sent Russ Feingold and John McCain to jail for violating the free speech rights of rich people?

 

[Balphon]

Clarence Thomas ruling with the liberal wing?!

He ruled more or less identically the last time the NC 12th was before the Court over whether it was a racial gerrymander:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1864

The voting blocs in that case (the "liberal" wing voted to overturn the decision below and maintain the district boundaries) are an example of how viewing portions of the Court as "liberal" or "conservative" isn't always going to be helpful or predictive of how it will act, particularly when a case turns on a procedural issue.

did the new Supreme Bro vote on this?

He hasn't been on the Court long enough. This case was briefed and argued last year.

 

[The Llama]

So this is good news but does it stop legislators from enacting new voter id laws completely or just that any new voter ID law will be taken to court and lose?

If its the latter then is there any reason to think the GOP won't just enact voter id legislation right before a major election *cough*2020 presidential election*cough*, enact the voter suppression during the election and then it gets overturned once it makes it back to court?

Or will this now be like Trump's muslim ban where basically a judge at any level will put the legislation on hold pending a court decision?

This has nothing to do with voter ID.

did the new Supreme Bro vote on this?

No, because the Court heard it before he was a member. I suspect he would have been with the dissent, though that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Mindlog]

This week on, 'You Know You Fucked Up When;'
"Clarence Thomas standing with the majority."

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Man Thomas is doing work this cycle. He lead the charge on the patent venue revolution too.

 

[Justin Bailey]

He's still a tit. Gorsuch sat this one out, but him and Thomas were BFFs on another case.

LA Times: "Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties"

Great. So the GOP really did find a young Scalia. Oh well.

 

[Barzul]

Man Thomas is doing work this cycle. He lead the charge on the patent venue revolution too.

What's this about?

 

[sangreal]

What's this about?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc/

 

[rokkerkory]

This is America, you don't go to jail for political disagreements when the Supreme Court rules against you. When the Supreme Court struck down parts of campaign finance reform, should it have sent Russ Feingold and John McCain to jail for violating the free speech rights of rich people?

How are both even remotely the same?

Changing the rules so that someone's voting rights are diminished seems incredibly illegal.

 

[Lifeline]

Does anyone know why an alternative district map was so hard to provide?

 

[Seth Enosh]

How are both even remotely the same?

Changing the rules so that someone's voting rights are diminished seems incredibly illegal.

What if I come back at you with "Changing the rules so that someone's free speech rights are diminished seems incredibly illegal"? McCain-Feingold was ruled to violate the First Amendment of the constitution by restricting free speech.

It's just not how the system works. If politicians pass a law that is ruled unconstitutional, they don't go to jail for it here. It happens all the time and many respected democrats and republicans would be in jail if it worked like you suggest.

 

[sangreal]

Does anyone know why an alternative district map was so hard to provide?

because it has to give Republicans the same advantage without the benefit of screwing a group that votes 90% dem

there was an alternate map generated by the defendants but apparently it produced very similar results

While plaintiffs failed to offer any alternative map, Dr.
Hofeller produced a map showing what District 12 would
have looked like if his computer was programmed simply
to maximize the Democratic vote percentage in the district,
while still abiding by the requirement of one-person,
one-vote. Id., at 1148. The result was a version of District
12 that is very similar to the version approved by the
North Carolina Legislature.

Personally, I think that standard is horeshit. If they can't squeeze out more Republican seats without having a disparate race-based impact then too bad imo

 

[Xe4]

Clarence sided with the liberal end of the court?!?!?!?!? The only thing that could make me more shook is if he decided to talk for once.

Sad that Kennedy and Roberts sided with republicans here. Hopefully a case comes up and one of the two will strike down partisan gerrymanderting once and for all.

 

[Tain]

good, get fuuuuucked

I also cannot stop thinking back to and laughing at the "Dems help reopen a NC Repub office" gofundme every single time I hear about the NC GOP's vile shit.

 

[Korigama]

Just chiming in to share my amazement at the fact that Thomas actually sided with the majority on this decision instead of dissenting.

 

[Aurongel]

Is Clarence Thomas okay...?

 

[Link]

Clarence Thomas with the face turn?

 

[Reptars Revenge]

What's this about?

So currently you can file suit any state where the defendant has minimum contacts which is every state for a big company. Everybody goes to like 4 cities in Texas because they have very pro plaintiff rules and it typically leads to a settlement. Now after today you have to bring suit in the state where the defendant is incorporated so it's a huge development.

 

[ICO_SotC]

Not quite. It's a partial dissent. Everyone agrees that District One is racial gerrymandering (8-0), but the court is not unanimous about District Twelve (5-3) because the plaintiffs didn't provide an alternative map showing a potential non-racial divide, which an earlier court case said they had to do.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[xfactor99]

Clarence Thomas has a history of siding with the court's liberals on rare occasion on race-related issues in the past, especially when it comes to the South, so this decision doesn't totally shock me.

But it was in a third case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., that Thomas made his voice heard most clearly—by his silence. In Walker, Thomas defected from the very First Amendment orthodoxy he defended in Reed. Remarkably enough, he joined the Court's four moderate-liberals—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—to provide a decisive vote to allow the state of Texas to refuse to print a specialty license plate bearing the much-loved and hated Confederate battle flag. In an opinion by Breyer, the 5-4 majority held that a government can, with few limits, decide to convey any license-plate message it wants, and bar any that it disapproves. This isn't ”content-based" regulation of speech; the plate is speech by the government itself, and the First Amendment does not apply.

....But Thomas interrupted this line of argument to ask, ”[A]ren't you understating the—the effects of—of the burning cross? ... [W]e had almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South by the Knights of Camellia and—and the Ku Klux Klan, and this was a reign of terror and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. Was—isn't that significantly greater than intimidation or a threat?"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/clarence-thomas-confederate-flag/396281/

 

[Tripon]

On a race issue too!

He's actually pretty nuance on racial issues.

 

[The Adder]

I'm worried though. Because if Kennedy wasn't willing to rule with the liberals on blatant RACIAL gerrymandering, why should we believe he'll suddenly decide to strike down purely partisan gerrymandering?

Kennedy's reasoning is the same as in Alito's descent. Basically "yeah, it's bullshit, but do you have an alternative". Which is good for the upcoming case as they, in fact, do.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Here's hoping he doesn't get threatening calls.

Of all the people on the court, I think he probably gives the least amount of fucks.

 

[SwiftDeath]

This has nothing to do with voter ID.

My mistake although that then means that the NC GOP is even more terrifying than I realized.

 

[Lord Frieza]

He's still a tit. Gorsuch sat this one out, but him and Thomas were BFFs on another case.

LA Times: "Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties"

And people keep saying that Gorsuch isn't that bad. He's a corporate whore through and through.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Nobody should be delusional in believing that this is only limited to the North Carolina GOP. Every other state GOP establishment supports precisely the same thing as what these guys attempted to do. The difference is that not all of them are bold enough to try it. You best believe, however, that if this had gone the way Republicans wanted, it would have made the rest of the GOP on a state as well as national level every bit as bold to take similar steps.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Clarence Thomas with a face turn. Won't last long though.

 

[ICO_SotC]

He's actually pretty nuance on racial issues.

3 times this year alone he's been on the dissenting side of race discrimination cases, including one 5-3 decision, one 6-2 decision, and one with him being the sole dissenter in a 7-1 case, hence I'm always a bit surprised when he joins the "liberals" on race issues even though I know it's happened before.

 

[Heigic]

I always seem to see stories about North Carolina. Seems like a horribly racist place.

 

[SaviourMK2]

Not sure if i should be proud or ask to see if he's not just someone wearing a Clarence Thomas costume

 

[Autodidact]

I always seem to see stories about North Carolina. Seems like a horribly racist place.

And the Republicans there are growing desperate because they know the tide is turning or has already turned in some ways. They're trying to hold onto power however they can. That's why you see some special fuckery from that state.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I always seem to see stories about North Carolina. Seems like a horribly racist place.

I actually don't think it is, at least no more than most states in that area, but the GOP has managed to get so much power there (super majorities in the State Senate and House, and up until last year, also have the governor seat), so they have been especially bold in their unapologetic war on LGBTQs, minorities, and the poor.

 

[Ryuuroden]

Kennedy's reasoning is the same as in Alito's descent. Basically "yeah, it's bullshit, but do you have an alternative". Which is good for the upcoming case as they, in fact, do.

SCOTUS wants evidence enough to make a ruling in somethings favor that is hard to overturn in the future. Makes current decisions stronger. It's not a bad thing to go for really and i'm not going to dismiss Kennedy for being that sort of justice. Some of the Justices want there to be a alternative offered that prove that the current status quo is unconstitutional or wrong on the face of it rather than just saying its wrong without a alternative. Otherwise if they are not able to rubber stamp an alternative, we keep seeing the same cases make it back to the supreme court in a different skin. That's how I read it anyways and I think it bodes well for the upcoming case. You cant rule one thing unconstitutional if the only viable alternative is also unconstitutional hence the yeah its shit but we need something we can approve of that's better than what is here and now and meets constitutional guidelines if we strike this down, not something that replaces shit with shit.