One difficulty that the Trumpies have with libertarian-conservative judges and lawyers is that the latter do believe in things like rights and law, while the former really only believe in power.
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
167 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4700 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Depends on the judge, some just like power and privilege.
True, but those are mostly the good-old-boy types who show up drunk to work, not the earnest Federalist Society types.
There arent really any earnest Federalist Society types, those dont move up the chain of corruption to the higher echelons of court positions.
Your Kavanaughs versus your Gorsuchs
OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here's the author's mastodon post about it. though there are few other details and I can't find a new story about it.
BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.
Of course they do it in the sketchiest possible way. They know it's wrong, so they're deliberately lying to try to escape rightful public outrage.
I'm sorry, but I might just be missing it. What's being banned?
The intent is to ban books about topics they don't like racism, queers, trans folks, abortion, etc as part of the "war on wokeness". They pretend that they're sexually graphic or things kids shouldn't learn about, but it's incredibly unlikely schools ever had books beyond a few classics.
Obviously, these are everyday topics so it's going to ban a lot of neighboring content, probably including the bible. Regardless, because it's at a state-run institution, it's unconstitutional.
The kids will hear about all of these topics in much greater detail on fox news every day anyway, so this is entirely for show and to cause chaos.
Ok, so they're doing what Florida is. Thank you. It wasn't clear to me from the article.
Books
Conservatives try to pass a constitutional law challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Just because he's a Trump appointed judge doesn't mean he exclusively makes bad decisions. I agree on this one.
Just means keeping a closer eye on em.
Judge Albright is kind of a (controversial) celebrity among intellectual property lawyers. Until the district started randomizing case assignments, everyone used to try to file in Albright's court because he's so plaintiff-friendly. The plaintiffs here got lucky with this judge assignment, too bad the Circuit Court is not amused lol.
I want to celebrate but isn’t part of the plan / what the conservatives want though? So they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get permission to pass these laws nationwide?
That was a satisfying read. I’m glad rule of law still exists to some extent and it’s not just team sports.
You miss the part where the circuit court put the ban back in place.
Yeah, that's my problem. I added it after they commented.
Not american, can't follow this circus. Can we get a translation/summary?
Texas sucks.
Also, states have their own laws but are beholden to the constitution through courts run by the federal (national) government. If a state law is challenged in federal court, it is tested to see if it violates the constitution.
At one level, a Texas law banning books in schools or something was deemed un-constitutional, so it is still a law but is unenforceable. Later, a higher level federal court decided (probably after the state of Texas appealed the first decision) that it is fine and now the law is in effect.
Sorry I may have missed something
Great summary! a teensy nitpick. I wouldn't say the most recent court said it was "fine" per se since they didn't give any reasoning. It is at least possible, that there is a technical issue with earlier rulings. It could be minor technicality, and they let the law take effect pending the next court date?
I think your implication is likely correct, and this is probably political, but we really don't know the reason, and I think not giving one is surprising.
Good point! I didn't think of that
Thanks for the summaries, I guess we will stay tuned for when it's ultimately decided