Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Dereich]

Copying this into here:

As we have three separate cases being filed about the result of the run-off, I would request that the Supreme Court treats each as parts of a single case - rather than having three separate cases regarding the election.

I'm not sure about this. There are multiple constitutional provisions at issue and potentially up to 8 people who could be arguing, some of them on different sides depending on the cases. Consolidation makes sense to me when multiple cases involve the exact same issue, such as two cases being started over the same vote or two cases being made involving two different judgments by the SoFE with the same constitutional provision as his justification. From what I've seen so far, here I'd say the cases are best kept separate.

[Dereich]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

[Dereich]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

This is an example of why I have lost trust in our institutions.

Maybe the court will decide not to hear cases like it did when I wanted them to rule on something.

That's one of the downsides you have to accept with with a co-equal judicial branch; there's (in practice) nobody who can judge the judges for their decisions. It makes it all the more imperative that people who can be trusted to make good judgement calls both inside and outside cases are elevated to the Court.

[Dereich]

Right, I've given up on writing anything as deep as I wanted and literally just am throwing stuff unedited from IRC and PMs while ignoring some things but here are my thoughts on BaconKing v. SoFE and what I'd consider if I was still a Justice.

I really don't like BK's "none of the other SoFEs have done it!" argument. The person's judgment on how to enforce the law (along with their activity level) is THE THING that differentiates candidates for the position; different people SHOULD handle it differently as long as there isn't a SCOA bright line on the matter.

BK's "freedom of speech" argument should fail as well. Regulation of both speech and voting are permitted and expected by the constitution; just as yelling fire in a crowd is ban-able, so too should attempts to use peer pressure in the voting booth. This pits two rights against each other, speech and the right to vote as you please without intimidation. The Court here should defer to the Legislature's power to create appropriate regulations regarding these boundaries. As the regulation serves a substantial government interest and is narrowly tailored to not suppress speech rights any more than necessary to protect other rights there's no problem on that front.The Court earlier collectively decided that the statue thing was unimportant; that can be ignored. The Due Process claim doesn't work for me either; the SoFE explained his justification for the ban and the aggrieved voters are currently having their day in Court.

For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.

When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."

In some circumstances, I'd think that was a jury question but since this has already gone on for a million years I'll just go ahead and assume the Court won't do that. I'll admit; I'm really really torn on this case. "F**k Kingpoleon," is not, to me, prima facie enough to ban a vote. But I also think Rpryor as SoFE should be the one determining these things, not the Court. If I was still on the Court, I guess my final vote would be the allow the votes in, only because I think voting is the crux of this game and this ONE TIME while anti-campaigning laws were not well understood the voter's rights could outweigh the SoFE's power but I can't say I'm sure enough that any decision the Court makes will be wrong.

[Dereich]

Once Gass has been confirmed, I hope this will come to an end quickly.

It would be highly improper for a justice to vote on a case when they missed oral arguments.

[Dereich]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=152;sa=showPosts