June 25, 2018

Big day in the Supreme Court — "the last scheduled day, but they could easily add another day if they wanted to."

I'm following the live blog at SCOTUSblog.

UPDATE 1: The first case is Abbott v. Perez, a 5-4 decision about racial gerrymandering in Texas:
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion,in which GORSUCH,J.,joined. SOTOMAYOR,J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
From Alito's majority opinion:
It was the challengers’ burden to show that the 2013 Legislature acted with discriminatory intent when it enacted plans that the court itself had produced. The 2013 Legislature was not obligated to show that it had “cured” the unlawful intent that the court attributed to the 2011 Legislature. Thus, the essential pillar of the three-judge court’s reasoning was critically flawed.

When the congressional and state legislative districts are reviewed under the proper legal standards, all but one of them, we conclude, are lawful.
From Sotomayor's dissent (for the 4 liberal Justices):
This disregard of both precedent and fact comes at serious costs to our democracy. It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process. Those voters must return to the polls in 2018 and 2020 with the knowledge that their ability to exercise meaningfully their right to vote has been burdened by the manipulation of district lines specifically designed to target their communities and minimize their political will. 
UPDATE 2: Ohio v. AmeEx, written by Justice Thomas, also 5-4. SCOTUSblog summarizes:
This is an antitrust case, in which a group of states are challenging a provision in the contract between American Express and the merchants that accept its cards; the provision bars the merchants from trying to steer their customers to use a particular credit card.... The Court holds that Amex's steering provisions do not violate federal antitrust law.... Court defines the market as two-sided, including both merchants and cardholders. When the market is defined this way, the Court says, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not met their burden to show anti-competitive effects.
And that's all for today, so I guess there will be another day.

AND: Breyer's dissent in Amex begins:
For more than 120 years, the American economy has prospered by charting a middle path between pure lassez-faire and state capitalism, governed by an antitrust law “dedicated to the principle that markets, not individual firms and certainly not political power, produce the opti­mal mixture of goods and services.”
That is, Breyer — a former antitrust lawprof — misspelled laissez-faire.

143 comments:

Birkel said...

Goodbye to forced dues paid to unions who funnel the money to Democrats who vote for more stuff to the unions?

That would be a good day.

gspencer said...

"Goodbye to forced dues paid to unions"

Would be a good day, and an even better one would be that plus a win in NIFLA v. Becerra.

tim maguire said...

Judges stepping in to the gerrymandering game makes things worse, not better. They're just another activist group trying to manipulate the results.

Ideally, boundaries would be set by people with no information other than population. And the boundaries should be reasonably compact.

Fernandistein said...

Didn't Gerry Mander play "The Beaver"?

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name removed from award over racism concerns

Apparently she failed to mention that Indians were the wonderfulest people of all, on the prairie.

Nonapod said...

Ideally, boundaries would be set by people with no information other than population. And the boundaries should be reasonably compact.

Better to have no humans involved at all. A computer program could easily arrange perfect districts by contiguous census block groups (or even blocks) based purely on population.

Sebastian said...

"so I guess there will be another day"

. . . to announce Kennedy's retirement?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

That is, Breyer — a former antitrust lawprof — misspelled laissez-faire.

I believe Breyer's stated practice regarding his opinions is to hit post right away, then go back and proof-read them for typos.

gspencer said...

More likely, That is, Breyer's law clerk misspelled laissez-faire.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

Faire une erreur... They don't teach French and Latin words "real good" anymore in law schools...

I think most English speakers say lah-zay which leads them astray, as it should be lay-zay which leads you to "ai".

The Vault Dweller said...

. . . to announce Kennedy's retirement?

I think there was an interview Donald Trump did with Diane Sawyer. It was after he was elected but before he was inaugurated. And in it when he was asked about the kind of supreme court justices he would support he specifically mentioned how he would want someone that would overturn Roe v. Wade, but uphold gay marriage. When I heard that I always assumed he was talking directly to Kennedy. Which is a smoother way to handle things than to do what Grassley did a month or so ago and publicly mention that any Justices that were thinking about retiring should do it in the next few weeks.

Trumpit said...

Abhorrently, Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas reared his big mushroom head in two important cases. Thomas always shoots blanks in his written opinions. The black, brown & poor got the shaft from that Uncle Tom again. Let's not forget that golem Gorsuch was illegally implanted like Rosemary's baby by trollop Trump on the corrupted court instead of meritorious Merrick Garland. As Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, "Those voters must return to the polls in 2018 and 2020 with the knowledge that their ability to exercise meaningfully their right to vote has been burdened by the manipulation of district lines specifically designed to target their communities and minimize their political will."

Bricap said...

Apparently there is a French verb lasser, which means to weary, according to Google translate. Makes for interesting wordplay, anyway.

Michael K said...

More hate from the nut,

The Vault Dweller said...

Better to have no humans involved at all. A computer program could easily arrange perfect districts by contiguous census block groups (or even blocks) based purely on population.

I think you could find popular support for hat among the right-leaning populace. The left-leaning populace not so much because many of them seem to believe that while white people can be represented by anyone, only black politicians can represent black people, and only latino politicians can represent latinos.

The actual politicians on either side would object because both sides gerrymander to protect themselves when they can.

CJinPA said...

I should definitely read up on the gerrymandering case before concluding that Sotomayor's opinion is based more on her brand of racial politics than law.

AustinRoth said...

Two 5-4 going against the liberal wing, another disrespectful Sotomayor dissent.

So. Much. Winning. But still not tired of it!

Still to come - Janus (another 5-4 win for conservatives, another uncivil dissent), NIFLA (another 5-4 conservative win), and Hawaii (6-3, maybe even 7-2 for Trump), all predictions IMHO.

Hagar said...

Dr. K,
Trumpit is meant to be parody/sarcasm. He just plays it too close to the real thing.

readering said...

The typo shows how rushed they are to get everything out before end of June. Unnecessary. 2 5-4 decisions. Wonder if all 5-4 for rest of term. And if spread out decisions over the week for extra proof-reading.

The Vault Dweller said...

Still to come - Janus (another 5-4 win for conservatives, another uncivil dissent)
I'm hopeful for that outcome in Janus as well, but I worry about the poltiical effects. Trump has gotten a lot of blue collar union household support compared to typical republicans. And while those union households are probably mostly private sector union types, I wonder if public sector union blow, will trigger a union solidarity response in November. I'm hopeful against it because Trump has fought for private union jobs with his tariff actions, but still I worry.

oopsy daisy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State

This is completely illogical and incoherent!

Which is it? Are you still a minority when you are a majority of the population? How can that be? Mathematically.

Or are you a minority based merely on your skin color or ethnic even if you are the majority of the population. When do you cease being a "minority". Never? Victim culture never ends, does it?

Gahrie said...

I think you could find popular support for hat among the right-leaning populace. The left-leaning populace not so much because many of them seem to believe that while white people can be represented by anyone, only black politicians can represent black people, and only latino politicians can represent latinos.


Every Republican minority in Congress was elected from a majority White district. Every democratic minority in Congress (except Kamala Harris) was elected from a majority minority district. How does Sotomayor feel about that?

AustinRoth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Nonapod said...
Ideally, boundaries would be set by people with no information other than population. And the boundaries should be reasonably compact.

Better to have no humans involved at all. A computer program could easily arrange perfect districts by contiguous census block groups (or even blocks) based purely on population.

---

I'm not sure that this is true, as a matter of mathematics. And, in any case, there are humans involved even in this scheme: continuity, physical proximity are _human_ values, and they are not pre-ordained by ideal democratic theory.

I don't have a stand on how to resolve redistricting issues, and I'm sympathetic to those who think that getting judges involved has problems. But I am skeptical that there is some neutral, computer- or math-based method. So far, every putative scheme I've seen has just hidden the human values.

Having taught undergraduate engineering courses, it is not surprising to me when engineers fail to appreciate the values they are importing into their supposedly neutral algorithms.

AustinRoth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJinPA said...

And while those union households are probably mostly private sector union types, I wonder if public sector union blow, will trigger a union solidarity response in November. I'm hopeful against it because Trump has fought for private union jobs with his tariff actions, but still I worry.

Legitimate concern in relation to triggering public sector union enthusiasm to get to the polls. But I don't think it is possible for government unions themselves to be more pro-Democrat or spend more on electing Democrats than they already do. I believe groups like AFSCME make up the biggest contributors to elections of any group.

Gahrie said...

minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State

This is completely illogical and incoherent!


Well to be fair, most Lefty "thought" is.

Here in California (and apparently Texas) Whites are now less than 50% of the population, but aren't considered a minority.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

I know...I know.... she meant a minority in the district.

However, what difference does that make. I agree with those who say the districts should be drawn by population numbers without any input as to other characteristics.

Maybe we should just draw a big grid, like the Counties in Kansas, and let the chips (so to speak) fall where they may.

CJinPA said...

Which is it? Are you still a minority when you are a majority of the population? How can that be? Mathematically.

Heh. Get ready for this and other oddities in the New, Improved Majority-Minority America coming in a few decades. It's going to be an endless delight.

AustinRoth said...

TVD - Janus equivalent laws at the state level haven’t hurt the Republicans there.

Remember, most of the workers ar protected by civil service laws, and just want their paycheck. IMHO and based on state precedent, 60% - 70% will opt out and have more money in their paychecks. They will like that.

It also means those unions will have less money to spend on Democratic candidates.

Craig said...

DBQ:

"However, what difference does that make. I agree with those who say the districts should be drawn by population numbers without any input as to other characteristics."

There are so unbelievably many ways to draw the districts based on population numbers. Trillions? Trillions of trillions? This is not a meaningful constraint.

Gahrie said...

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

The Constitution seems clear to me....drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures not the courts and was designed to be a political act.

Craig said...

Gahrie said...
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

The Constitution seems clear to me....drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures not the courts and was designed to be a political act.

---

Sheeeeeeeeesh. Give me a break! Try harder! No one denies that drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures. What adults agree on, however, is that the sentence you quoted is not the only sentence in the constitution.

Gahrie said...

Why does Sotomayor think the process was given the name Gerrymander in the first place?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

There are so unbelievably many ways to draw the districts based on population numbers.

Many and most of which are subject to gross manipulation generated by the biases of the drawers. Drawing a district, like an octopus or amoeba to reach a desired outcome is the standard procedure and is the reason for all of these lawsuits.

Human bias and trying to manipulate the results ahead of the time. The proverbial thumb on the scale.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Sheeeeeeeeesh. Give me a break! Try harder! No one denies that drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures. What adults agree on, however, is that the sentence you quoted is not the only sentence in the constitution.

I fail to see the clause that gives the courts any jurisdiction over what should be a purely political act. Could you point it out to me please?

Bay Area Guy said...

Swatted down - two times!

Craig said...

Gahrie said...
Sheeeeeeeeesh. Give me a break! Try harder! No one denies that drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures. What adults agree on, however, is that the sentence you quoted is not the only sentence in the constitution.

I fail to see the clause that gives the courts any jurisdiction over what should be a purely political act. Could you point it out to me please?

6/25/18, 10:20 AM

---

I will let you peruse at your leisure all of the clauses which limit legislative power.

Drago said...

It appears that LLR "Craig" Chuck Chadwick is not pleased with these decisions.

Prima facie evidence the court arrived at the correct constitutional decision.

Craig said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
There are so unbelievably many ways to draw the districts based on population numbers.

Many and most of which are subject to gross manipulation generated by the biases of the drawers. Drawing a district, like an octopus or amoeba to reach a desired outcome is the standard procedure and is the reason for all of these lawsuits.

Human bias and trying to manipulate the results ahead of the time. The proverbial thumb on the scale.

---

Sure, but that there are trillions (more!) ways to draw districts based on population numbers means that population numbers do not generate a unique dividing up, which in turn means that you cannot devise an algorithm based upon population alone to generate neutral, math- or computer-driven districts. It isn't just undesirable; it is computationally impossible.

Drago said...

Gahrie: "Why does Sotomayor think the process was given the name Gerrymander in the first place?"

Because "Mr. Mander" obviously went too far?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Craig says I will let you peruse at your leisure all of the clauses which limit legislative power.

In other words: I have literally no idea what I am talking about and have run out of my designated talking points.

Craig said...

Blogger Drago said...
It appears that LLR "Craig" Chuck Chadwick is not pleased with these decisions.

Prima facie evidence the court arrived at the correct constitutional decision.

---

Little Baby Drago is here! Reading is so hard for Little Baby Drago! Thinking is virtually impossible! I am not displeased with these decisions. I haven't read them. I will go through this very slowly for you, to help you, since life is hard for Little Baby Drago:

Internet commenters who think that math alone is going to generate districts without having to involve values are bad at math.

CJinPA said...

No one denies that drawing up districts is the job of the legislatures.

I thought so, but then the PA Supreme Court redrew our congressional districts shortly before the May primary. And the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Craig said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
Craig says I will let you peruse at your leisure all of the clauses which limit legislative power.

In other words: I have literally no idea what I am talking about and have run out of my designated talking points.

6/25/18, 10:28 AM

---

So witty! Fine, you want me to hold your hand: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, The Fifth Amendment, The Eighth Amendment, ...

I am guessing you have not actually studied the Constitution in substance. That's excusable; perhaps you've got other things to study. But your lack of familiarity with the thing is reflected in your comments.

Nonapod said...

Craig said...Having taught undergraduate engineering courses, it is not surprising to me when engineers fail to appreciate the values they are importing into their supposedly neutral algorithms.

Oh, I totally agree that programs written by humans can be less than neutral. The solution to ensuring neutrality is to make such a redistricting program and the data it uses totally open source and fully accessible to the public (the census data already is anyway). That way anyone can examine it and execute it themselves to get the same results.

eric said...

DBQ,

Aren't women, a majority of the population in the USA, considered a minority group?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Internet commenters who think that math alone is going to generate districts without having to involve values are bad at math.

Mathematics itself doesn't have moral or political leanings. The people who try to manipulate the math or interpret the statistics to satisfy their own biases are the problem. Math is math and not a social justice issue.

My example of a strict grid was somewhat facetious.....somewhat.

However, I am quite serious that impartiality is paramount and removal of human biases in generating voting districts should be the goal.

The desire to put the thumb on the scales and create a voting block in a geographic area that purposely favors or disfavors certain segments of the population is a gross violation to the values of representative governance.

AustinRoth said...

Ghatie/craig - The right to review comes from a combination of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts,

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

AustinRoth - Thanks -- the particulars help! I wasn't meaning to suggest that these cases were grounded in the Second Amendment, only that the constitution is filled up with provisions limiting "purely political action."

Gahrie said...

Ghatie/craig - The right to review comes from a combination of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts,

gahrie please.

The "right" to review comes from Marbury V Madison which was a travesty. And even if the court had legitimate jurisdiction it should have ruled the matter a political question that needed to be handled by elected legislatures and not judges.

Craig said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
Internet commenters who think that math alone is going to generate districts without having to involve values are bad at math.

Mathematics itself doesn't have moral or political leanings. The people who try to manipulate the math or interpret the statistics to satisfy their own biases are the problem. Math is math and not a social justice issue.

My example of a strict grid was somewhat facetious.....somewhat.

However, I am quite serious that impartiality is paramount and removal of human biases in generating voting districts should be the goal.

The desire to put the thumb on the scales and create a voting block in a geographic area that purposely favors or disfavors certain segments of the population is a gross violation to the values of representative governance.

---

And the math point is to claim that there is no such thing as impartiality to be had. _Maybe_ you could convince me that random, arbitrary districts are impartial, but beyond that sort of chaos, anything that looks like a district as we know it _must necessarily_ be impartial. That is a significant reason why drawing districts is a political question!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Aren't women, a majority of the population in the USA, considered a minority group?

Majority by numbers (math) yes. Minority, only by people who have a political ax to grind or who want to be victims.

In certain population sections or occupations (like the one I was in for many years) sure a minority. Mathematically the number of women to men might be fewer, making them (me) a minority.

I suppose anyone can be a minority or a majority, mathematically, anywhere and at anytime and even at the SAME time. So what?

The assignment of emotional value and predetermining the outcome of elections is the objection. If blue haired people are the majority in Miami that is because of population selection. If you draw a district to deliberately include far flung areas areas to make a statistically majority population of curly redheads to overwhelm the natural distribution of blue hairs, that is showing intent and a desire to corrupt the assignment of population by district manipulation.

Gahrie said...

I will let you peruse at your leisure all of the clauses which limit legislative power.

Show me the ones that limit the power of legislatures to draw up the districts, or give the courts the right to interfere.

Michael K said...


Blogger Hagar said...
Dr. K,
Trumpit is meant to be parody/sarcasm. He just plays it too close to the real thing.


I'm not so sure. I think he is crazy,

AustinRoth said...

Sorry Gahrie - spellcheck strikes again!

And Marbury as an objection fails in this case, due to the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly provides for judicial review. That is why I mentioned it.

And to be clear, overall I agree that court review of voting districts has been abused, but let’s thank our lucky stars that, at for now, SCOTUS has not waded into political gerrymandering jurisprudence.

For myself, I cannot see any constitutional authority to do so, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Look at what they have done with the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Craig said...

Gahrie said...
I will let you peruse at your leisure all of the clauses which limit legislative power.

Show me the ones that limit the power of legislatures to draw up the districts, or give the courts the right to interfere.

6/25/18, 10:47 AM

---

If you don't buy _Marbury_, and so if you don't think the Supreme Court could throw out a law like, "It is a crime punishable by five years to publicly discuss the Second Amendment," then we're going to have to disagree.

Gahrie said...

If you don't buy _Marbury_

Marbury was a deliberate con job. At the very least Marshall should have recused himself. He created the controversy by failing to deliver the warrants while he was simultaneously serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Secretary of State.

Bay Area Guy said...

When is SCOTUS gonna rule on Janus? -- that's the big dog case.

Defunding the Government union = defunding the Democrat Party.

Join the booming private sector! Plenty of high-paying jobs!

And, then you can spend all your take-home money on the Bernie Sanders campaign!

Seeing Red said...

It’s like Sotomayer doesn’t understand what happens every ten years in this country. She should try reading some documents that are over 100 years old.

Seeing Red said...

Houston is moving so much oil, if you have your CDL license, you could be making $100-140k/yr now. I’m sure it’ll bust, but the it while you can.

Chuck said...

Dear Althouse;

Much like there being two "i's" in "laissez faire," there are two "t's" in "Abbott."

Dear Drago;

I love this decision. It's a strong opinion by Justice Alito. And no separate concurrence by Kennedy. No procedural cop-outs. They took on the merits and handed the plaintiffs a comprehensive defeat.

There will be many more gerrymandering cases. But this was a good one.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of laws I am still steaming about Chuck's assholish attitude re Trump's ability to turn illegal immigrants away at the border and us peons being unable to understand the majesty of the law either. Lo and behold the lawyers at PowerLine have a post that makes it clear thatTrump does indeed have the power. I quote; "8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Here's the link to the entire piece.

I seem to remember Chuck mentioning our and Trump's feeble intellectual skills. Well, FY Chuck.

Drago said...

Seeing Red: "It’s like Sotomayer doesn’t understand what happens every ten years in this country. She should try reading some documents that are over 100 years old."

Not a chance.

Those "things" were written by non-wise non-latina white dudes who talked real funny like and have no relevance to today's world.

Plus, they were all racist and held the wrong views.

Like now notable racist Laura Ingalls Wilder:

"Laura Ingalls Wilder's name removed from book award over racism concerns"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/24/laura-ingalls-wilders-name-removed-from-book-award-over-racial-concerns

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "I love this decision. It's a strong opinion by Justice Alito."

Right.

LOL

AustinRoth said...

Chuck - Abbott (Texas) was the plaintiff, and I am pretty sure we won! :)

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Here's another little gem from the PowerLine piece: "Citing United States v. Ju Toy, an old Supreme Court case, Horowitz adds that a person who comes to the country illegally is “to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.” I feel safe in saying that Illegal aliens are not automatically granted due process rights on crossing the border.

Read the whole piece it's short, but gives great background on the basis Trump is operating.

BTW, FY Chuck.

Drago said...

AustinRoth: "Chuck - Abbott (Texas) was the plaintiff, and I am pretty sure we won! :"

I would recommend caution in using "we" in sentences involving LLR Chuck when discussing conservative/republican victories in the Courts.

Carol said...

A computer program could easily arrange perfect districts by contiguous census block groups (or even blocks) based purely on population.

My former employer developed a program that did just that back in the 1980s using demographic and GIS data. Actually there wasn't a lot of digital GIS then so our map room would scan paper maps in by hand...they sold it to Dinkins-era NYC, inter alia.

But I suspect that politics still came into play when it came to drawing the lines.

Bay Area Guy said...

Look, if Chuck likes the Abbott decision, let's just take him at his word and give him an "attaboy" We can keep a running tab.

Chuck voted for Trump
Chuck likes Gorsuch on Scotus
Chuck opposes Dem efforts to gerrymand
Chuck likes Clarence Thomas
Chuck has the hots for Ann Coulter

These are all damn positive. We must return Chuck into the fold. Didn't y'all study the Bible about that prodigal son fellow?

Chuck -- I forget, but you generally approve of the Trump tax cut, right?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I agree, Bay Area Guy.

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy: "Look, if Chuck likes the Abbott decision, let's just take him at his word and give him an "attaboy" We can keep a running tab."

In this case, I prefer an operational assessment and analysis to derive conclusions regarding strategic intent.

Yancey Ward said...

A neutral method for drawing districts will never undo much of the advantage that Republicans have- Republican support is simply less concentrated than it is for the Democrats, and it is less concentrated because it doesn't depend on 70-90%+ support from minorities who have collected themselves together. What makes the Democrats' problem even worse is that the Civil Rights legislation was read to compel the production of minority-majority districts for the express purpose of producing more Hispanic and African-American congresscritters.

The Democrats have a choice to make- more Democrats in Congress with fewer such Democrats being black or Hispanic. You can't have more of both in Congress.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Drago,

In this case, I prefer an operational assessment and analysis to derive conclusions regarding strategic intent.

Heh - this sounds like Jack Ryan in a Tom Clancy book!

By the way, a new Jack Ryan series is coming out starring that dude from the Office, who was sweet and goofy, and then he got buffed out for that really good Benghazi movie, 13 Hours .

I'm in a really good mood this summer. I almost feel like a kid again.

I won't embrace the suck, but I will embrace the Chuck!

Gahrie said...

We must return Chuck into the fold. Didn't y'all study the Bible about that prodigal son fellow?

He's just going to throw a turd into the punchbowl at the next party and blame it on Trump.

Unknown said...

All I will say is: I don’t care enough to have an opinion and to comment.

-sw

Gahrie said...

By the way, a new Jack Ryan series

The new series might be based on the son rather than the original Jack Ryan..that's what the new books are doing anyway.

BJM said...

DBQ said: "When do you cease being a "minority".

Easy Peasy, when you are not useful to the Left.

AustinRoth said...

Drago - I know who and what Chuck is. I was trying out my best Trump-style troll.

Did you like it? :)

Chuck said...

Bay Area Guy: You've got all of that stuff exactly right. And I said, that if I had been a Republican in Congress, I'd have voted for the tax bill. There was much that I didn't like, but sometimes you gotta support the party.

Khesanh: I understand that there are several parts of that statute that seem to give the President the right to deal summarily with illegally-entering aliens, particularly within 100 miles of the border. But in addition to the statute, there are decades of federal court decisions. You can't just pick up a copy of the U.S. Code and presume that you've got it all figured out. An immigration attorney will straighten you out.

Plus, there is more to that statue. I don't have it all memorized, and I don't have time to write a legal memorandum for you today, but there are enforcement provisions within the statute that tie the hands of DHS on where they can ship illegals if the illegals articulate a fear of violence or danger if they are returned to their country of origin.

I never doubted the broad powers of the executive in this arena. I never doubted that expedited removal can occur. What I found objectionable was Trump's ignorant Tweet and you erroneous presumption constitutional rights were limited to citizens. Just like I said.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Gahrie,

No, it's a series about young Jack Ryan. Hopefully, he will re-fight the Commies again.

As for the "turd in the punchbowl," jeez, where's your's missionary zeal? Haven't you spent time in Pago Pago trying to christianize those savages? It's quite rewarding work.

Bible and Sword!

I still wanna see that Janus decision though. Kennedy already voted for it, last time in the 4-4 tie, so this is the first true test of young Gorsuch.

May the force be with him.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "And I said, that if I had been a Republican in Congress, I'd have voted for the tax bill."

LOL

Right.

Gotcha.

(wink wink)

Bay Area Guy said...

Allright, Chuck.

Regarding the pending Janus case, here is never-Trumper George Will writing in never-Trumper National Review about the need to strike down compulsory union dues for Government workers.

Both Will and NR have taken the correct position (in my humble estimation) on this landmark decision, which largely mimics what Walker did in Wisconsin, but on steroids.

Where are you on Janus?

Gahrie said...

but sometimes you gotta support the party.

You're almost there Chuckles.....sometimes you gotta support the presi…..

Chuck said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Allright, Chuck.

Regarding the pending Janus case, here is never-Trumper George Will writing in never-Trumper National Review about the need to strike down compulsory union dues for Government workers.

Both Will and NR have taken the correct position (in my humble estimation) on this landmark decision, which largely mimics what Walker did in Wisconsin, but on steroids.

Where are you on Janus?

Oh that's too easy. I share in the position taken by you, and NR, and Will. Next question?

Dr Weevil said...

Bricap (9:50am) has said part of what I wanted to say, but let me spell it out. The on-line Cambridge French-English dictionary says:

"lasser
verb [ transitive ] /lɑse/

fatiguer, ennuyer
to tire , to bore

Ce travail commence à le lasser.
He's starting to get bored with that job."

Is Breyer's subconscious signaling that he's bored with his job? Maybe he should retire, and let (laisser) someone younger and more alert handle it.

Drago said...

BAG: "Both Will and NR have taken the correct position (in my humble estimation) on this landmark decision, which largely mimics what Walker did in Wisconsin, but on steroids."

Nope.

The Never Trumpers are now fully open about their desire for the dems to return to power, which means hard left judges and hard left decisions.

All else is sophistry.

Bay Area Guy said...

Well, Chuck is on the side of the angels for the pending Janus decision, which is a big mother.

In 2016, Government unions spent $64 Million on candidates, 90% on Democrats.

Do y'all recall the leftwing caterwauling about Citizens United in 2010?

It made them very, very mad. From Wiki:

On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[63] to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." On television, the camera shifted to a shot of the SCOTUS judges in the front row directly in front of the President while he was making this statement, and Justice Samuel Alito was frowning, shaking his head side to side while mouthing the words "Not true" .

Janus is on par with Citizens United.

Chuck is on par with Janus.

The earth is properly revolving around its axis.

The sun is out

The girls are wearing jean shorts and tank tops this summer.

Life is good.

Chuck said...

And I can't think of any stronger defender/admirer of Citizens United v. FEC than me, among Althouse's commentariat. Plus SpeechNow.org v. FEC.

Big Mike said...

This disregard of both precedent and fact comes at serious costs to our Democrat Party

I fixed it for the (un)wise Latina. The precedent to which she alludes is the perception that racial gerrymandering is okay if and only if Democrats do it.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "And I can't think of any stronger defender/admirer of Citizens United v. FEC than me..."

LOL

Based on what, precisely?

becauseIdbefired said...

That is, Breyer — a former antitrust lawprof — misspelled laissez-faire.

Why would anyone care about such a thing?

Especially since it's French, which sprinkles words with useless vowels and silent consonants. French words are begging to be misspelled.

We should take a page from the French, and have language police. We should eliminate all ridiculous French words and replace them with sensible ones. For instance:

hors d'oeuvres : snack
Chauffeur : driver
Eau de Cologne : perfume
bureaucrat : criminal

Jim at said...

Janus is the one I'm waiting for.

Jim at said...

The black, brown & poor got the shaft from that Uncle Tom again. - Trumpit

Oh, lookie. Another stupid, racist asshole who never read the book.

Drago said...

Jim at: "Janus is the one I'm waiting for."

Which beats the hell out of "We are the ones we've been waiting for".

Bay Area Guy said...

The history of racial gerrymandering is funny as hell.

1. In the 1980s, the Congressional black caucus, said, "We want more black congressmen! You gotta consolidate more blacks voters into single southern districts, so we can win more seats!" "We" being black Congressman, not "Democrats" in general.

2. The Reagan administration opposed this. Said it violated the 14th Amendment, as impermissible racial discrimination. It fought this in the courts, won some, lost some. Unresolved question.

3. In the Bush Administration, though, a buncha sharp lawyers in the DOJ - Civil Rights division, said, "Whoa, Hold your horses. The computer guys have crunched the numbers. If you consolidate blacks into a Congressional Districts to elect a black Congressman, each surrounding district goes Republican! White southern Democrats congresscritters go home!

4. The Bush Administration, affirming its commitment to racial justice, stopped fighting these gerrymandered districts in Court. Let Freedom Ring!

5. In 1993, the Black Congressional Caucus bumped its numbers from 28 to 41. Good for you!

6. In 1994, those additional 13 black-majority seats helped contribute to a 52-seat GOP pick-up by Gingerich in the House.

7. Dems' next battle cry in the Courts: Majority-Minority districts are unconstitutional! You're putting too many blacks and hispanics into our districts!

I know this. I was in DC in late '89.

Big tectonic shift. Most of House delegations in the South are white Republicans and black Democrats. Not too many White Democrats left in that neck of the woods.

As the world turns....

Chuck said...

Previous comments of mine like this one, going back almost two years:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-intercept-catches-up-with-justice.html?showComment=1474487354612#c1789020756579008199

Or this little beauty, where I questioned Donald Trump's support for Citizens United as I reasserted my own support for the decision:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-lets-us-know-that-he-has.html?showComment=1453559683423#c4821207224948802598

Drago said...

Chuck: "Previous comments of mine like this one, going back almost two years:"

......and, what?

That proves you are the strongest defender of Citizens United than other commenters?

LOL

Are you sure you are a lawyer?

gadfly said...

". . . Breyer — a former antitrust lawprof — misspelled laissez-faire."

Who misspelled "Ohio v. AmeEx"??? Justice Thomas, SCOTUSblog Or Althouse?

Drago said...

gadfly, the Poor Man's LLR Chuck, makes an appearance.

Hilarity is sure to ensue....

Mark Nielsen said...

Bay Area Guy: "These are all damn positive. We must return Chuck into the fold."

My own (mostly observer's) opinion: I've never thought Chuck was anything other than honest about his opinions, and I think he takes some undeserved (thought admittedly pretty amusing) abuse. There should be room for people who agree with Trump policies but are uncomfortable with his persona and demeanor in office. One exception would be the way Trump sticks it to the press. That is so long-overdue and well-deserved that we should *all* relish seeing that.

Rabel said...

Alito:

"The dissent [by Sotomayor] is simply wrong in claiming over and over that we have not thoroughly examined the record. The dissent seems to think that the repetition of these charges somehow makes them true. It does not. On the contrary, it betrays the substantive weakness of the dissent’s argument."

Sounds familiar. In more than one context.

AustinRoth said...

Rabel - I missed that. Alito is channeling the ghost of Scalia with that comment!

Vance said...

By the way, apropos of nothing. You know how Inga is always chortling over Langford and his racism, attributing that to all Republicans and Trump followers?

I note Trumpit's comment earlier today... he's a leftist. I presume Inga is happy to have herself associated with Trumpit's comment, and I understand that she recognizes that Trumpit represents all leftists and Democrats (not Ann Althouse, naturally), just as she says Langford Peel represents all Trump supporters.

J. Farmer said...

For more than 120 years, the American economy has prospered by charting a middle path between pure lassez-faire and state capitalism...

Spelling error aside, the "middle path" is much older than 120 years. It is, in fact, as old as the Republic itself. The US has never had a laissez-faire economic system.

Nonapod said...

Carol said...

My former employer developed a program that did just that back in the 1980s using demographic and GIS data. Actually there wasn't a lot of digital GIS then so our map room would scan paper maps in by hand...they sold it to Dinkins-era NYC, inter alia.

But I suspect that politics still came into play when it came to drawing the lines.


I've workedon a project that generated market areas for bank branches based on geography, FDIC Summery of Deposits data, and on all sorts demgraphics from Census data and other sources. That was pretty complex. Generating voting districts apolitically using only geography and population would be considerably easier. And as I've already said, it could be done in such a way that it would be completely transparent: you make the code and the data itself public. That way people could analyze the program to look for any biases, and execute it to reproduce the exact results themselves.

All this assumes that what you really want is something that is completely neutral from a political perspective. The problem is that is not what people really want.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

For more than 120 years, the American economy has prospered by charting a middle path between pure lassez-faire and state capitalism...

It's funny how leftist elites -- even rich successful ones like Breyer -- are still hesitant over extolling the benefits of capitalism.

Yes, capitalism has flaws. What system doesn't? But the data is in, over these 120 years:


Capitalism was and is the engine that helped us: (1) create an untold mountain of wealth in this country, (2) create a massive middle class, (3) create a massive army to defeat the Nazis, and (4) later, the Soviets.

He needs to be less grudging in his praise of capitalism.

Chuck said...

Here you go, Drago; last post on the page is mine. Praising Althouse, praising Citizens United and criticizing Obama:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=2786403423429540118

Browndog said...

If you want population to determine voting districts...

...and allocation of U.S. Representatives...and electoral votes...

Then you may begin to understand way the Democrats so fiercely want to import a foreign population.

chickelit said...

Maxine Waters is a product of gerrymandering. Maxine Waters should be primaried by a more moderate and even-tempered voice.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Here you go, Drago; last post on the page is mine. Praising Althouse, praising Citizens United and criticizing Obama:..."

LOL

Let's try this again for the slow witted: How does that prove you supported Citizens United more than other commenters, which was your original assertion?

Are you sure you are a lawyer?

Browndog said...

Sotomayer is going to spend the next 30 years bitching.

With a Latin flair, naturally.

Anonymous said...

So, Chuck, you agree that Trump has the power to do what he tweeted. Yes? Because he didn't write a 20 page opinion he's not correct in what he said? Yesterday you were absolutely positive that Trump was wrong. Today you are using weasel words: "I understand that there are several parts of that statute that seem to give the President the right to deal summarily with illegally-entering aliens "(Chuck). OMG, it's quite possible that Trump can have done what he says in his tweet regardless of what your opinion is. Perhaps you should consult that immigration lawyer since you are no longer positive about the claims you are making and those you are deriding us for.

Here's what you said about us yesterday. " A roving, raving gang of dumbfuck non-lawyer Trump fans talking about rounding up asylum applicants and putting them on cargo transport planes." First we, and Trump said nothing about asylum. Second, today, and yesterday, we have found- with help - statutes and Supreme Court decisions that support what Trump said in a Tweet of limited characters. Once again, Trump said nothing about asylum in his tweet. and we find today that "8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code gives the president extraordinary powers to turn away migrants at the border ( even if they have managed to cross the border).

So it is beginning to look like the score is: dumbfuck non-lawyers 52 - Chuck 0. Congratulations to all the dumbfuck non-lawyers here and to Chuck: FY.

Browndog said...

Maxine Waters is a product of gerrymandering.

No, she is a product of the VRA.

J. Farmer said...

@Bay Area Guy:

He needs to be less grudging in his praise of capitalism.

"State capitalism" would be a more apt term. The US government throughout the 19th century took numerous steps to encourage business and economic development, including protectionist tarrifs, a national bank, internal infrastructure creation, the creation of the Patent Office, land grants and subsidies for railroad development, western expeditions, and a loose immigration policy to allow for cheap labor.

Browndog said...

"State capitalism" would be a more apt term. The US government throughout the 19th century took numerous steps to encourage business and economic development, including protectionist tarrifs, a national bank, internal infrastructure creation, the creation of the Patent Office, land grants and subsidies for railroad development, western expeditions, and a loose immigration policy to allow for cheap labor.

Gee, that sounds just like a brand new country with a huge land mass and low population trying to get off the mat and become self-sufficient.

gadfly said...

@Drago said...
gadfly, the Poor Man's LLR Chuck, makes an appearance.

Hilarity is sure to ensue....


Drago, our punchy Russian fighter, has obviously taken too many damaging shots to the head. He appears to be a bit rocky.

hilarity ensues:
An ending that can be put onto the ends of stories and plans. A convenient phrase to use when your story or plan sounded really dumb. It usually doesn't make much sense.

Seeing Red said...

Capitslism 400 years of success

Socialism 100 years of failure disease starvation misery and death

But only because it hasn’t been implemented properly

We’ll get it right this time! Utopia! Nirvana!

Nonapod said...

I've always disliked the term "capitalism" since it was created for derogatory purposes. I prefer the term "free market", it feels more accurate to describe something that is essentially an emergent system that exists within the framework of rule of law and security provided by a government.

Sebastian said...

"the "middle path" is much older than 120 years"

OK, but that didn't keep progs from bitching about plain old capitalism all that time.

So-called state capitalism never had enough state in it for their taste.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Free Market" is great too. Just a labeling issue.

@J Farmer,

"State capitalism" would be a more apt term. The US government throughout the 19th century took numerous steps to encourage business and economic development, including protectionist tarrifs, a national bank, internal infrastructure creation, the creation of the Patent Office, land grants and subsidies for railroad development, western expeditions, and a loose immigration policy to allow for cheap labor.

Yeah, that's basically true. But I don't like the term, "State capitalism." It sounds corporatist and statist -- all at once.

But, in general, Yes, the monied big-wigs in the USA, did, generally, use their power to steer the government into the directions they wanted.

We are not naive about the, ahem, excesses of capitalism and/or free market economy.

Likewise, we are not ignorant of the flaws of America.

We just think the good, greatly outweighs the bad. And if these poor countries in Latin America and Africa would embrace Yankee capitalism, they'd really help their own poor people elevate to greener pastures.

Browndog said...

I've always disliked the term "capitalism" since it was created for derogatory purposes

It was called commerce before the commies assigned it an -ism. Just as conservation got it's -ism. Environmentalism.

Drago said...

"The Poor Man's LLR Chuck" gadfly: "Drago, our punchy Russian fighter..."

It's never wise to go Full Inga prior to the cocktail hour.

LOL

Greg P said...

" It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State"

Does Texas have even one statewide elected office held by a Democrat? According to this, the answer is "no".

So it seems unlikely that there's any disenfranchising being does of a "majority" "minority"

gadfly said...

@Khesanh 0802 said...

Here's what you [Chuck] said about us yesterday. "A roving, raving gang of dumbfuck non-lawyer Trump fans talking about rounding up asylum applicants and putting them on cargo transport planes." First we, and Trump said nothing about asylum. Second, today, and yesterday, we have found- with help - statutes and Supreme Court decisions that support what Trump said in a Tweet of limited characters. Once again, Trump said nothing about asylum in his tweet. and we find today that "8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code gives the president extraordinary powers to turn away migrants at the border ( even if they have managed to cross the border).

Not sure who these important weshits are composed of, nor would I bother to read Trump's misspelled and usually senseless tweets, but a " fact sheet" was released by Trump's Department of Homeland Security and Heath and Human Services stating:

- The Trump administration “knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families.”

- The process that the government has in place for reunification isn’t for all families separated by the administration between May 5 and June 20, when the “zero tolerance” policy separated more than 2,300 children from their parents at the border. It is solely “to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.”

- There is no such assurance for parents who are fighting deportation because they are trying to claim asylum (or another form of relief) in the United States.

What this means, in practice, is that a parent who is currently trying to pursue an asylum claim but wants to see her child as quickly as possible will have to waive two sets of rights: her own and her child’s. She’ll have to withdraw her own asylum case and agree to be deported instead. And she’ll have to agree that her child should withdraw their own case to remain in the US — which is a separate case in the legal system because the child is now considered “unaccompanied” — in order to accompany her back to her home country
.

Fernandistein said...

Bay Area Guy said...Didn't y'all study the Bible about that prodigal son fellow?

No, but I can fake my way thru this nice song about that fellow.

n.n said...

Capitalism is based on the conservation or retention of earnings (e.g. savings). The free market concept arises from free people "voting" with their capital for goods and services, based not on the goodwill of a minority regime, but on supply, demand, and productivity.

Scott M said...

I think most English speakers say lah-zay which leads them astray, as it should be lay-zay which leads you to "ai".

People called Romani, they go to the house?

Trumpit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinRoth said...

Greg P - and NY has not a single Republican statewide office holder. Nor does Connecticut, Delaware, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island or Washington State. So what?

Jim at said...

Washington state's Secretary of State, Kim Wyman, is a Republican.

Jim at said...

Oh, and Duane Davidson - state Treasurer - is also GOP.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Especially since it's French, which sprinkles words with useless vowels and silent consonants. French words are begging to be misspelled.

We should take a page from the French, and have language police. We should eliminate all ridiculous French words and replace them with sensible ones. For instance:”

This is a running war around here. She, having a French father, etc, thinks that French words should be pronounced the way that cheese eating surrender monkeys pronounce them. I logically point out that English is a much easier language to pronounce, and the reason that we had to liberate France in 1944, and bail them out on other occasions maybe partly because of their inability to properly pronounce their own words.

My current favorite is “objet d'art”, which I use to distribute my stuff artfully around the living room. My shoes, books, iPads, etc. All now considered objets d'art.

Trumpit said...

"Sotomayer is going to spend the next 30 years bitching.

With a Latin flair, naturally."

"In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. "Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

Kirk Parker said...

Mark Nielsen,

If Chuckles were merely "uncomfortable with [Trump's] persona and demeanor in office" there's not a soul here that would have a serious problem with him.

Greg P said...

1: According to ScotusBlog, Roberts announced there would be two more days

2: IMO, Josh Blackmun is right, and these are key bits from Abbot:

Whenever a challenger claims that a state law was enacted with discriminatory intent, the burden of proof lies with the challenger, not the State...
And the “good faith of [the] state legislature must be presumed.” ...
The allocation of the burden of proof and the presumption of legislative good faith are not changed by a finding of past discrimination.

All these got 5 votes. It's reasonable to expect that those 5 votes will continue to hold that when looking at Trump v Hawaii.

And if they do, Trump wins

Chuck said...

Do you see what you have done here, Khesanh? You have begun to research the case law and the various applicable sections of the U.S. Code. You are discovering that under certain circumstances, and with a variety of limiting conditions, a President CAN direct that DHS officials engage in "expedited removal" proceedings. It is a complicated legal scheme, with lots of particularized conditions.

Naturally, all that you really wanted to do was to justify Trump's tweet about how "we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came..." (We didn't even talk about what weird sentence structuring that is.) And, you wanted to push back hard, for my having called you out on your own blandly-stated falsehood that, "Since they are not citizens they have no "due process rights" under our Constitution..." Your falsehood was the first sentence of the first comment of a 280+ comment section.

You were wrong about that; I was right to call you on it. And now, the further we go in discussing the complexities and nuances of this issue, the more you (should) see that in a variety of situations, non-citizens do indeed have certain due process rights, and particularly a right to a hearing -- as Trump's broad Tweet would deny them -- even under the 1996 statute that set up executive branch procedures for expedited removal.

And now, in bold, I want to add something else. Somebody criticized me earlier, saying essentially that Trump is communicating effectively with people -- voters -- like truck drivers. And so who cares, about all of the nuances that lawyers engage in...?

And I have an answer to that.

When we are talking about the Department of Homeland Security's truck fleet, and the use of trucks by ICE personnel on the border, and the efficient use of federal funds to buy and maintain trucks, the first group of people I want to talk to and talk about, are truck drivers. But when we are talking about the precise application of federal case law and statutes in complicated situations, I want to talk to, and talk about, lawyers and lawyering.

Truck drivers and lawyers like both get to vote in elections and I wouldn't have it any other way. Their votes count equally.

But this wasn't an election. This was a case of some non-lawyers opining -- inaccurately -- about the law. Which is like me talking about how to fix the fuel injection system on a diesel truck.