Today's SCOTUS decisions!

[Wisconsin Beth]

The opinion in Glossip v. Gross is here. The Court rules that the death-row inmates have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment.

[Wisconsin Beth]

I know the Arizona redistricting case came down but I'm having problems determining what exactly the ruling is/was.  I think it's 5-4. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

From the final paragraph of the majority opinion: "The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,”
namely, “that the voters should choose their representa­tives, not the other way around.” Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elec­tions Clause does not hinder that endeavor

from the liveblog at www.scotusblog.com/

[Wisconsin Beth]

Looks like we might have the EPA case coming now - Justice Scalia has the decision, I think.  5-4. 

The Court rules that the EPA interpreted the statute unreasonably when it deems cost to be irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

[chiver78]

Jun 29, 2015 9:26:26 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

The opinion in Glossip v. Gross is here. The Court rules that the death-row inmates have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment.

is this the case that's trying to eliminate the death penalty entirely? I haven't been following this one too closely

[bean29]

Jun 29, 2015 9:34:35 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

From the final paragraph of the majority opinion: "The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,”
namely, “that the voters should choose their representa­tives, not the other way around.” Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elec­tions Clause does not hinder that endeavor

from the liveblog at www.scotusblog.com/

I myself am having a hard time deciphering some of these rulings.  It looks like they have an independent commission to limit gerrymandering and ensure fair congressional districts.  USA Today notes:  In the past, the justices have complained about political gerrymandering that leads to ever more non-competitive districts, both for Congress and state legislatures. But they have not found a legal standard to limit the practice. The Arizona case applies only to congressional lines.

Nationally, those lines have grown ever more partisan. In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote but 72% of the House seats in states where they drew the lines; Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.

In addition to the seven states affected by the ruling, Connecticut and Indiana employ backup commissions to draw the lines if the legislature fails. New York, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Rhode Island have advisory commissions.Those states are not directly affected.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

The rebups in Wisconsin have taken Gerrymandering to new heights.  We no longer have a government representative of the people.  We need more ideas like this.  Glad the ruling moves us in the direction of fairness.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 29, 2015 9:39:53 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 29, 2015 9:26:26 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

The opinion in Glossip v. Gross is here. The Court rules that the death-row inmates have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment.

is this the case that's trying to eliminate the death penalty entirely? I haven't been following this one too closely

No, as I understand it, the inmates were trying to say that the sedative being used didn't guarantee that they'd be out when the 2nd and 3rd drugs were administered.  And they'd die a painful death, which is cruel and unusual punishment.  

[chiver78]

Jun 29, 2015 9:57:55 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jun 29, 2015 9:39:53 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

is this the case that's trying to eliminate the death penalty entirely? I haven't been following this one too closely

No, as I understand it, the inmates were trying to say that the sedative being used didn't guarantee that they'd be out when the 2nd and 3rd drugs were administered.  And they'd die a painful death, which is cruel and unusual punishment.  

okay, I do remember that. so what was their goal with the case then? to have lethal injection taken off the table and require an alternative method?

sent from my electronic distraction

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 29, 2015 10:02:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 29, 2015 9:57:55 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

No, as I understand it, the inmates were trying to say that the sedative being used didn't guarantee that they'd be out when the 2nd and 3rd drugs were administered.  And they'd die a painful death, which is cruel and unusual punishment.  

okay, I do remember that. so what was their goal with the case then? to have lethal injection taken off the table and require an alternative method?

sent from my electronic distraction

I thought they were just trying for a different drug.   

[mroped]

Did any of the plaintiffs go through and "failed to die" while in pain between first and second drug?
How would they know is painfull? Have they tested it on themselves?
I'm assuming that they are on death row due to a heinous crime of sorts. 
Do they deserve compassion? 
At least they are given a chance to argue their side not to mention that they are given a mercifull death. Now they complain about it being "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Were their crimes nice and soft or at least quick?

Give them each a piece of rope and put them in cells with high ceilings and an open grate on top.
That's what they deserve!

[chiver78]

Jun 29, 2015 10:12:22 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jun 29, 2015 10:02:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

okay, I do remember that. so what was their goal with the case then? to have lethal injection taken off the table and require an alternative method?

sent from my electronic distraction

I thought they were just trying for a different drug.   

ah, okay. I remember hearing that the drug company that makes whatever they are using now is refusing to supply it anyway. I am going to look into this a little more when I have time. thanks!

[Wisconsin Beth]

Petitioners contend that Oklahoma’s current protocol is a barbarous method of punishment—the chemical equivalent of being burned alive. But under the Court’s new rule, it would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake: because petitioners failed to prove the availability of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, the State could execute them using whatever means it designated.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/29/glossip_v_gross_sotomayor_s_scorching_death_penalty_accusation.html


I need to read up on this one, but my first take is that SCOTUS got this one wrong.  Clearly, several executions done over the last 18 months were NOT painfree.  And thrashing around for up to an hour before dying seems to fill the cruel and unusual part for me.*


*I do not believe that a death sentence should be painful, like a tit for tat for their crimes.  Or that rough justice committed by inmates is acceptable.  If the US is going to continue with death sentences, it needs to be openly done and by those duly appointed to do so. 

 

[bean29]

Jun 29, 2015 11:03:37 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jun 29, 2015 9:57:21 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I myself am having a hard time deciphering some of these rulings.  It looks like they have an independent commission to limit gerrymandering and ensure fair congressional districts.  USA Today notes:  In the past, the justices have complained about political gerrymandering that leads to ever more non-competitive districts, both for Congress and state legislatures. But they have not found a legal standard to limit the practice. The Arizona case applies only to congressional lines.

Nationally, those lines have grown ever more partisan. In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote but 72% of the House seats in states where they drew the lines; Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.

In addition to the seven states affected by the ruling, Connecticut and Indiana employ backup commissions to draw the lines if the legislature fails. New York, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Rhode Island have advisory commissions.Those states are not directly affected.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

The rebups in Wisconsin have taken Gerrymandering to new heights.  We no longer have a government representative of the people.  We need more ideas like this.  Glad the ruling moves us in the direction of fairness.

The Democrats get to do it too... just depends on who's in power at the time. 

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Wisconsin's eight United States Representatives and 132 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity

Well yeah, that is pretty much what the quote from USA today says, but no matter who is doing it, the result is not a "representative of an for the people"  if they think they can ignore a section of their electorate, they they will not even try to satisfy their needs.  Right now we are headed to a government of and for the very wealthy.

[Phoenix84]

Garrymandering might play a part in the growing extremism on both sides. The right is shifting hard right and the left is shifting ever left, moderates aren't running in these districts.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2015 11:03:37 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jun 29, 2015 9:57:21 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I myself am having a hard time deciphering some of these rulings.  It looks like they have an independent commission to limit gerrymandering and ensure fair congressional districts.  USA Today notes:  In the past, the justices have complained about political gerrymandering that leads to ever more non-competitive districts, both for Congress and state legislatures. But they have not found a legal standard to limit the practice. The Arizona case applies only to congressional lines.

Nationally, those lines have grown ever more partisan. In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote but 72% of the House seats in states where they drew the lines; Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.

In addition to the seven states affected by the ruling, Connecticut and Indiana employ backup commissions to draw the lines if the legislature fails. New York, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Rhode Island have advisory commissions.Those states are not directly affected.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

The rebups in Wisconsin have taken Gerrymandering to new heights.  We no longer have a government representative of the people.  We need more ideas like this.  Glad the ruling moves us in the direction of fairness.

The Democrats get to do it too... just depends on who's in power at the time. 

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Wisconsin's eight United States Representatives and 132 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity

disingenuous.  the GOP did a serious number on Congress in 2010.  have you heard of Project Red Map?

disclosure: i am in absolute AWE of this strategy.  it was thought out beautifully, and executed perfectly.  it is also the most cynical thing i have ever seen in politics in my lifetime.  pure genius, highly undemocratic.  Democrats got more votes in 2012 than Republicans, and yet....

genius.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2015 22:33:02 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Garrymandering might play a part in the growing extremism on both sides. The right is shifting hard right and the left is shifting ever left, moderates aren't running in these districts.

i think it is precisely the opposite.  extremism is leading to gerrymandering, not the other way around.  if the vote was more moderate, gerrymandering would be futile, because the borders would shift every election cycle.