Hoover's "Good Fellows" on the Supreme Court's Recent and Likely Upcoming Decisions

I was a guest on this episode, together with Niall Ferguson and John Cochrane (moderated by Bill Whalen), discussing Students for Fair Admissions (from last Term), Missouri v. Biden and the Netchoice cases (which are pretty likely to come up this coming Term), and more. I much enjoyed doing it, and I hope some of you might enjoy watching (or listening).

Comments

[Internet sloth]

[inappropriate]

[Idihax]

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it's outrageous that the court is claiming that federal law requires this 2nd district. It doesn't. Activist court decisions may, but statute does not. Not even close.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting/index.html

[apedad]

None of the courts are claiming that that federal law requires a second district.

If you're going to whine, at least get your facts straight.

[Idihax]

Yes, they actually are claiming just that. That the voting rights act requires it.

[apedad]

Here, read the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301

[Idihax]

Are you retarded? Did you read the Supreme Court decision?

[David Nieporent]

Who can forget that immortal line from John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison: "It is emphatically the province and duty of Idihax to say what the law is."

[Idihax]

The people who passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act demanded assurance on the Capitol floor that it wouldn't be used to require exactly what the courts claimed it did require just a few years later.

[Sarcastr0]

The people who passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act You mean…Congress? The guys who could have put that in the text but didn’t?

Text before intent was like Scalia's one good idea.

You seem more into outcome to choose intent to trump text.

[Idihax]

The text doesn't say anything about disparate impact, majority minority districts, and you know it. If judges are going to be intellectually dishonest, it doesn't matter what the text does or doesn't say.

[Sarcastr0]

"A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. "

1) This is literally describing disparate impact.
2) Do you have a better remedy for a problem is found wrt minorities than majority minority districts, what is it?

[Idihax]

1) Did you read the proviso?
2) I don't think blacks not being lumped into a group with other blacks so that they can elect semi-literate blacks like Cynthia McKinney or Maxine Waters to demand free cheese is a "problem" that needs addressing.

[David Nieporent]

The text in fact does say something about those things, unless you mean that it doesn't use those exact phrases.

[MatthewSlyfield]

The Hoover Institution doesn't suck. 🙂

[bernard11]

Which leads to a question that has perplexed me from time: In talking about a vacuum cleaner that doesn't work, is it correct to say,

"This vacuum cleaner sucks," or "This vacuum cleaner doesn't suck?"

If the colloquial meaning conflicts with the literal one, which should be used?

[MatthewSlyfield]

This vacuum cleaner sucks at sucking. 🙂

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I did not think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows." /B. Simpson

[Internet sloth]

Who among us has not had unclean thoughts about the vacuum cleaner?