Unless the Supreme Court is about to make some sweeping changes to “State Rights”, good luck to them fucking over state prosecutors and state legal systems.
The Court of Delaware continues to be in control of Twitter (and other corporate cases), not the Supreme Court. The Court of New York remains in control of Donald Trump’s felonies. Etc. etc. Sanctuary cities (and sanctuary states) will likely be able to thumb their noses at ICE (a Federal Agency with little power over the local state’s residents).
State-level resistance is the next step. I know not everyone can move to a Blue State, and a lot of this is Red States purposefully purging “undesirables” out of their state. But… Blue States can accept the runaway migrants and protect them. As well as a lot of the other citizens who feel threatened (ex: LGBT and whatnot as well).
Will it completely hold? I dunno. But its the next bulwark we have available, and we might as well defend it as a community.
Didn’t Trump try this with the DEA and states that legalised marijuana? Something about they wanted to start going after individuals and stuff because it’s still federally illegal?
I just remember a majority of the state’s said, “Go for it, but we’re not helping you in any way.” And they basically dropped it.
It’s cute that you think [positive] … Frankly, I expect [negative] … and nothing will be done about it.
You may have intended a sardonic or exasperated tone, rather than defeatism, in which case I was too harsh.
Even so, we must be cognizant of how easy it is to inadvertently amplify cynicism and despair. Some have little fight left and might just stay home when they are needed most.
With all due respect: I’m talking about the age-old strategy of Blue States protecting who Red States cannot protect. During the time of slavery, Northern States emancipated the slaves. The slaves had to get to the north somehow (ie: Harriet Tubman), but that’s just how our laws and legal systems work.
Is this a good thing that we have to go back to centuries-old bulwarks to protect ourselves? No. This is a regression. Nonetheless, these old fortresses of law stood the test of time, and its time for us to man this next level of posts. This legal tradition can also be blown over by a chaotic enough group, but its the most obvious place as the “next stand” we should do together.
The Delaware Supreme Court is the highest court in the State of Delaware. The Court has final appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases in which the sentence exceeds certain minimums, in civil cases as to final judgments and for certain other orders of the Court of Chancery, the Superior Court, and the Family Court. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus or to accept appeals of certain non-final orders or certified questions.
There is a single Delaware Supreme Court. There is a SINGLE New York Supreme Court.
If the Federal Courts are cooked, then we will make judgements within our state-level courts. And the state-level courts have the final word within their respective jurisdictions. The Federal Supreme Court has very little power over state-level courts.
The Delaware Supreme Court is not called the “Court of Delaware” and it is not in charge of any case at first instance involving the entity formerly known as Twitter. Cases generally begin in the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court is simply at the top of the stack but it doesn’t represent the entire system, which is referred to as the “judiciary of Deleware”.
You did, however, get lucky in that the state trial court of first instance in New York is called the Supreme Court of New York, although I doubt you knew the difference. If Trump appeals then it will go to the Appellate Division before reaching the New York Court of Appeal, which is the highest court of the State of New York.
I think you are getting dragged into a bad and useless semantic debate.
Are you saying that my only mistake was saying Court of New York rather than New York Court of Appeal? Or is there any more fundamental problem to my earlier argument?
I’m not pretending to be a lawyer here. But the state level courts are independent of the federal courts. And Federal Agencies (like ICE) have been historically hampered due to 10th Amendment issues. ICE overwhelmingly relies upon local police to cooperate to get much done.
This might be a legal issue that will be battled over the next 4 years in the supreme court, but I’d expect that Blue State resistance of this manner is our next best battleground to choose. We’ve lost the Presidency and both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. That leaves Blue State courts (whatever their name) as the next defensive bulwark.
You’re substantively correct on all fronts here. I was just being picky about capitalisation. I’m saying it should be “courts of New York” and “courts of Delaware” since the court system of each respective state consists of multiple different courts.
Unless the Supreme Court is about to make some sweeping changes to “State Rights”, good luck to them fucking over state prosecutors and state legal systems.
The Court of Delaware continues to be in control of Twitter (and other corporate cases), not the Supreme Court. The Court of New York remains in control of Donald Trump’s felonies. Etc. etc. Sanctuary cities (and sanctuary states) will likely be able to thumb their noses at ICE (a Federal Agency with little power over the local state’s residents).
State-level resistance is the next step. I know not everyone can move to a Blue State, and a lot of this is Red States purposefully purging “undesirables” out of their state. But… Blue States can accept the runaway migrants and protect them. As well as a lot of the other citizens who feel threatened (ex: LGBT and whatnot as well).
Will it completely hold? I dunno. But its the next bulwark we have available, and we might as well defend it as a community.
Didn’t Trump try this with the DEA and states that legalised marijuana? Something about they wanted to start going after individuals and stuff because it’s still federally illegal?
I just remember a majority of the state’s said, “Go for it, but we’re not helping you in any way.” And they basically dropped it.
I’m hopeful similar situations will hold.
deleted by creator
It’s cute that you think things like “laws” and “precedent” are going to give Trump + the Nationalist Christians even a fraction of a second of pause.
Frankly, I’m expecting laws and divisions of power to be broken quite flagrantly, and nothing will be done about it.
Stow that shit. If you’ve given up, fine. But don’t take others with you.
No one said give up where did you even get that?
You may have intended a sardonic or exasperated tone, rather than defeatism, in which case I was too harsh.
Even so, we must be cognizant of how easy it is to inadvertently amplify cynicism and despair. Some have little fight left and might just stay home when they are needed most.
With all due respect: I’m talking about the age-old strategy of Blue States protecting who Red States cannot protect. During the time of slavery, Northern States emancipated the slaves. The slaves had to get to the north somehow (ie: Harriet Tubman), but that’s just how our laws and legal systems work.
Is this a good thing that we have to go back to centuries-old bulwarks to protect ourselves? No. This is a regression. Nonetheless, these old fortresses of law stood the test of time, and its time for us to man this next level of posts. This legal tradition can also be blown over by a chaotic enough group, but its the most obvious place as the “next stand” we should do together.
“Court of Deleware” and “Court of New York” are not proper nouns. The state judiciaries are a collection of many courts and not a single court.
https://courts.delaware.gov/supreme/
There is a single Delaware Supreme Court. There is a SINGLE New York Supreme Court.
If the Federal Courts are cooked, then we will make judgements within our state-level courts. And the state-level courts have the final word within their respective jurisdictions. The Federal Supreme Court has very little power over state-level courts.
This shit is WHY we have the 10th amendment.
The Delaware Supreme Court is not called the “Court of Delaware” and it is not in charge of any case at first instance involving the entity formerly known as Twitter. Cases generally begin in the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court is simply at the top of the stack but it doesn’t represent the entire system, which is referred to as the “judiciary of Deleware”.
You did, however, get lucky in that the state trial court of first instance in New York is called the Supreme Court of New York, although I doubt you knew the difference. If Trump appeals then it will go to the Appellate Division before reaching the New York Court of Appeal, which is the highest court of the State of New York.
I think you are getting dragged into a bad and useless semantic debate.
Are you saying that my only mistake was saying Court of New York rather than New York Court of Appeal? Or is there any more fundamental problem to my earlier argument?
I’m not pretending to be a lawyer here. But the state level courts are independent of the federal courts. And Federal Agencies (like ICE) have been historically hampered due to 10th Amendment issues. ICE overwhelmingly relies upon local police to cooperate to get much done.
This might be a legal issue that will be battled over the next 4 years in the supreme court, but I’d expect that Blue State resistance of this manner is our next best battleground to choose. We’ve lost the Presidency and both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. That leaves Blue State courts (whatever their name) as the next defensive bulwark.
You’re substantively correct on all fronts here. I was just being picky about capitalisation. I’m saying it should be “courts of New York” and “courts of Delaware” since the court system of each respective state consists of multiple different courts.