|
mdemone posted:I dearly hope that's real and I need to know the context. GIS points to no. Supreme Court Upholds Freedom Of Speech In Obscenity-Filled Ruling
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
What do you mean, The Onion is America's Finest News Source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
The thing is, I can totally see RBG double-birding someone on camera, just to demonstrate that she don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Isn't that sort of the point? One should in principle be able to divine what a justice's opinion will be (in the broadest of strokes) for the large majority of case-types, given their past jurisprudence on similar subjects. Easy to do with Thomas, not so easy with Scalia because his jurisprudence changes depending on the political locus of the case, since he is a nasty, brutish little gently caress. Of course I may be wrong or misguided in claiming that justices should be predictable. "Surprise" was the wrong word. My point was his 4th amendment positions (as further argued by Green Crayons) seem to conflict with the "he's just a conservative ideologue" argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:"Surprise" was the wrong word. My point was his 4th amendment positions (as further argued by Green Crayons) seem to conflict with the "he's just a conservative ideologue" argument. Most intellectual conservatives have idiosyncratic positions. It's how they assure themselves that they are not toeing a party line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Most intellectual conservatives have idiosyncratic positions. It's how they assure themselves that they are not toeing a party line. And the 4th Amendment is Scalia's one idiosyncratic position, but even there it seems mostly driven by distrust of government/worry they're going to watch him showering (read Kyllo). Don't worry, Nino - I guarantee NO ONE wants to see you in the shower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sotomayor is easily the best justice in the history of the country already, so Obama done good. I know-little and just observe of the thread, but what makes her such a great justice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The president is given power by Article II section 2 to appoint supreme court justices, ambassadors, etc with the "advice and consent of the senate." At the least, consent would imply a majority voting to support the judge being put on the bench. A POTUS couldn't just say "hey Senate what do you think of this person? Ok well I'm putting them on the bench thanks for the chat!" The filibuster is dumb as poo poo and the next time either party controls both houses of congress and the presidency it will hopefully be wiped out completely even if the senate minority doesn't play obstructionist games. It'd be nice to see whomever the next justice is would be a life-long defense attorney, or even from somewhere other than the usual Ivy League schools. A justice who has had a long career of "this justice system works in the hope that all are guilty and fucks those without the money to fight back the hardest" would be nice. Hell I'd settle for Thomas getting investigated and potentially charged with ethics violations from his inability to recuse himself from cases involving parties he and/or his lobbying wife have varying relationships with. It's not quite as bad as enemy companies buying judges in West Virgina but he's got time to reach that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Second best, but yeah. Username post combo. Didn't she also take a break for some serious medical condition? If I were strategerizing, I'd want her to step down immediately while the Ds control the Senate and the white house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Username post combo. People have been pushing for her to retire for that reason and she's having none of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It'd be nice to see whomever the next justice is would be a life-long defense attorney, or even from somewhere other than the usual Ivy League schools. A justice who has had a long career of "this justice system works in the hope that all are guilty and fucks those without the money to fight back the hardest" would be nice. No defense attorney could ever be confirmed, not in a million billion years. What senator, R or D, is going to vote for the guy who got X murderer or Y rapist off?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Username post combo. She can still take any of the other justices in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
What if they were a not very good defense attorney?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
UberJew posted:No defense attorney could ever be confirmed, not in a million billion years. What senator, R or D, is going to vote for the guy who got X murderer or Y rapist off? Redux Taft. Put Bill Clinton on the court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:At the least, consent would imply a majority voting to support the judge being put on the bench. A POTUS couldn't just say "hey Senate what do you think of this person? Ok well I'm putting them on the bench thanks for the chat!" The filibuster is dumb as poo poo and the next time either party controls both houses of congress and the presidency it will hopefully be wiped out completely even if the senate minority doesn't play obstructionist games. Congressional rules have nothing to do with the president. There are certain things they can't set themselves, such as the ability to dismiss representatives at a whim, but the houses make their own rules otherwise. Things like the senate filibuster are 100% senate rules and the house or president have zero ability to change or directly influence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Redux Taft. Put Bill Clinton on the court. And then Barack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Hell I'd settle for Thomas getting investigated and potentially charged with ethics violations from his inability to recuse himself from cases involving parties he and/or his lobbying wife have varying relationships with. It's not quite as bad as enemy companies buying judges in West Virgina but he's got time to reach that point. This could lead to Really Bad Things if it happened, like the total destabilization of the US government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And then Barack. Replace Antonin Scalia with Barack Obama. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean you'd ideally want Thomas because he's the youngest so you're getting a replacement ahead of schedule, but I'd rather get rid of Scalia because Thomas actually has a legal philosophy, just one I profoundly disagree with. Scalia has a political philosophy, and the right legal answer is always what is in line with that legal philosophy. Thomas will bite the bullet and vote for something he politically disagrees with: Scalia will not. The best example is where Scalia suddenly realized although the commerce clause is the devil, when it comes to the Devil's Weed then it's suddenly ok for the Federal Government to regulate it - but not anything Scalia doesn't want regulated. Wanting to replace someone other than Thomas also makes sense because he's not an especially influential justice. If a close commerce clause case comes along, Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Kennedy might be able to convince Roberts or Kennedy to join a majority (depending on which one is on the fence) - Thomas is always going to be out on his island screaming "overturn the last century of commerce clause precedents" and convincing nobody. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:At the least, consent would imply a majority voting to support the judge being put on the bench. Technically, consent is whatever the Senate says it is. If the Senate decided consent meant "you asked us and we didn't have a majority vote no" then that's what it would mean. It's just that no Senate ever will give up the right to approve major nominations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Redux Taft. Put Bill Clinton on the court. Then get an agreement that Clinton will recuse himself from cases where he's getting blowjobs from one side, if Thomas will do the same for cases when he's getting money. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Replacing Kennedy would end the 5-4 decisions giving corporations more rights. He has continuously sided with 'corporate rights' since Roberts took over
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Replacing Kennedy would end the 5-4 decisions giving corporations more rights. He has continuously sided with 'corporate rights' since Roberts took over So would replacing Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
I personally hope Alito pulls a Pope Benedict, realizes he is terrible at his job and will never leave a lasting impression, and quits
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Congressional rules have nothing to do with the president. There are certain things they can't set themselves, such as the ability to dismiss representatives at a whim, but the houses make their own rules otherwise. Things like the senate filibuster are 100% senate rules and the house or president have zero ability to change or directly influence. It means that when l one party has control of every veto point of law making, the filibuster will be written out of the rules. Sure, that could happen with just control of the Senate as neither the executive branch or the house needs to approve Senate rule changes but it wouldn't gain you anything then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:I personally hope Alito pulls a Pope Benedict, realizes he is terrible at his job and will never leave a lasting impression, and quits Does that mean that he'll be Supreme Court Justice Emeritus? Will he still be allowed to hang out at the Supreme Court like Benedict does at the Vatican?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So would replacing Scalia. I think the idea is that Kennedy might be slightly more likely to allow a Democratic President to replace him (assuming he has the choice), but Scalia never will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:The Roberts dissent may make a bit of sense until you read the Sotomayor dissent dissent. I disagree. Roberts' dissent is the correct result under the statute as it is, Sotomayor's is closer to the correct result from a consequential standpoint, and the majority opinion is a garbage pile of factors and assorted nonsense. Bad statutes create bad results, but the Court shouldn't throw a patch on a defective statute by creating some multifactor test. Nor should it rewrite the statute to create a fairer result. The statute, as written and interpreted in Roberts' dissent, is inadvisable--not absurd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Does that mean that he'll be Supreme Court Justice Emeritus? Will he still be allowed to hang out at the Supreme Court like Benedict does at the Vatican? Already happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas#Retirement
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I disagree. Roberts' dissent is the correct result under the statute as it is, Sotomayor's is closer to the correct result from a consequential standpoint, and the majority opinion is a garbage pile of factors and assorted nonsense. Bad statutes create bad results, but the Court shouldn't throw a patch on a defective statute by creating some multifactor test. Nor should it rewrite the statute to create a fairer result. The statute, as written and interpreted in Roberts' dissent, is inadvisable--not absurd. I am persuaded by Sotomayor's contention that Congress reasonably legislated that joint and several liability should trump other considerations for the defendants. And her solution that payment schedules can deal with differences in means between defendants seems well supported.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Replacing Kennedy would end the 5-4 decisions giving corporations more rights. He has continuously sided with 'corporate rights' since Roberts took over IIRC the Roberts court hasn't "given corporations more rights" except using a tortured reading of that phrase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:IIRC the Roberts court hasn't "given corporations more rights" except using a tortured reading of that phrase. Then you aren't remembering correctly, full stop. Between their expansion of money as speech, restricting the definition of corruption, and clamping down on Class Actions they absolutely have been expanding the power of corporations
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Republicans hold the Senate, they can just vote down anyone (or refuse to hold a vote on them). The Constitution does require the consent of the Senate and so it's not like the filibuster issue where you can argue you're violating the spirit of the Constitution: the Senate absolutely has the right to vote down a nominee. My reading comprehension has been off the charts lately. Just in the wrong direction.  I was thinking more if the Dems retain control, though, and all that answered my questions. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Between their expansion of money as speech, Not done by the Roberts Court. "We cannot share the view that the present Act's contribution and expenditure limitations are comparable to the restrictions on conduct upheld in O'Brien. The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as destruction of a draft card. Some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two. Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a non speech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 16 (1976). quote:restricting the definition of corruption, ? quote:and clamping down on Class Actions they absolutely have been expanding the power of corporations Again, only using a tortured reading. The AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision found that state laws forbidding class action waiver contracts were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Blame Congress leaving lovely laws on the books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Then you aren't remembering correctly, full stop. Between their expansion of money as speech, restricting the definition of corruption, and clamping down on Class Actions they absolutely have been expanding the power of corporations Beyond what Kiwi Ghost Chips says about the specific cases, there's a meaningful distinction between giving corporations rights and giving them more power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It means that when l one party has control of every veto point of law making, the filibuster will be written out of the rules. Sure, that could happen with just control of the Senate as neither the executive branch or the house needs to approve Senate rule changes but it wouldn't gain you anything then. I doubt that. The problem with ending the filibuster is that since it only takes a simple majority to end and continues to exist entirely because of tradition, the minute a majority party ends it, it's gone forever. Neither party is going to risk giving up the ability to ever filibuster ever again just for eight years of total dominance; there would need to be a major political realignment such that the party in power could potentially and realistically hold power for decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Again, only using a tortured reading. The AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision found that state laws forbidding class action waiver contracts were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Blame Congress leaving lovely laws on the books. It's not just Concepcion, it's Dukes, and then you've got the generalization of the specific context of Twombly to everything in Iqbal, which is (doctrinally) boring a fuckhole into Rule 8 (though judges may in fact be self-correcting on that).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It's not just Concepcion, it's Dukes, and then you've got the generalization of the specific context of Twombly to everything in Iqbal, which is (doctrinally) boring a fuckhole into Rule 8 (though judges may in fact be self-correcting on that). Not everything yet - patent trolls still get to do Form 18 pleading instead of meeting Twombly. Speaking as someone who does defensive patent lit for a living, I wish Twombly applied. (loving Fed Cir.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
I believe the statement from Chief Justice Roberts was along the lines "if you can't prove an explicit quid pro quo was involved, then there is no reason to think that handing a guy a couple pallets of cash, followed by him MYSTERIOUSLY introducing the exact bill you wanted a month later, had anything what-so-ever to do with each other."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Yeah, continuing to fix up the Fed Circuit should be a high priority for the White House right now. It's really incredible how much damage regulated industry has been able to do there over the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 22:02
|
|