|
Not My Leg posted:Just picking this up from the last thread since it was in response to my comment about "one person one vote." I agree with The Entire Universe that giving a corporation the right to vote would violate 1P-1V. The only reason I hedged is that it's not my area and I'm not 100 percent sure what types of elections 1P-1V has been held to apply to. Obviously anything federal and I think anything that implicates the republican form of government in the states, but I'm not sure it applies to, for example, a county election for sheriff or a school board election. Here is the case you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Estimate_of_City_of_New_York_v._Morris This applies 1P1V to a local government election.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
That seems like a pretty strong nexus, to be honest. They are "mailing checks" to NY to their contractors or associates for work done in the state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Seniority is a pretty good substitute for merit pay. Don't even get started on merit pay linked in any way to student test scores. That's absurd. I suppose I could conceive of a teacher led commission assigning contract values based on teacher observation of teachers, but that would probably reck the unions and would not be much if any improvement over seniority.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
No really I have spent a long long time thinking about tying standardized test scores for students to teacher ability and it is impossible to do on any scale that would be needed to tie pay to it. But really just look at what you are proposing: Determining the ability of one individual by measuring the performance of another individual. It doesn't make any sense. And - I am guessing - even if you could somehow plot teacher performance based on test scores (just for the sake of argument let's say it is possible) I bet it would pretty nearly correlate with years served anyway. euphronius fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Coaches aren't measured on Joe Leftfielders ability to .300 after hitting .290 or whatever or Dave Receivers ability to catch 80 balls rather than 90 balls. Even if they were, that is completely different as athletes are motivated and in effective support systems where the coach may have an effect that isn't completely overridden by other effects, like poverty, or being 9 years old, or not being motivated to take a test. Moreover, Coaches spend hours and hours a day with an athlete, over a time of years. Teachers get a kid for 40 minutes, for nine months, once in their life. Of the examples you mentioned though, that is probably the closest analogy to teachers. Managers are usually judged based on economic metrics, which does not analogize to student standardized test scores at all. Doctors are sometimes measured on health outcomes, but that has little to do with the "performance" of the patient. Whether or not a double bypass works does not rely on the surgery skill of the patient. falcon2424 posted:
IN the real world teachers are role models, substitute parents, and social workers, along with class room managers and communicators. Also what is the "ability of a student". If you are saying it is "performance on a standardized test" I don't think that many people in education would ever agree with you. (I know you agree with that, just saying it again for emphasis.) If you have a student who does not read or do work at all, and skips class, and is starting drugs, and a teacher gets them motivated to open a book, and come to class, and think about their future, I think the teacher succeeded and is a great teacher, but none of that will ever reliably be captured on Scantron forms from the state capital. falcon2424 posted:
Teachers rarely control the curriculum and they never control the standardized testing regime. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
If Congress abolished all inferior Federal courts, would the SC be forced to hear all cases of federal jurisdiction? Yes I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Couldn't a defendant in state court on a federal question or with diversity motion to move it to the SC though? I guess they could now but maybe the rules would change if there was only one court. Where would Maryland sue Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Hahaha I love our Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The Court has granted cert in Holt v. Hobbs, a case challenging the no-beard policy of the Arkansas Department of Corrections violates either the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and whether a 1/2-inch beard would satisfy the security goals of the policy. If the cert petition looks a bit strange, it's because Holt is representing himself and handwrote the whole thing. I dont see how he doesnt win this one. Wow that is pretty good Blue Booking for an inmate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
If businesses get religious exemptions to public laws it is time for a constitutional convention.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful. It can be pretty well defined. Not traded on a market. Owners are also managers. etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Could it be as simple as "contraception only" because that is what was being disputed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:"Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." Hahaha Congress and the SC already gave religious corps the right to unlawfully discriminate in employment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Perhaps, but what's the logic behind that? Jehovah's really don't really want blood transfusions and they really believe that. What's different? Judicial conservatism, hahaha. The SC only has jurisdiction of actual disputes. It will be up to the Circuits to extend everything though and they will dont worry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Wife of nine whole days is crying sitting in our beautiful resort suite, thanks for ruining my honeymoon you loving shits. Turn off the internet you doofus. We will still be here after your honeymoon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Lol scotusblog saying the govt can just by regulation provide coverage itself. Congratulations conservatives you just "won" and in return got a little more of your ultra-feared government provided healthcare. Next up: Gov can not spend tax dollars on programs that sincere religious taxpayers object to. This holding is limited to only abortion and contraception.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
A large public company could transfer all employment contracts to a closely held subsidiary and then pay the closely held company a contract price to provide employment. Ta da.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Congress already covered it in Title 7quote:APPLICABILITY TO FOREIGN AND RELIGIOUS EMPLOYMENT
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:It wouldn't really save them any money. Contraception coverage on the margin is cheap and accidental pregnancies can be expensive so insurance companies aren't going to give much of a discount, if any. Hobby Lobby's self-insured so it can do whatever idiotic policies it wants even if it costs them more in practice. That's to say nothing of how an unplanned pregnancy can affect project timelines among other real world consequences. Yes but what if the sincerely held religious belief of the company is that unionism is evil.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then nothing would happen because this decision is specifically about contraception. I am sorry I was following a line of posts that included the part where the Circuits will expand this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
quote:In these cases the plaintiffs deem it necessary to exercise their religious beliefs within the context of their own closely held, for-profit corporations. That is a hell of a statement. In context and out of context. ---- Even if "closely held" is defined now, 10 years of litigation is going to change it substantially. I believe there is an SEC definition, but I do not think that is terribly germane. Each state will have its own definition, if defined at all. And now we are going to add on top of that a bunch of federal quasi-constitutional litigation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress. Well that is actually quite a lot isn't it. Tradition in constitutional republics is virtually the same as the "written law".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Life time appointments is not the boogieman. It is who is being appointed and approved by the senate and the lack of Congress's ability to pass laws which we like. Congress could fix most of the bad stuff the SC spits out. The SC really does not have a lot of power at all compared to Congress + Prez, but in long periods of divided gov, like we have now, they stick out because they are the only branch which affirmatively tackles tough issues and also Congress sets the Court up to tackle the tough issues and be the fall guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
I don't see how staggered term limits or whatever would "improve" the court. There are like a million Federalist clones of Roberts and Alito out there waiting in the wings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It would mean the Court more closely mirrored the other two branches as they exist now, rather than as they existed decades ago. That makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Thank you! It still seems like such an arbitrary distinction, but at least there is now a clear line. That's just the IRS definition. That doesn't mean that is the definition that will be used.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
If Congress does not define it, "Closely Held" in the context of this ruling will probably end up being a factor test where the courts weigh the facts and the public interest.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:
I can't imagine Congress not rectifying any damage SC may do here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
I wonder if Holt\Muhammad can grow any length of beard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Shocking deference by the lower courts in that holt case too. I mean they basically said we will ignore the law if a warden says he doesn't like it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Kennedy's opinion on SSM is really unambiguously legislation from the bench- he made no real effort to present the outcome in terms of existing law. This is genuinely a bad thing, and makes it harder to construct a coherent legal framework around the holding, and damages the authority of the court. The dignity material that drove Thomas nuts was genuinely an especially bad offender in this regard. I just had time to read the decision and I totally agree with this. The majority opinion was not optimal at all and pretty weak. It would have been much better to have a proper 14th amendment scrutiny analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Senate rules are written an redone and voted on every 2 years. You can read them yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
My hope is that the nativist appeals to the birthright citizenship amendment leads to calling for a convention that lead to all kinds of shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Constitutional litigation needs plaintiffs to pass the standing bar of actual case and controversy but they aren't important to the actual case and most times the problem they originally complained about is moot for them personally. Any testimony they would have given would have been years and years before the case ever reached the sc. This is less true for criminal appeals obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Obama should resign and Biden should nominate Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
You don't need 60 votes for cloture on judicial appointments any more right ?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Man this could be a legit Constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Antti posted:There's no obligation to confirm anyone except public pressure so it could be 2019 or 2021. Of course a scenario where a Democrat wins the White House but the Republicans hold the Senate is not very likely, but it's possible. The obligation is 220+ years of constitutional government and standard practice. That is a Big Thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Antti posted:
Yeah that's what I am saying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah there's no benefit to a recess appointment. 4-4s are almost as good as 5-4s given that most circuits are liberal now. Is the union contribution case 4-4 now?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 16:59
|
|