|
I can also add one interesting thing about Breyer; he spoke at my law school last semester and was an extraordinarily entertaining and funny speaker. It's a bit of a shame that he's not more prominent but he's a pretty alright justice.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Thomas is incredibly talkative and gregarious in person, also, though I think that's more common knowledge now. Sotomayor and Ginsburg are both hardcore as expected in person. I imagine that Scalia and Thomas would be very fun to drink with once. A second time, I'd want to fight 'em. Third time, I'd probably break down sobbing and screaming "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!" I've been reading up on Ginsburg's pre-bench work, and I'm kinda amazed she was confirmed for the bench. She kicked a hell of a lot of rear end, arguing cases for treating gender as a suspect class and contributing greatly to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Really with RFRA written the way it is I'm not sure what other way there is to rule? Its a mess entirely of congress's own doing. Surprise 5-4 ruling, RFRA found to violate establishment clause, all religion banned and to be replaced with temples of the Glorious Invisible Hand of the Free Market (PBUH). But seriously, Hobby Lobby's gonna be a mess. There's no way we get out of this clean and no way we get out of this without greatly empowering corporations. What's the ETA on a for-profit corporation claiming religious tax exempt status?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I wonder if that'll just make warrants a dime a dozen now, like the 'smelled weed' probable cause for a car search. That got struck as an excuse in Massachusetts (and, I suppose as necessity goes, in Washington state and Colorado). ulmont posted:Resulting in the most common, and also most innocuous, footnote 1 in 11th Circuit opinions: Fun fact, the most cited case in the Supreme Court is a relatively uncontroversial decision that held (in part) that syllabi that appear before a SCOTUS opinion are not binding, but are prepared as convenience for the reader. It's cited in the syllabus before every decision now. Tens of thousands of cites, last I checked.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Also, the Supreme Court is only effective because the rest of the country abides by its rulings. Undercutting that may not be a good thing. An amendment to fix this would be great, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Kimble v. Marvel, 6-3 affirmed. Kagan announcing, the dissenters are Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:According to the live blog most of the opinion was 8-1 so I'm guessing Roberts went off the deep end at some point. No, Sotomayor was the one who dissented from the entirety.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Judge Srinivasan already went 97-0 in the Senate for a lifetime appointment but I will check out this other person Kelly went unanimously to the 8th in the same timeframe as Sri did.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
One full ruling and two summary per curiams today. The full ruling was Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, which deals with the federal court's requirement that there be diversity of citizenship among the parties for a federal case to be heard. Americold is a "real estate investment trust" organized under Maryland law. Since it isn't a corporation, the court unanimously ruled that for diversity purposes they should be judged by where their members and shareholders live. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1382_d18f.pdf V.L. v. E.L., the court unanimously reversed Alabama, which had refused to recognize a same-sex couple's adoption agreement from Georgia. This is part of Alabama's last tantrum against Windsor/Obergefell. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-648_d18e.pdf Wearry v. Cain, the court rules 6-2 and gives postconviction relief to a death row inmate on grounds of failure to disclose material evidence. Alito and Thomas dissent. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf (There's also a dissent to denial of cert. Thomas, joined by Alito, dissents from the denial of American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, a 9th Circuit case that held Seattle public transit advertising was a limited public forum, and therefore they could apply content-based ad restrictions. This is Pam Geller's group, and she has a habit of taking out bus ads calling Palestinians savages monsters and horsefuckers-- well, maybe not the last one-- and then suing if the transit agency balks. This is buried at the bottom of the orders list. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030716zor_5h26.pdf)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Can someone explain why the court would deny cert in this case? Thomas does a really good job of laying out the fact that there's a circuit split. Who knows? Court can deny cert for whatever they want. They don't have an obligation to resolve every circuit split that arises.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Which side wins this way? If the court denies cert, then the lower court's decision stands in that circuit. In this case, I believe that's a win for the Seattle transit system.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
 I actually learned something new out of that-- it's always interesting when folks dig into the history and intentions behind these things. I did my note on the elections/Time Place and Manner clause (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1) with an aim at providing justification for a national elections commission a la Elections Canada or the Australian Electoral Commission, and I went down a rabbit hole of those sort of articles for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
If Clinton ends up winning the election, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdraw him before Republicans panic-confirm him-- under the then-acceptable, then-correct premise that a president shouldn't be making major appointments in the interregnum. I would wager that he knows the score.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, these seem pretty on the face of them super hosed up and wrong to the point where they should be overturned 8-0. A large part of why these became law is White Man's Burden claptrap. They also are in opposition to my reading of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Undoing those cases would mean reckoning with what exactly is up with the territories and forcing either statehood or independence on them, likely. Court probably isn't super thrilled about setting that going.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:Has Kennedy sided with the liberals even once this term in a 5-4 decision? Nope. Of all the 5-4s, Kennedy's been with the conservatives every time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Armack posted:I'm wondering how the court will manage to exempt police unions in Janus. Any thoughts? "Given the necessity of police for law and order and the requirement that the members of their ranks feel a certain kinship and espirit d'corpse [sic], police unions are in the public interest and are therefore still entirely permissible." -Gorsuch
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Court packing was a bad idea when Roosevelt tried it and it's still a bad idea now. Republicans will win an election again, and once you ring that bell, you can't unring it. Actually, an amendment fixing the number of justices at 9 is a very good idea. The Republicans on the court have stopped caring about things like legal precedent. They have started making up pretexts for whatever result they want, regardless of the underlying law. See the decision in Masterpiece Bakery and the decision in Trump v. Hawaii-- they cannot be read as anything but polar opposites as it comes to the bias of government officials, and they were a week apart. The current SCOTUS does not care about the law anymore. It is controlled by wholesale partisans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Piell posted:So Hardiman is a good possibility for the next Supreme Court Justice if a spot opens up. He's also crazy. Jesus, the federalist society is a drat cancer on law. It’s a loving travesty that this narrow sliver of lunatics with a deeply warped view of jurisprudence has grown so powerful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:They're going to replace her before the elections so that they can have a solid majority to support Trump in any election challenges that come up. Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, they have that majority already. No reason to not let it wait and try to boost turnout during the election a la the Scalia vacancy and then confirm someone in the lame duck period anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Remind me again why this is off limits. That's basically what happened with Kavanaugh and it was such a non scandal no one even brought it up at the confirmation hearings. Politically it would be tricky, considering Biden has publicly and repeatedly said that his first nominee will be a black woman. Quorum posted:Has anyone broken down the stats on this court's use of per curiam rulings as compared to previous courts? It feels like a departure to me to see 6-3 conservative rulings consistently presented in unsigned per curiam format. I don't have the stats, but I believe it takes six votes to skip oral argument and issue a per curiam decision, which would be why with a 6-3 conservative majority you see it more often than in the past-- and on cases with a lot more heft.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2021 14:03
|
|