|
mdemone posted:We like Liu though, correct? I seem to remember last time Obama was picking, Liu was a name people talked about on the long-list as potentially very exciting for progressives. Liu would be fantastic. I was around the Senate for his nomination process and he's brilliant, progressive, and genuinely a nice person. He'd be a great partner for Sotomayor on the Court in that they each have slightly different areas where they stand out and areas where they're flawed. I just don't hold out a ton of hope for him to get confirmed, is all.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I don't follow. Liu got blocked because he had no reporter friends? Sorry, it was late and I was capping off a 300+ month, I was extremely scatterbrained when I posted that. Evilweasel's clarification is what I meant - Liu got blocked because he was an obvious SCOTUS pick, like Estrada before him. (I would be interested in looking at the demographics of candidates with commentariat backing though.) Green Crayons posted:Any thoughts on whether the fact that he's currently serving on California's supreme court is providing him the experience he needs to be a credible nominee? My impression at the time was that this was exactly (part of) why he was nominated to CA Supreme Court. I'm rosier on it than Kalman is, especially considering Kagan now. I do think it's harder to get confirmed to the Circuit Courts than to SCOTUS in terms of being blocked or forced to withdraw - I don't think Sotomayor could get confirmed to the Second Circuit today. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This thread needs some sort of "read the scotusblog synopsis at a minimum before deciding who is right" rule. Also, I'm starting to think I can persuasively argue any case from any side to some of this thread if I can analogize my client to a guy busted with weed. I think the real issue is people not making clear whether they're opining on the legal issue of the case or who they think is "right" in some equitable system that may or may not resemble U.S. law.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
I'm just going to take a moment here and marvel at a system where excellent jurists are blocked from attaining higher positions out of partisan fear of them ascending to the Supreme Court. drat.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I think the real issue is people not making clear whether they're opining on the legal issue of the case or who they think is "right" in some equitable system that may or may not resemble U.S. law. The difficulty, and the reason I think such a rule would be productive, is that these folks are neglecting the facts of the case. Reading scotusblog would at least tell them what the situation was- if they want to get counterfactual on the law, that's fine. As it stands, they're arguing from a set of circumstances that have nothing to do with the actual event in question, so they're effectively strawmanning the whole situation. vvvvv Sure, and if the posters were using counterfactuals intentionally it'd be fine, but it's pretty clear they aren't. They think they know what happened in the case, but they're actually assuming facts to fit how they want things to turn out. The "fish were too small, this case doesn't make sense, the big bad govt is misapplying statutes" narrative is intuitively appealing if you don't know the facts- and that's exactly why the case has made it this far. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:57 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The difficulty, and the reason I think such a rule would be productive, is that these folks are neglecting the facts of the case. Reading scotusblog would at least tell them what the situation was- if they want to get counterfactual on the law, that's fine. As it stands, they're arguing from a set of circumstances that have nothing to do with the actual event in question, so they're effectively strawmanning the whole situation. Can we have both?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Like the late Earl Warren?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Like the late Earl Warren? Warren Court was the best court.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Warren Court was the best court. Excuse me, the Taney Court would like to have a word with you  jk
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
the future Sotomayor court will be tits
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the future Sotomayor court will be tits Not when President Cruz impeaches her in 2022 before the midterms.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
you're forgetting when she gets reappointed by mecha-Clinton in neo-DC in 2033
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you're forgetting when she gets reappointed by mecha-Clinton in neo-DC in 2033 Appointed Chief Justice of megacity 1 you mean.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Appointed Chief Justice of megacity 1 you mean. 800 million people living in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. In a 5-4 decision the only thing fighting for order in the chaos: judges
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Barudak posted:800 million people living in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. In a 5-4 decision the only thing fighting for order in the chaos: judges The prelude of John "I am the Law" Roberts makes a lot more sense all of a sudden.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
While the hypothetical Sotomayor court would be awesome, it still doesn't approach Obama replacing Scalia or Thomas levels of amazing. Edit: appointed by HRC, at that. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 16:56 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
John Roberts will live for a hundred years.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:John Roberts will live for a hundred years. Only if he survives the current possessed vessel of Robert Taney's malevolent white supremacist ghost. Its current host is, of course, Antonin Scalia and it's said that the pure hatred of Taney's spirit can sustain its rotten mortal body for a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
post more SCOTUS fanfiction itt
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Imagine, if you will, that Scalia and Thomas, to pick two, retire/pass on, and the court is stacked with screaming liberals, then. Will Roberts remain Chief Justice? If so, imagine the legacy of the Roberts Court. (Thank you, yes, I said Thomas twice, no idea why.) Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 01:46 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Imagine, if you will, that Scalia and Thomas, to pick two, retire/pass on, and the court is stacked with screaming liberals, then. Will Thomas remain Chief Justice? If so, imagine the legacy of the Thomas Court. As much as I'd love to imagine the legacy of the Thomas Court, you probably mean Roberts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Prayer in government proceedings is okay! God drat it, Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Alito's passive-agressive dissent from denial of Beard v. Aguilar is amusing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:John Roberts will live for a hundred years. My wish for John Roberts is that when Scalia and Kennedy finally die, he serves 30 more years in the court's minority.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Prayer in government proceedings is okay! Uh, I'm pretty sure that the establishment clause was never intended to outlaw legislative prayers since they've been done since we first had legislatures in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Prayer in government proceedings is okay! To be fair, it doesn't seem like the appellees were arguing that it was never okay (acknowledging the chaplains in Congress), only that the nature of the prayer necessarily endorsed Christianity over other religions. The conclusions in II-B are more concerning, but even there, the decision mentions that the prayer is in the context of the ceremonial opening and not the actual content of the meeting. It's not a complete shitshow, but it's also neither exactly great nor surprising, given the current makeup.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:To be fair, it doesn't seem like the appellees were arguing that it was never okay (acknowledging the chaplains in Congress), only that the nature of the prayer necessarily endorsed Christianity over other religions. The conclusions in II-B are more concerning, but even there, the decision mentions that the prayer is in the context of the ceremonial opening and not the actual content of the meeting. Yeah, the disagreement is about whether the town did enough to be prevent the opening prayers from being overly political, Breyer points out: quote:The U. S. House of Representatives, for example, pro- vides its guest chaplains with the following guidelines, which are designed to encourage the sorts of prayer that are consistent with the purpose of an invocation for a government body in a religiously pluralistic Nation: Basically they grabbed the list from the local chamber of congress which only contained christian churches, emailed them all and whoever replied was put on a list to be invited back later if they like. They didn't put any effort into reaching out to new people until they were sued. It seems more like they half assed it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh, I'm pretty sure that the establishment clause was never intended to outlaw legislative prayers since they've been done since we first had legislatures in the US. The main dissent also seems to take issue with characterizing the prayer as a legislature prayers, since town meetings have far more direct involvement of private citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:The main dissent also seems to take issue with characterizing the prayer as a legislature prayers, since town meetings have far more direct involvement of private citizens. Yeah, Kagan had to address that in the dissent: quote:Greece’s Board indeed has legislative functions, as Congress and state assemblies do—and that means some opening prayers are allowed there. But much as in my hypotheticals, the Board’s meetings are also occasions for ordinary citizens to engage with and petition their government, often on highly individualized matters. That feature calls for Board members to exercise special care to ensure that the prayers offered are inclusive—that they respect each and every member of the community as an equal citizen. Her dissent also takes issue with the degree of sectarianism and consistency of the prayers offered. For a decade, you have stuff like this opening the meeting: quote:“[F]ather, son, and Holy Spirit—it is with a due sense of reverence and awe that we come before you [today] seeking your blessing . . . . You are . . . a wise God, oh Lord, . . . as evidenced even in the plan of redemption that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We ask that you would give freely and abundantly wisdom to one and to all. . . in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who lives with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen. Imagine you're the Muslim citizen of the town of Greece and you come to a town meeting to talk about some zoning issue for your pool or something. Are you not going to feel a little bit disenfranchised following that opening?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
This ruling is great, I can finally get Satan acknowledged at the local zoning committee. Americans are too stupid to realize why acknowledging one church over another is bad. It's time for them to experience the horrors of sectarian violence -- ironically it'll probably be competing Christian faiths that argue over the exact wording of a public prayer.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
This is wholly consistent with the Roberts Court's theory of safeguards for minority rights, the well-known "tough titty" doctrine.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:Imagine you're the Muslim citizen of the town of Greece and you come to a town meeting to talk about some zoning issue for your pool or something. Are you not going to feel a little bit disenfranchised following that opening? hobbesmaster posted:Basically they grabbed the list from the local chamber of congress which only contained christian churches, emailed them all and whoever replied was put on a list to be invited back later if they like. They didn't put any effort into reaching out to new people until they were sued. It seems more like they half assed it. I don't have the time to read the opinion, so I read SCOTUSBlog instead: SCOTUSBlog posted:Treating the Kennedy opinion as controlling, because it spoke to a middle-ground approach between blocs of Justices who wanted to go further in one direction or the opposite, this is the constitutional prescription it provided for legislative prayers: SCOTUSBlog also talks about the death of the "endorsement" paradigm and how this opinion heralds an embrace of the "coercion" test. I have less of an opinion on that, mainly because they're probably not exactly mutually exclusive (e.g., a sufficient amount of government "endorsement" begins to look like "coercion").
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This is wholly consistent with the Roberts Court's theory of safeguards for minority rights, the well-known "tough titty" doctrine. We need to get our heads together and make Tough Titties, inc v. ACLU a reality. bThen we can call the resulting common law application the "tough titty test". Green Crayons posted:Citizen of Faith A is going to feel disenfranchised because a speaker before a town meeting talks about Faith B? The SC ruled this way despite knowing that in practice, prayers aren't going to be remotely evenly distributed, open to everyone, or free of disparaging language. It's impossible to create a standard of behavior for legislative prayer that won't function as an endorsement of majoritarian religious beliefs- which is why a ban on the practice makes so much more sense than this confusing, multipart result, which will be a nightmare to clarify and enforce. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Citizen of Faith A is going to feel disenfranchised because a speaker before a town meeting talks about Faith B? I'll let Justice Kagan respond for me: quote:You are a party in a case going [*32] to trial; let's say you have filed suit against the government for violating one of your legal rights. The judge bangs his gavel to call the court to order, asks a minister to come to the front of the room, and instructs the 10 or so individuals present to rise for an opening prayer. The clergyman faces those in attendance and says: "Lord, God of all creation, . . . . We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength . . . from his resurrection at Easter. Jesus Christ, who took away the sins of the world, destroyed our death, through his dying and in his rising, he has restored our life. Blessed are you, who has raised up the Lord Jesus, you who will raise us, in our turn, and put us by His side. . . . Amen." App. 88a-89a. The judge then asks your lawyer to begin the trial. The town was repeatedly and consistently and emphatically invoking a very specific religion before a town meeting where petitioners and town members were present. If I was a member of a different faith and a meeting where I had business opened this way, I would for sure feel uncomfortable. This is the distinction that's drawn between legislative prayer and town meetings. Ordinary citizens are almost never participating in congressional proceedings, but are frequently party to town meetings.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Its just clear that this ruling is just another way to force religion into the public sphere and side step the Constitution. And I'm mad about it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its just clear that this ruling is just another way to force religion into the public sphere and side step the Constitution. Don't get mad, hail Satan! http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-abcarian-scotus-20140505,0,7672361.column#ixzz30sc66Zym quote:Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan. I would pay to see this prayer before a town meeting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Don't get mad, hail Satan! You'll be pleased to hear those folks are working on something of a test case for you: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/satanic-temple-presses-baphomet-statue-despite-oklahoma-permit-halt-1447055
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Folderol posted:You'll be pleased to hear those folks are working on something of a test case for you: I can assure you that I am quite ecstatic over it. quote:The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair, where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation These people are loving artists.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I really dislike the idea of satanism type stuff as test cases because its just as silly and is swapping one silly thing for another. If they conflate atheism with satanism, they can just wave satanism in as a silly, but valid point of view and then say "what is the problem, we let EVERYONE in!" which isn't the point. The point is that no one should be "in"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Daremyth posted:I'll let Justice Kagan respond for me: Skimming Kagan's dissent, most (I think the licensing is an executive function, but I may be mistaken) of the activities going on strike me as legislative actions. So, no, nothing like a jury trial. Much more like a legislative session. Making a different set of standards for a professionalized class of legislators (Marsh) from a set of standards for citizens who engage in legislative functions (here) doesn't seem all desirable. quote:The town was repeatedly and consistently and emphatically invoking a very specific religion before a town meeting where petitioners and town members were present. If I was a member of a different faith and a meeting where I had business opened this way, I would for sure feel uncomfortable. This is the distinction that's drawn between legislative prayer and town meetings. Ordinary citizens are almost never participating in congressional proceedings, but are frequently party to town meetings. I see your distinction, and I raise you: it's one without a difference. Normal citizens and elected representatives should play by the same rules in legislative settings. Jastiger posted:Its just clear that this ruling is just another way to force religion into the public sphere and side step the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:45
|
|