|
KernelSlanders posted:I think those NYT cases are quite different from each other, and both very different from the Boy Scout case. Libel damages and criminal prior restraints are different beasts entirely. There was no issue of truth in NYT v US, and in fact if what the NYT wanted to report had been false that would have made the US' case weaker, not stronger. At any rate, what the government can prevent you from saying, and what responsibility you have to third parties for reckless speech are very different beasts, at least in my opinion. If we had criminal libel statutes in the U.S., that would close the gap considerably, but we don't. We do have criminal libel statutes. The cert question in Driehaus is about procedural issues, but the underlying case was Rep. Driehaus' complaint with Ohio about SBAL's statements. Going back to Dale, my thoughts are that if the antidiscrimination law had a provision allowing the state to bring civil suits, similar to civil regulatory actions, it would still be fundamentally the same case with the same analysis. In any event this is pretty far off the original point, I just wanted to point out decisions (that I agree with) striking down either laws or government actions 
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Thomas is a bad example to use, because he is arguably one of the most idiosyncratic Justices in Supreme Court history. Thomas' radical brand of originalism and one-man crusade to make something out of the privileges or immunities clause makes his decisions pretty unpredictable
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:His tendency to sleep through court and going years on the bench without asking a single question also make his decisions pretty unpredictable! It turns out, being unpredictable isn't a good thing You are aware that the SCOTUS considers more than oral arguments when making its decisions, right?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Holy crap I new there was still some crazy statutes on the books, but I didn't think it was ever enforced. At any rate, I know you were just listing cases you agreed/disagreed with, Boy Scouts just jumped out at me as an outlier.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
That is a very interesting opinion by Thomas regarding P&I and it seems quite strange that it opens a window for him to pick and choose which rights are and are not protected under the Constitution. It seems it allows him to reject pretty much anything written after 1800 on the grounds that it isn't in the Constitution, so it is up to his interpretation. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I wonder what part of Thomas' oh-so-unique-and-distinctive form of jurisprudence led him to officiate at Rush Limbaugh's private wedding.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Holy crap I new there was still some crazy statutes on the books, but I didn't think it was ever enforced. I sleep well knowing that my virtue and chastity is protected from my frat bro neighbors  Jastiger posted:That is a very interesting opinion by Thomas regarding P&I and it seems quite strange that it opens a window for him to pick and choose which rights are and are not protected under the Constitution. It seems it allows him to reject pretty much anything written after 1800 on the grounds that it isn't in the Constitution, so it is up to his interpretation. No, he's writing against the current doctrine of selective incorporation. In the bizzaro-world where Slaughter-House was overturned, the entire Bill of Rights would apply to the states. Thomas does have some other weird views though like believing the Establishment Clause is solely a federalism provision and shouldn't be incorporated.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I sleep well knowing that my virtue and chastity is protected from my frat bro neighbors Don't most people agree at this point that Slaughter house was incorrectly decided though? It's just a crazy idea to overturn 150 years of selective incorporation jurisprudence at this point as a practical matter. What hasn't been incorporated at this point? Civil jury trials and grand jury indictments is all I can think of, which is kind of strange since those both actually are due process issues.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Speaking of the bill of rights, when's the next time we're supposed to hear about that third amendment case that was in the news last year?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Don't most people agree at this point that Slaughter house was incorrectly decided though? It's just a crazy idea to overturn 150 years of selective incorporation jurisprudence at this point as a practical matter. What hasn't been incorporated at this point? Civil jury trials and grand jury indictments is all I can think of, which is kind of strange since those both actually are due process issues. Also the 3rd, the Vicinage Clause, and excessive fines. I don't know what else it would mean except maybe Thomas wants to expand economic liberties like the "right to practice a trade" advocated for in Slaughter-House.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:You are aware that the SCOTUS considers more than oral arguments when making its decisions, right?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Speaking of the bill of rights, when's the next time we're supposed to hear about that third amendment case that was in the news last year? Oh boy, a third amendment case! It's like constitutional Christmas. There must be some super dusty books in the Supreme Court library that get dusted off for a case like this.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Speaking of the bill of rights, when's the next time we're supposed to hear about that third amendment case that was in the news last year? I lost my old hobby Pacer account, so I just signed up for a new one. I'll pull the docket when it gets processed unless someone else with one wants to do it sooner.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Yes. And? It's not like ignoring/sleeping through them makes for better jurisprudence. It certainly doesn't make for worse.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I lost my old hobby Pacer account, so I just signed up for a new one. I'll pull the docket when it gets processed unless someone else with one wants to do it sooner. I just ran it, the latest docket and some of the filings are on RECAP. The last thing that happened was in March when discovery was stayed pending the defendants giant motion to dismiss. Here's the MTD: http://ia601809.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.95379/gov.uscourts.nvd.95379.17.0.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Yes. And? It's not like ignoring/sleeping through them makes for better jurisprudence. What Thomas opinions do you think are inconsistent?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Don't most people agree at this point that Slaughter house was incorrectly decided though? It's just a crazy idea to overturn 150 years of selective incorporation jurisprudence at this point as a practical matter. What hasn't been incorporated at this point? Civil jury trials and grand jury indictments is all I can think of, which is kind of strange since those both actually are due process issues. Thomas essentially doesn't believe in stare decisis. Basically the sensible thing would be for all of the incorporation to have occured under the P&I clause and it would make the jurisprudence make much more sense. However the end result is pretty much the same so we leave it be - but Thomas doesn't really care for stare decisis or "well that decision would lead to insane results so it's wrong".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Thomas essentially doesn't believe in stare decisis. What are the feared insane results of reviving the P&I Clause?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:A third amendment case! It's like constitutional Christmas. I'd like to suggest this for thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:What are the feared insane results of reviving the P&I Clause? If you suddenly abolish substantive due process and declare the P&I clause has teeth again, you suddenly need to re-litigate every settled issue to see to what extent the P&I clause differs from the substantive due process incorporation doctrine. You get a storm of lawsuits until the contours are settled.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense. It has 3rd, 4th, and 14th amendment claims.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you suddenly abolish substantive due process and declare the P&I clause has teeth again, you suddenly need to re-litigate every settled issue to see to what extent the P&I clause differs from the substantive due process incorporation doctrine. You get a storm of lawsuits until the contours are settled. Remind me, could this hypothetically be headed off with a legislative patch that reapplies the content of substantive due process into P&I?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Remind me, could this hypothetically be headed off with a legislative patch that reapplies the content of substantive due process into P&I? If by legislative you mean amendment. Congress can't expand constitutional rights through legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Yes. And? It's not like ignoring/sleeping through them makes for better jurisprudence. Thomas actually pays attention - he frequently discusses issues with Breyer and it's not infrequent to hear a Thomas-esque question come out right after one of those discussions. Don't mistake not asking questions for not paying attention. Thomas doesn't think oral arguments are particularly worthwhile, but he does pay attention.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Thomas actually pays attention - he frequently discusses issues with Breyer and it's not infrequent to hear a Thomas-esque question come out right after one of those discussions. I think the jokes about Thomas being narcoleptic all come from him falling asleep at Obama's second inauguration. Which I can't really judge him for, I've dozed off about 15 feet away from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. edit: Oh haha, never mind then. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 01:23 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Thomas actually pays attention - he frequently discusses issues with Breyer and it's not infrequent to hear a Thomas-esque question come out right after one of those discussions. I have personally witnessed Thomas napping at oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Woah woah woah, oral arguments aren't just for Scalia to practice his jokes?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I have personally witnessed Thomas napping at oral arguments. Having witnessed an ERISA argument, I don't blame him at all.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I have personally witnessed Thomas napping at oral arguments. and now we know why there won't be any cameras
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
I was wrong to throw in Thomas with Scalia, but I still find his reasoning to be very...how do I want to put it...."reality be damned." I read some of his stuff and it seems that he thinks X should be X. Someone says "whoa hey there, X will allow Y to happen which we all know is unconstitutional!" and he'll say "yeah, maybe, but I'm only ruling on X so X is fine and you guys can deal with Y".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wonder what part of Thomas' oh-so-unique-and-distinctive form of jurisprudence led him to officiate at Rush Limbaugh's private wedding. His wife probably asked him nicely. Alternatively, there is no justice I trust more to make a distinction between his goofy rear end personal opinions and his far goofier rear end jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Isn't Thomas a recreational long-haul truck driver? He's not human.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Isn't Thomas a recreational long-haul truck driver? I thought he just had one of those big rear end coach conversions. Probably has some kind of commercial license for it. GreyjoyBastard posted:His wife probably asked him nicely. Alternatively, there is no justice I trust more to make a distinction between his goofy rear end personal opinions and his far goofier rear end jurisprudence. True enough, I think the Anita Hill hearings left him plumb without any fucks to give. It's probably not even a conflict of interest for conservatives to pay his wife, because he's so stubborn even money won't change his opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you suddenly abolish substantive due process and declare the P&I clause has teeth again, you suddenly need to re-litigate every settled issue to see to what extent the P&I clause differs from the substantive due process incorporation doctrine. You get a storm of lawsuits until the contours are settled. I didn't realize reviving the P&I Clause required abolishing substantive due process. If the Court created SDP after it neutered the P&I Clause, why would reviving the P&I Clause require then overruling the substantive right jurisprudence based in the Due Process Clause?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I thought he just had one of those big rear end coach conversions. Probably has some kind of commercial license for it. If I remember right, he has a big rear end converted bus that he and his wife go on vacations in every summer. It's kind of a nice image, a Supreme Court justice and his wife just packing up and driving the gently caress around the country for their vacation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
It'd probably be good to check the amici and attorneys involved- it might be a political test case for some weird antistate thing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:This was also my first thought. Are police officers setting up for a "tactical advantage" really equivalent to troops demanding housing under the 3rd? It's not like there's a well-developed 3rd Amendment jurisprudence to use as a guide. Which is obviously an unconscionable oversight in American law, so he's trying to create some jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense. Being one of the like three cases ever that rule on the Third is a great way to get your name into a conlaw textbook.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:31
|
|