SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

thefncrow posted:

Yep, as mentioned, this is at least one of the conservatives trying to slow down the progress of SSM.

If any case gets past the circuit level with a ruling against SSM, that will certainly cause cert to be granted and you'll get a national decision. Until then, the court is going to deny cert to appeals of pro-SSM rulings until the conservative justices think they have a shot at a favorable ruling.

This is a weird theory. If it's a secret conservative ploy to deny cert to gay marriage cases then why would the 5 in favor of gay marriage also deny cert?

The answer is far more banal: the issue is already settled, the precedent is already set, the lower courts don't conflict, a new supreme case wouldn't change anything, so there's no reason for the case to be heard. The court has other matters to attend to, even for the majority.

# ? Oct 6, 2014 21:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:02

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

VitalSigns posted:

"Waxing my car isn't an integral and indispensable part of your job as a Warehouse Packing Technician so you don't get paid for it, but if you don't do it every Friday afer work, you're fired."

Or as the lawyers for Busk put it

quote:

He argued that under Integrity Staffing�s logic, if the company ordered an employee to mow the lawn outside the Amazon warehouse for 25 minutes after his 12-hour shift, the company would not have to pay for that work because it would not be considered �integral and indispensable� to his principal activity of tracking down goods ordered online.

Also what the gently caress

quote:

The Obama administration has filed a brief backing Integrity Staffing. Signed by lawyers from the Labor and Justice Departments, the administration�s brief said the Ninth Circuit�s focus on whether antitheft checks were done for the employer�s benefit was �an insufficient proxy for determining� whether they were integral and indispensable to a principal activity.

# ? Oct 6, 2014 22:00

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Stultus Maximus posted:

Or as the lawyers for Busk put it

Also what the gently caress

That says they don't like that reasoning, not the result.

# ? Oct 6, 2014 22:06

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

ShadowHawk posted:

This is a weird theory. If it's a secret conservative ploy to deny cert to gay marriage cases then why would the 5 in favor of gay marriage also deny cert?

The answer is far more banal: the issue is already settled, the precedent is already set, the lower courts don't conflict, a new supreme case wouldn't change anything, so there's no reason for the case to be heard. The court has other matters to attend to, even for the majority.

The Court grants cert for even seemingly settled issues if the case has significant value. Every circuit hasn't decided the issue. Plenty of states are still without gay marriage. SCOTUS taking the issue now would resolve that outstanding problem for those states, instead of their federal courts having to muddle through like the other lower courts up until this point.

Also, someone else said that the Court only grants cert to reverse a lower court decision. That's just plainly wrong.

I've already stated the plausible reasoning why 4 conservatives + Ginsburg + Breyer (or maybe even Kagan, she was in line with the standing punt in Hollingsworth) voted against cert.

# ? Oct 6, 2014 22:33

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

If Busk doesn't lose I'll be stunned. If he loses and it isn't 6-3 or worse I'd be surprised.

# ? Oct 6, 2014 22:38

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

NPR mentions a few other cases on the docket including:

one which may declare bans on elected judges taking ~~bribes~~ donations for their campaigns unconstitutional
a case about what sort of speech constitutes and actionable threat upon a person
a case that may allow companies to fire pregnant women who refuse to do "normal work" because of their pregnancies
and (heard today) whether the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to evidence acquired during a routine traffic stop undertaken by mistake.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 01:59

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

NPR mentions a few other cases on the docket including:

one which may declare bans on elected judges taking ~~bribes~~ donations for their campaigns unconstitutional

a case about what sort of speech constitutes and actionable threat upon a person

a case that may allow companies to fire pregnant women who refuse to do "normal work" because of their pregnancies

and (heard today) whether the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to evidence acquired during a routine traffic stop undertaken by mistake.

Yes
Ebonics
If you wanted to keep your job you should have kept your legs closed
No

:suicide:

# ? Oct 7, 2014 05:28

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

VideoTapir posted:

Yes
Ebonics
If you wanted to keep your job you should have kept your legs closed
No

Time to get my whiskeys and cokes ready.

:smithicide:

# ? Oct 7, 2014 11:18

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

ComradeCosmobot posted:

[*] and (heard today) whether the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to evidence acquired during a routine traffic stop undertaken by mistake.
[/list]

I actually am a bit hopeful about this one. Scalia is odious on just about any issue but he has been pretty good about illegal search.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 13:53

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Shifty Pony posted:

I actually am a bit hopeful about this one. Scalia is odious on just about any issue but he has been pretty good about illegal search.

Scalia is okay on search and seizure in general, but he doesn't think the exclusionary rule should exist and he signed on to the majority in the last good faith exception case. He isn't going to rule the way you want on this one.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 15:04

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

It's a case about whether a mistake of law can constitute a 4th Amendment violation, not the remedy question of whether the mistake of law gives rise to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

For some reason, oral argument was very much about what the case is not about (good faith/exclusionary rule, as opposed to a 4A violation).

Speculation is that SCOTUS may DIG the case, or gently caress up 4A law by mashing together the rights/remedy analysis, instead of just answering the pretty narrow question the case presents.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 15:07

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

thefncrow posted:

Yep, as mentioned, this is at least one of the conservatives trying to slow down the progress of SSM.

If any case gets past the circuit level with a ruling against SSM, that will certainly cause cert to be granted and you'll get a national decision. Until then, the court is going to deny cert to appeals of pro-SSM rulings until the conservative justices think they have a shot at a favorable ruling.

My money would be on Roberts. He cares about the legacy of The Roberts Court. If he thinks Kennedy would have affirmed, then it's better to stall a nation-wide ruling until it's happened state-by-state and people have gotten used to the idea.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 18:44

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

ComradeCosmobot posted:

[*] a case that may allow companies to fire pregnant women who refuse to do "normal work" because of their pregnancies

I can't imagine Congress not rectifying any damage SC may do here.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 20:35

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

euphronius posted:

I can't imagine Congress not rectifying any damage SC may do here.

Look at this guy who still thinks that Congress will act to stop dumb poo poo from happening.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:45

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

It's why I didn't worry about the VRA decision too much. Congress renewed the VRA by crushing bipartisan majorities under a Republican President just a few years ago, so they'll be able to get that pre-clearance formula fixed up in a jiffy, certainly before the midterms.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:10

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

eviltastic posted:

It's been great seeing progress elsewhere, but it's a whole different feeling when it hits people you know.

Yeah - I work with a guy who proposed to his now-fiancee (then boyfriend, obviously) a few months back and he's hoping Nebraska is going to be having its ban struck down soon. Looking forward to seeing that guy finally be able to marry, but it blows that it's going to be after places like Utah and Oklahoma.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:11

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

NPR mentions a few other cases on the docket including:

one which may declare bans on elected judges taking ~~bribes~~ donations for their campaigns unconstitutional

a case about what sort of speech constitutes and actionable threat upon a person

a case that may allow companies to fire pregnant women who refuse to do "normal work" because of their pregnancies

and (heard today) whether the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to evidence acquired during a routine traffic stop undertaken by mistake.

Looking forward to Roberts proudly ruling that it's unconstitutional to prohibit judges from taking donations because of course the judiciary should be the final say on policing the judiciary.

euphronius posted:

I can't imagine Congress not rectifying any damage SC may do here.

You're funny.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:17

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Evil Fluffy posted:

Looking forward to Roberts proudly ruling that it's unconstitutional to prohibit judges from taking donations because of course the judiciary should be the final say on policing the judiciary.

"It is quite clear", announced Chief Justice Roberts, reading his opinion from the bench, "that merely accepting a gift from one of the parties on a case wishing to exercise their free speech rights--,"
*brief pause as Roberts collects stacks of bills pushed across his table by plaintiff Williams-Yulee and her corporate donors*
"--does not constitute an inherent indication of a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Indeed, if a litigant wishes to exercise his right to speak in court by dumping bags of jewels across a judges desk--"
*longer pause until the tinkling of diamonds in front of Roberts subsides*
"--a government with the power to bar that could just as well muzzle that party entirely. A fair justice system depends on allowing the parties to have their say in court, in whatever form,--"
*pause for the delivery of gold ingots*
"--he may decide to express it. It is so ordered."

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'll be more shocked if they DON'T strike down those laws.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:55

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

ComradeCosmobot posted:

NPR mentions a few other cases on the docket including:

a case about what sort of speech constitutes and actionable threat upon a person

The defendant is gonna win that case. Roberts and the gang love their bizarre libertarian interpretation of the First Amendment and when weighing that against women fearing for their lives which do you think is going to win. There are good amicus briefs in that one tho

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:16

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

FlamingLiberal posted:

I'll be more shocked if they DON'T strike down those laws.

It's a given that Roberts is a vote to do exactly that. Money is ~~power~~ speech and bribery is just how rich people communicate and exercise their First Amendment rights. :patriot:

# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:45

Nemo2342: Nov 26, 2007; Have A Day; Nap Ghost

Fried Chicken posted:

Well there are more states, but those were the ones petitioning the court

Oral arguments in Hamby v. Parnell challenging Alaska's ban on same-sex marriages are set to start Friday. Since the 9th circuit just struck down bans in Nevada and Idaho, the only real question here is how much money Alaska is going to waste fighting a foregone conclusion.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 07:35

Timby: Dec 23, 2006; Your mother!

The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

What happens now, given that we're three and a half weeks from the election?

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:37

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Timby posted:

The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

What happens now, given that we're three and a half weeks from the election?

Presumably they use whatever previous voter id law was in effect.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:42

Pascallion: Sep 15, 2003; Man, what the fuck, man?

Timby posted:

The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

What happens now, given that we're three and a half weeks from the election?

Liberals rejoice as the home of Bob LaFollette continues to get dragged unwillingly back from the abyss?

# ? Oct 10, 2014 05:03

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Timby posted:

The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

What happens now, given that we're three and a half weeks from the election?

Roberts: Not The Worst.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 06:08

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Timby posted:

The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

What happens now, given that we're three and a half weeks from the election?

Right wing groups will 'accidentally' send out mailers informing people in Democrat-heavy areas that if they don't have ID they can't vote. Hasn't photo ID been upheld by the SCOTUS before though? I haven't read through the decision yet but is the fact that the law simply can't be properly implemented in time a big reason why it lost with only the three primevals dissenting? If photo ID voting laws end up getting struck down by 6, or even 5, justice majorities when the law doesn't fall over itself to ensure every last person can get ID easily and freely that'll be nice if it can help stem the upcoming Dem losses and help against the GOP in 2016.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 06:22

lifg: Dec 4, 2000; <this tag left blank>; Muldoon

There's nothing to read, it's a two paragraph decision. Here's the meat of it.

quote:

The application to vacate the September 12, 2014 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted and the Seventh Circuit�s stay of the district court�s permanent injunction is vacated pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari respecting case Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically.

I don't really understand it. It sounds like a temporary order until a proper decision can be made.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 07:36

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

lifg posted:

There's nothing to read, it's a two paragraph decision. Here's the meat of it.

I don't really understand it. It sounds like a temporary order until a proper decision can be made.

The 7th circuit basically ruled with only two months to the election that they could enact the law posthaste, loving anyone who hadn't gone to get an ID yet and couldn't make time before the election. That's too distasteful even for Roberts.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 07:40

scaevola: Jan 25, 2011

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Roberts: Not The Worst.

Unless I'm mistaken, this only means Roberts didn't join the published dissent. It says nothing about how he actually voted on the issue.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 08:46

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

The 7th circuit basically ruled with only two months to the election that they could enact the law posthaste, loving anyone who hadn't gone to get an ID yet and couldn't make time before the election. That's too distasteful even for Roberts.

On the other hand, they also blocked the injuction in NC that stops the Board of Elections from implementing our new voter ID law as well. So instead of taking effect in 2016 like previously told to us, this election is when we now how shorter early-elections, no one-stop registration/voting, and no cross-precinct voting. Just a month before the election :suicide:

The Voter ID still doesn't take effect until 2016, but what do you want to guess that the giant signs that say YOU NEED THIS ID TO VOTE IN 2016 _{(stupid poors)} will turn away a bunch of voters this year, too, because the election judges are either incompetent or too racist to correct folks?

# ? Oct 10, 2014 11:25

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

A potential reason why Roberts signed onto the order in Wisconsin:

Richard Hasen, in a Slate article posted:

But there is a consistent theme in the court�s actions, which we can call the �Purcell principle� after the 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez: Lower courts should be very reluctant to change the rules just before an election, because of the risk of voter confusion and chaos for election officials.

. . . .

While I am not sure how the Purcell principle should be applied to the case of Texas, I have a good sense how it will be resolved, either by an appeals court or the Supreme Court: I expect it will be resolved to let Texas use its ID law during the upcoming election.

My prediction is based on the same thing I used to predict that the trial judge would strike down Texas� law: the ideology of the judge and the political party of the president nominating the judge.

It is sad in 2014 that this is a great predictor of how courts have decided these cases. But at least in the cases of North Carolina and Wisconsin, politics did not always predict Supreme Court justices� decisions. Two Democrat-appointed justices (Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan) voted to stop the last-minute expansion of voting rights in North Carolina, and two Republican appointees (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy) voted to stop the last-minute implementation of voter ID in Wisconsin.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with how close to election the decision is.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 14:50

JTDistortion: Mar 28, 2010

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

The 7th circuit basically ruled with only two months to the election that they could enact the law posthaste, loving anyone who hadn't gone to get an ID yet and couldn't make time before the election. That's too distasteful even for Roberts.

It was worse than you think. The ruling actually came out after Wisconsin had begun sending out absentee ballots, so they were trying to force a huge change to election rules after the election had already begun.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:22

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Green Crayons posted:

A potential reason why Roberts signed onto the order in Wisconsin:

In other words, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with how close to election the decision is.

That was pretty obvious to everyone. The supremes basically told the 7th circuit "Are you crazy, you can't just change the rules two months out?" It wasn't a stay based on the merits of the case, it was a stay in response to irresponsible behavior by the lower court.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:22

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

I don't know anything about election law.

But I did see some comments in the thread talking about how Roberts must not be All That Bad based off of his lack of joining the dissent to the order, and I also saw that this article suggesting that Roberts' lack of a dissent probably has nothing to do with the actual merits of things -- and so he's probably still as bad as some of the posters don't think he is. So I thought I'd share.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:40

tetrapyloctomy: Feb 18, 2003; Okay -- you talk WAY too fast.; Nap Ghost

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

The supremes basically told the 7th circuit "Are you crazy, you can't just change the rules two months out?"

The image this evokes is fantastic.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:45

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

tetrapyloctomy posted:

The image this evokes is fantastic.

Changing the rules close to an election?

That's the image that evoked for me.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:12

Communist Zombie: Nov 1, 2011

So while looking up something on the amendments and found this interesting clause in the 14th

14th Amendment posted:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Why hasnt this been used ever? Disenfranchise blacks? Fine, you lose at least one representative and its vote in the EC.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 19:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Communist Zombie posted:

So while looking up something on the amendments and found this interesting clause in the 14th

Why hasnt this been used ever? Disenfranchise blacks? Fine, you lose at least one representative and its vote in the EC.

It's been used at least once, and the judge said the number of representatives a state has is a political question, and ruling on it would be real messy.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/152/235/1486629/
Summary is that some guy tried to run for representative at large in Virginia, on the basis that their poll tax disenfranchised 60% of the voting population, so they should only have 4 reps instead of 9, and because they should only have 4, the district lines that they drew are invalid, and all 4 seats should be voted on at large.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 19:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:02

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Laws that deny the right to vote don't get passed. That's why they pass laws that don't stop you from voting if you follow the (intentionally difficult to follow) rules.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 19:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »