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 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

McAlister posted:

It didn't deal with maternal safety at all so how would it overturn that aspect of roe? Which again, it explicitly affirmed in the section where it noted that medical advances had shifted the windows but the logic behind them remained sound.

The issue in Casey as I understand it is that it lowered the standard from heightened scrutiny to undue burden. So rather than being able to show there exists a less restrictive means of accomplishing the stated goal of the legislation, now it doesn't matter if there's a less burdensome way to do it because you have to convince the judge that the law has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus" (hope your judge doesn't think no burden is too substantial for a crafty slut like yourself and that the AMA is staffed with fetus-gobbling liberals!)

# ? Oct 16, 2014 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:16

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Obdicut posted:

This has gotten incredibly boring, and you're not showing any signs of even attempting to understand anyone else's position, so I'm going to stop talking to you about it.

My what a flouncy dress you have on.

I look forward to your book, Vox.

# ? Oct 16, 2014 23:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

My what a flouncy dress you have on.

I look forward to your book, Vox.

This will be a chapter. I may hit you up for the acknowledgements.

# ? Oct 17, 2014 00:07

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Discendo Vox posted:

This will be a chapter. I may hit you up for the acknowledgements.

Outstanding.

# ? Oct 17, 2014 00:17

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Oh, you changed my avatar. How edgy of you.

# ? Oct 17, 2014 12:16

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

The Nazi reference is a nice touch.

This is only partially related to SCOTUS -- in the sense that there were a few SCOTUS cases in the past 10 years about GITMO (about habeas proceedings, though, if my memory serves me correctly), and it's entirely possible that we'll get one more within the next 10 years -- but I also think it's a pretty fascinating look into the military tribunal process going on at Guantanamo Bay:

The New Jurist posted:

This was the knowledge that I was armed with when I landed in Cuba, and I started to wonder, how, five years after he had been captured, with this much evidence, and a defense that is more fit for a comedy than the serious charges leveled against him, are we not even at trial. I was merely observing pre-trial proceedings, and it was October 2012! As I attended one hearing after another I watched as simple issues that state and federal courts often resolve in a matter of minutes languished without resolution.

....

The issue surrounding his absence is what lawyers call KVI � was al Nashiri�s waiver of his right to attend these proceedings Knowing, Voluntary and Intelligent. The prosecution feared that if al Nashiri did not periodically make the KVI waiver in open court, then they could face an appellate challenge, forcing them to start the whole thing from scratch.

The debate took hours. Court decisions from multiple jurisdictions were cited. As I told one of the defense attorneys later, this issue would have lasted ten minutes in a civilian court. He politely disagreed: �five minutes.� Even the Judge got tired of it, stating at one point, �We probably could have done this much faster.� Ultimately, the Court ruled that al Nashiri must attend. We adjourned and waited for his arrival.

Finally, he was there. With plenty of time to plan his soliloquy, I was expecting something worth printing � and al Nashiri didn�t disappoint: �I thank you for letting me talk. I have been, for the last ten years, with nobody to hear what I have to say. Ten years.� He was on the verge of tears. I knew this was going to be good.�But if you order the guards to bring me a bad chair, when I�m sitting in an uncomfortable place, I have the right to leave this court. You have to provide me with a comfortable chair where I can sit down comfortably.� Al Nashiri also didn�t like his ride: �I need a more comfortable vehicle to bring me here.� One of the victim�s family members in the viewing room shouted �This is comedy hour!�

But al Nashiri�s statement threw a wrench into the proceedings because the waiver was not Voluntary, and this triggered more debate about whether to force him to attend. In February 2013, four months after this issue arose, they were still debating it, and as the Judge noted, �we�re kind of going around in circles here.�

The defense also revisited al Nashiri�s ride in February: �During the transportation, apparently Mr. al Nashiri received some injuries to his wrist�He identified some red marks� He did seek medical attention. A corpsman did see him.� This is indeed comedy hour.

....

The irony of this slow process is that some had the idea that a military tribunal would be faster and tougher, the sort of justice any enraged citizen might call for or that�s consistent with Churchill�s famous admonition of �try them today, shoot them tomorrow.� But this is slow justice, and to those who think the justice is inadequate, the prosecutor has something to say to you: �First of all, those who think that this Commission is expedient and secret justice, quite frankly, are just not paying attention and they are certainly not devoting serious thought to what happens inside this courtroom.�

....

One of the good things about the process is the lawyers. They are articulate, well-prepared and smart. There is also no love lost between them, a good ingredient for the adversarial process. In one instance, the defense attorney contested the prosecution�s motion to force al Nashiri to attend the hearings, bellowing �We need an actor for the theatre here!� After the defense expressed concern that the microphones on their table were listening devices, forcing them to scurry to the corner to whisper, the prosecution invoked the same metaphor: �and I�ll note for the record that we have some theatrics going on here as counsel parade, you know, over to the corner of the room.�

Theatre, parade, whatever, there is also no love lost between the defense and the Commission, the entity that produces the show. As we were leaving Cuba and Hurricane Sandy � which tracked me down in New York after I got home � one of the Commission�s officers told me that it was simply outrageous that al Nashiri�s civilian defense counsel was paid the unholy sum of $150 per hour. This was simply too good a fact not to share with that lawyer, who quickly corrected the number: �actually, it�s $145.� Whenever I tell that to New York City lawyers � some of whom charge in excess of $1,000 per hour � I always get a good laugh. The defense doesn�t like the Convening Authority either. When arguing against allowing it to select the medical personnel to determine al Nashiri�s competence, counsel did not mince words: �how can I say this delicately � I don�t have a lot of confidence in the Convening Authority or the quality of the people he might appoint.� In state and federal courts across the country routine disputes are often quickly resolved because there is a history of how to deal with them. The Court in Guantanamo, however, has virtually no history, and that slows things down.

In addition, it became clear to me that the Judge was focused on creating a full record for the appellate court, and likely the Supreme Court, which will probably be the ultimate arbiter of al Nashiri�s fate. Indeed, the Defense has already telegraphed its intent to appeal: �Putting a person on trial for a death penalty offense, subjecting him to the pressures and drama of a death penalty case that is almost certain to be reversed at some point in the future is akin to a second mock execution.� The defense invoked history too: �But, you know, some of what we are doing is for the historical record�. But 25 years from now, probably after I�m long gone, perhaps maybe they will hide it long enough until after we are all long gone, somebody is going to look at this. They are going to say what was the real truth here. The real truth here, [redacted for 2 pages].� The real truth may be redacted in two pages, but what I saw is that the law creating the terror trials is a mess, and the travel back and forth to Cuba has slowed these proceedings to a snail�s pace.

# ? Oct 17, 2014 13:37

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Green Crayons posted:

The Nazi reference is a nice touch.

This is only partially related to SCOTUS -- in the sense that there were a few SCOTUS cases in the past 10 years about GITMO (about habeas proceedings, though, if my memory serves me correctly), and it's entirely possible that we'll get one more within the next 10 years -- but I also think it's a pretty fascinating look into the military tribunal process going on at Guantanamo Bay:

Ten years ago I would have been completely in favor of the tribunals in theory. However, having seen the way in which they've been carried out, I say scrap the whole mess and turn the cases over to the US Attorney's Office. Expand MEJA, or other applicable law, as needed (and since that would be a procedural, not a substantive change, you could probably get away with it retroactively) to keep the location in Cuba if there are legit security concerns, but the Commissions are a joke. Use regular federal rules of trial or use nothing at all.

there was an issue a while back where GITMO was seizing correspondence between defendants and their lawyers...the reason given by one of the prosecutors was that contraband had gotten into the prison. Later the Commanding Officer of GITMO said that didn't happen. Other issues with attorney meeting rooms being bugged etc. I want to see these assholes punished as much as anyone, but the way it's being done is making a mockery of our justice system.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140472/guantanamo-detainees-did-not-see.html

Incidentally...I know some of the players involved in this particular case. One of them is one of only a very small handful of attorneys I would not hesitate to call unethical.

As to the theatrics re: the potentially bugged microphones...maybe they wouldn't think they were bugged if...THEY HADNT BEEN BUGGED BEFORE

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/21/listening

ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Oct 17, 2014

# ? Oct 17, 2014 14:13

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Is there a simple explanation of what's different between the Wisconsin and Texas voter ID decisions?

# ? Oct 18, 2014 14:59

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Bubbacub posted:

Is there a simple explanation of what's different between the Wisconsin and Texas voter ID decisions?

I've been parsing the decisions this morning and honestly, Wisconsin is less restrictive than Texas and there's no facially obvious reason that I can discern on the mechanics of the laws themselves why you would allow Texas's but strike down Wisconsin's from a restrictiveness standpoint.

(Parsing the decisions, of course, means looking at the statutes since the Supreme Court issued an order at 5 in the loving morning and it had no reasoning.)

ActusRhesus posted:

Ten years ago I would have been completely in favor of the tribunals in theory. However, having seen the way in which they've been carried out, I say scrap the whole mess and turn the cases over to the US Attorney's Office. Expand MEJA, or other applicable law, as needed (and since that would be a procedural, not a substantive change, you could probably get away with it retroactively) to keep the location in Cuba if there are legit security concerns, but the Commissions are a joke. Use regular federal rules of trial or use nothing at all.

there was an issue a while back where GITMO was seizing correspondence between defendants and their lawyers...the reason given by one of the prosecutors was that contraband had gotten into the prison. Later the Commanding Officer of GITMO said that didn't happen. Other issues with attorney meeting rooms being bugged etc. I want to see these assholes punished as much as anyone, but the way it's being done is making a mockery of our justice system.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140472/guantanamo-detainees-did-not-see.html

Incidentally...I know some of the players involved in this particular case. One of them is one of only a very small handful of attorneys I would not hesitate to call unethical.

As to the theatrics re: the potentially bugged microphones...maybe they wouldn't think they were bugged if...THEY HADNT BEEN BUGGED BEFORE

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/21/listening

You may have already seen them, but if you haven't you should also check out the suits relating to NSA surveillance that implicate attorney-client communications, the facts in the briefs illustrate that Gitmo is less an edge case and more of a testing ground.

The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Oct 18, 2014

# ? Oct 18, 2014 15:07

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

The Warszawa posted:

I've been parsing the decisions this morning and honestly, Wisconsin is less restrictive than Texas and there's no facially obvious reason that I can discern on the mechanics of the laws themselves why you would allow Texas's but strike down Wisconsin's from a restrictiveness standpoint.

(Parsing the decisions, of course, means looking at the statutes since the Supreme Court issued an order at 5 in the loving morning and it had no reasoning.)

You may have already seen them, but if you haven't you should also check out the suits relating to NSA surveillance that implicate attorney-client communications, the facts in the briefs illustrate that Gitmo is less an edge case and more of a testing ground.

I figure the issue at hand is Texas' passed it's law the moment the VRA was gutted whereas others were passed right before elections. It's completely hosed either way.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 15:28

On Terra Firma: Feb 12, 2008

All that concern trolling and this wasn't brought up....?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/u...cmlukp=WT.mc_id

# ? Oct 18, 2014 15:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Can someone remind me how common these no opinion decisions are? I recall a similar problem occurred earlier this year, and that I speculated about problems in the structure or workflow for publication at the court.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 16:15

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Discendo Vox posted:

Can someone remind me how common these no opinion decisions are? I recall a similar problem occurred earlier this year, and that I speculated about problems in the structure or workflow for publication at the court.

Depends on the court, depends on the issue...and are we including "unpublished this serves as no precedent so pay no attention to the last 5 pages we just wrote" or just "Affirmed. gently caress off." type opinions?

# ? Oct 18, 2014 16:29

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

VitalSigns posted:

The issue in Casey as I understand it is that it lowered the standard from heightened scrutiny to undue burden.

It changed it from heightened scrutiny to undue burden when your motive is to advance the interests if the fetus. The big change was going from not being able to state fetal interest as a motive at all prior to viability to saying you could but you had to hold the woman's interests as the more important.

If you claim your motive to be women's health then Casey refers to Roe and roe says, you can only do something if the alternative is more dangerous than pregnancy itself.

Which is something anyone actually interest in her wellbeing would do anyway so it's not like that statement is some twisted bizarre technicality.

Now kicking it out because their stated motive doesn't allow it when we know their stated motive is a lie and they are actually motivated by fetal interests rather than maternal safety is nitpicky rules lawyering - but what better place for it?

# ? Oct 18, 2014 16:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

Depends on the court, depends on the issue...and are we including "unpublished this serves as no precedent so pay no attention to the last 5 pages we just wrote" or just "Affirmed. gently caress off." type opinions?

SCOTUS, all issues, the former and not the latter. The fact it's unsigned is particularly strange to me.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 16:47

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

having trouble finding the SCOTUS stats offhand, (my master plan of typing "unpublished" into westlaw was not as successful as I had hoped) but apparently as of 2004, some 80% of us court of appeals decisions were unpublished with the 4th circuit blowing the curve at 92. I love me some Wikipedia.

Also...note to self...become circuit judge in the 4th circuit because apparently they don't actually do anything.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 17:44

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

On Terra Firma posted:

All that concern trolling and this wasn't brought up....?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/u...cmlukp=WT.mc_id

Yet another day in wishing for Scalia and co to suffer unspeakably painful deaths.

e: Congrats Texas GOP on ensuring the state remains red for an extra decade?

Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 18, 2014

# ? Oct 18, 2014 17:53

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

It makes me glad that Scalia has to see state after state legalize marriage equality with judges citing his words in the ruling. I hope it makes him feel even more miserable than he already is.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 18:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Chris James 2 posted:

It makes me glad that Scalia has to see state after state legalize marriage equality with judges citing his words in the ruling. I hope it makes him feel even more miserable than he already is.

Scalia is the problem only from a legal culture standpoint- basically being that people think he's particularly important or significant. Scalia is a distraction. Roberts and Alito are the dangers on the court from the direction of actual case outcomes.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 18, 2014

# ? Oct 18, 2014 19:23

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

Legalistic thinking at the expense of empathy is a blight on the human race. Also, Amergin alt. Calling it now.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 19:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Who is?

# ? Oct 18, 2014 19:46

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

An Angry Bug posted:

Legalistic thinking at the expense of empathy is a blight on the human race.

Seems to have worked for Judge Dredd. :v:

Discendo Vox posted:

Who is?

Presumably ActusRhesus.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 19:46

Gorilla Desperado: Oct 9, 2012

Discendo Vox posted:

Scalia is the problem only from a legal culture standpoint- basically being that people think he's particularly important or significant. Scalia is a distraction. Roberts and Alito are the actual dangers on the court from the direction of actual case outcomes.

On this you're exactly right. Just hypothetically speaking, if you (general you) could remove one of the 5 right-wingers on the SC, who'd you pick? My list would have Alito at the top, with Thomas 2nd, Roberts 3rd and Scalia and Kennedy tied for 4th/5th.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 19:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gorilla Desperado posted:

On this you're exactly right. Just hypothetically speaking, if you (general you) could remove one of the 5 right-wingers on the SC, who'd you pick? My list would have Alito at the top, with Thomas 2nd, Roberts 3rd and Scalia and Kennedy tied for 4th/5th.

Depends on who the president and senate are- if both are democratic, Roberts. Otherwise, Alito- I'm very concerned by a libertarian streak in his reasoning.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 20:24

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

McAlister posted:

It changed it from heightened scrutiny to undue burden when your motive is to advance the interests if the fetus. The big change was going from not being able to state fetal interest as a motive at all prior to viability to saying you could but you had to hold the woman's interests as the more important.

If you claim your motive to be women's health then Casey refers to Roe and roe says, you can only do something if the alternative is more dangerous than pregnancy itself.

Planned Parenthood made this argument as well, but the Fifth Circuit did not agree.

US 5th Circuit, Planned Parenthood v Abbott posted:

Planned Parenthood urges a stricter standard of review for the state�s admitting�privileges regulation than Casey�s undue burden standard because this regulation allegedly protects only the mother�s health rather than fetal life. Appellees cite City of Akron v. Akron to support their position. This argument is wrong on several grounds. First, no such bifurcation has been recognized by the Supreme Court.
Second, Akron�s application of strict scrutiny was replaced by Casey�s undue burden balancing test. Third, Planned Parenthood�s proposed
standard was not applied even by the district court in this case, nor do appellees cite a single Supreme Court or lower court opinion that has attempted to modify Casey in the way they propose. Fourth, the state�s regulatory interest cannot be bifurcated simply between mothers� and children�s health; every limit on abortion that furthers a mother�s health also protects any existing children and her future ability to bear children even if it facilitates a particular abortion (). In sum, the governing test articulated by Casey applies here, and the fundamental question is whether Planned Parenthood has met its burden to prove that the admitting privileges regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman�s ability to choose an abortion; only in that situation does the state abridge �the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.� Casey, 505 U.S. at 874

You're nothing but a baby-incubator so anything that protects the health of the hatchery also protects every zygote you might ever have in your lady-places (and let's be honest, that's obviously going to be quite a lot you whore)

McAlister posted:

Which is something anyone actually interest in her wellbeing would do anyway so it's not like that statement is some twisted bizarre technicality.

Now kicking it out because their stated motive doesn't allow it when we know their stated motive is a lie and they are actually motivated by fetal interests rather than maternal safety is nitpicky rules lawyering - but what better place for it?

See it's this kind of assumption of bad faith on the part of people trying to make admitting privileges both mandatory and impossible that's poisoning the national debate, McAlister :mad:

Thanks a lot.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Oct 18, 2014

# ? Oct 18, 2014 20:39

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

Discendo Vox posted:

Otherwise, Alito- I'm very concerned by a libertarian streak in his reasoning.

Which decisions? He was the lone dissenter in United States v. Stevens, after all.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 22:03

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Gorilla Desperado posted:

On this you're exactly right. Just hypothetically speaking, if you (general you) could remove one of the 5 right-wingers on the SC, who'd you pick? My list would have Alito at the top, with Thomas 2nd, Roberts 3rd and Scalia and Kennedy tied for 4th/5th.

From a pure stickin' it to 'em standpoint, I'd think Kennedy would be the number one justice to replace with a liberal. You'd want Roberts, Alito, and Scalia to be forced to watch as every decision causes the right to bloviate about the destruction of America. Stuck there at ground zero as every decision goes against them. Thomas is used to everyone disagreeing with him and seems to at least follow his weird belief in the world as it was no matter where that takes him, unlike the other conservatives. So I guess he'd be 2nd, followed by Alito, then Roberts, and finally Scalia.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 22:15

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

Alito's the last one I'd want replaced for that exact reason. Replace Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and watch Alito freak the gently caress out as he's constantly the lone dissenter in 8-1 decisions and see how long it takes for his mind to shatter and he ends up in a corner babbling and eating his own poo poo.

# ? Oct 18, 2014 22:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's worth noting that Scalia has seniority- If Roberts is removed, it would result in Scalia operating as chief justice in the interim. Removing Scalia would put Kennedy in the hotseat, which would be potentially beneficial, but there are others I'd like off the bench first.

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Which decisions? He was the lone dissenter in United States v. Stevens, after all.

Cato lurves Alito. Of course, his positions aren't consistent- like any libertarian, they follow from his momentary moral intuitions. Alito is in some respects the worst possible combination of realism and conservatism as combined and embodied in the court.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Oct 20, 2014

# ? Oct 18, 2014 23:09

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

VitalSigns posted:

Planned Parenthood made this argument as well, but the Fifth Circuit did not agree.

You're nothing but a baby-incubator so anything that protects the health of the hatchery also protects every zygote you might ever have in your lady-places (and let's be honest, that's obviously going to be quite a lot you whore)

See it's this kind of assumption of bad faith on the part of people trying to make admitting privileges both mandatory and impossible that's poisoning the national debate, McAlister
Thanks a lot.

Holy poo poo.

What the gently caress?

Of course its possible to care about the woman's health without taking into account current or future children. Ignoring the whole "being a decent human being who acknowledges women are people" thing there are still situations where there are not and never will be children - ever.

Women with genetic defects who have made the conscious decision never to have children. Childless women on the cusp of menopause who won't have time to get pregnant again even if they wanted to. Women who went pre-eclampsic every time they had a wanted pregnancy and have realized that regardless of desire pregnancy is to lethal for them.

But regardless. If something is less dangerous than pregnancy then it is better for her current children and/or future wanted pregnancies to do that thing than to be pregnant.

Particularly in the case where she is low income with existing children (roughly two thirds of abortions). The simple act of being pregnant denies scarce financial and temporal resources from her existing children. It spikes expenses while reducing income. If you actually cared about her existing children you would facilitate access to abortion as much as possible so that they can get to do things like eat multiple times every day.

Texas, by the way, has rampant child poverty and food insecurity.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/03/report-texas-child-poverty-increases/

# ? Oct 18, 2014 23:15

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

e: misread, so this post was a dumb one.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 04:46

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Rygar201 posted:

Oh man, 200 hundred posts in the SCOTUS thread? John Roberts must have struck down disparate impact in housing! Sam Alito was finally caught murdering minorities at Princeton!

Oh, nope. Just pages and pages of concern trolling

Concern trolling: a made up term that means "I disagree with you but I'm too dumb to explain why".

# ? Oct 19, 2014 06:14

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Discendo Vox posted:

It's worth noting that Scalia has seniority- any justice removed other than Scalia would result in him operating as chief justice in the interim. Removing Scalia would put Kennedy in the hotseat, which would be potentially beneficial, but there are others I'd like off the bench first.

Scalia is actually not terrible on criminal law. I know people love to cite his terrible opinions on executing innocent people and he also hates miranda, but he's pretty good on search and seizure and other crim pro issues.
Gant (His concurrence was excellent), Kyllo, Melendez-Diaz, and Apprendi are the most sweeping and important cases of the 2000s and Scalia had is grubby hands all over them. Alito is always a poo poo head in crim stuff though so is Roberts.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 06:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

Scalia is actually not terrible on criminal law. I know people love to cite his terrible opinions on executing innocent people and he also hates miranda, but he's pretty good on search and seizure and other crim pro issues.
Gant (His concurrence was excellent), Kyllo, Melendez-Diaz, and Apprendi are the most sweeping and important cases of the 2000s and Scalia had is grubby hands all over them. Alito is always a poo poo head in crim stuff though so is Roberts.

My problem with Scalia isn't really with his opinions (though I disagree with them, and his terrible pseudophilosophy of textual originalism). It's that a number of law students, lawyers and laypersons think that the :smugdog:

form of his opinions is good legal practice.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 08:02

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Discendo Vox posted:

My problem with Scalia isn't really with his opinions (though I disagree with them, and his terrible pseudophilosophy of textual originalism). It's that a number of law students, lawyers and laypersons think that the form of his opinions is good legal practice.

It is if you want Scalia to agree with you.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 08:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

It is if you want Scalia to agree with you.

My suspicion is that Scalia only respects :smug:

from Scalia- or at least only when it will forward his aims.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 08:17

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Discendo Vox posted:

My suspicion is that Scalia only respects from Scalia- or at least only when it will forward his aims.

Your suspicion is correct. He spoke at a friend's law school. She asked him if in light of his philosophies on textual originalism, he thought Marbury v. Madison's position on judicial review was wrongly decided, and if so, should the Supreme Court just pack it up? :smugdog:

He was not amused.

I do enjoy reading his opinions though...just because he's such a dick...the back and forth concurrence/dissent/etc with Brennan were especially entertaining. But you're right...people, new lawyers in particular need to learn that just because an appointed for life SCOTUS justice can do it doesn't make it a good idea. It's worse among trial lawyers though...everyone wants to be Jack McCoy with the "I'm going to ask something completely inappropriate but it's okay if I just say "withdrawn" after it" approach. I always try to strike the balance between being just sarcastic in tone enough in my writing to entertain the clerks while not attacking opposing counsel. Courts tend not to like watching lawyers dump on each other. (Though really...it's not just new lawyers...had a rather senior opposing counsel once throw down the D word and claim I "disingenuously" ignored part of trial counsel's argument. The argument I allegedly ignored was block quoted on page 4 of my brief. Not even hidden in a footnote)

As for the substance of his opinions, you're right. People get so wrapped up in his positions on high profile social issues that they overlook that from an individual liberties standpoint he is *very* pro-defendant in the criminal context(unless you are pending execution). Melendez-Diaz single-handedly put the military out of the business of convening courts-martial for failed drug tests.

ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Oct 19, 2014

# ? Oct 19, 2014 12:57

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

Well, there's at least a 45% chance one of the conservative members of the SCOTUS ascends to Valhalla by 2017. So that's something, at least.

Please don't leave us, Ginsberg

# ? Oct 19, 2014 13:47

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

McAlister posted:

Particularly in the case where she is low income with existing children (roughly two thirds of abortions). The simple act of being pregnant denies scarce financial and temporal resources from her existing children. It spikes expenses while reducing income. If you actually cared about her existing children you would facilitate access to abortion as much as possible so that they can get to do things like eat multiple times every day.

Those existing kids are sinners who need to get a job. Texas is interested in protecting innocent, defenseless potential lives. Well actually potential potential lives, the most innocent of all.

McAlister posted:

Texas, by the way, has rampant child poverty and food insecurity.

You don't have to tell me. I live here. :sigh:

# ? Oct 19, 2014 16:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:16

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

-Troika- posted:

Concern trolling: a made up term that means "I disagree with you but I'm too dumb to explain why".

All terms are made up bro.

# ? Oct 19, 2014 16:06

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

«‹›838 »