|
Just watch SCOTUS refuse to take it until we get another conservative justice. vvvv I'm aware- the same issue of the court's current composition makes it unappetizing from a liberal perspective as well. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Nov 7, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Just watch SCOTUS refuse to take it until we get another conservative justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Considering now terribly that opinion is written, I hope they just did it to send it to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Considering now terribly that opinion is written, I hope they just did it to send it to SCOTUS. Not having much knowledge on this subject, I'm wondering if it's possible the Supreme Court takes it and just tears apart the reasoning used and sends it back down while basically saying "try again"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
They can if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Antti posted:Working example of rules lawyering: John Bowie smiles and calls for the bailiff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Just watch SCOTUS refuse to take it until we get another conservative justice. I think Ginsburg is a sure vote for cert, and I think Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are confident enough in Kennedy's vote to vote for cert as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Just watch SCOTUS refuse to take it until we get another conservative justice. What are they chances they would agree that gay marriage is actually not allowed though? They'd be going back on their own opinion, wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Am I insane for thinking they could get Scalia and Thomas on board for gay marriage if the majority from Windsor agreed to revisit the question of scrutiny? It seemed like most of Scalia's dissent in Windsor was rightfully calling the majority out on being cowards, and getting in a slap fight with them over scrutiny. So if you take away that issue it seems to me like you could get them on board, but I have no idea how much of a dishonest fundie Scalia is. I think you could at least swing Chaotic Neutral Law Cleric Thomas over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I have no idea how much of a dishonest fundie Scalia is he's the kind of guy who will no-poo poo opine that the federal civil remedy portion of the VAWA has no constitutional basis and then 5 years later opine that growing medical marijuana prepped and consumed entirely within the home in which it was grown is in fact economic activity falling under the commerce clause authority of the government to raid it. (the only way to predict Scalia's vote is to ask "what is the 'biggest rear end in a top hat' opinion?")
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Am I insane for thinking they could get Scalia and Thomas on board for gay marriage if the majority from Windsor agreed to revisit the question of scrutiny? It seemed like most of Scalia's dissent in Windsor was rightfully calling the majority out on being cowards, and getting in a slap fight with them over scrutiny. So if you take away that issue it seems to me like you could get them on board, but I have no idea how much of a dishonest fundie Scalia is. Maybe Thomas, but it's a long shot. There's a better shot of Roberts voting for gay marriage than Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Maybe Thomas, but it's a long shot. There's a better shot of Roberts voting for gay marriage than Scalia. There's a better shot of Roberts actually being gay than Scalia voting for marriage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Let's remember that in the same week Scalia released opinions whining about the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds by overturning the Will Of The People in DOMA...and then gutted the VRA because hey the fact that it got renewed by crushing majorities just proves that congress was too afraid of a backlash by voters if they didn't do it and that's when the Court has to step in and save the system from Democracy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Maybe Thomas, but it's a long shot. There's a better shot of Roberts voting for gay marriage than Scalia. I think everyone was surprised when Windsor ended up as a decision on the Fifth rather than the Tenth, because the Tenth Amendment argument for striking down DOMA is so well known and even accepted by near everyone it was featured on the fuckin' West Wing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:and then 5 years later opine that growing medical marijuana prepped and consumed entirely within the home in which it was grown is in fact economic activity falling under the commerce clause authority of the government to raid it. Which is keeping with the concept of stare decisis and other Supreme Court decisions on "Aggregate effect" of personal consumption. See e.g. Wickard v. Filburn. (Not saying I agree with Wickard. I think it was a bullshit decision in the first place. but precedent is precedent.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Which is keeping with the concept of stare decisis and other Supreme Court decisions on "Aggregate effect" of personal consumption. See e.g. Wickard v. Filburn. (Not saying I agree with Wickard. I think it was a bullshit decision in the first place. but precedent is precedent.) That works if Raich is taken in a vacuum, but where was Scalia's concern for stare decisis and aggregate effect in Morrison and Lopez? It's a clear divergence in his Commerce Clause jurisprudence without apparent rationale aside from the policy implications. I mean, maybe he was trying to narrow Wickard v. Filburn into solely applying to agricultural products like some sort of perverse Chaplinsky progression, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That works if Raich is taken in a vacuum, but where was Scalia's concern for stare decisis and aggregate effect in Morrison and Lopez? It's a clear divergence in his Commerce Clause jurisprudence without apparent rationale aside from the policy implications. I suppose one could argue that wheat farming and weed farming are not so different. And I seem to recall in Lopez there was evidence that the guns did not necessarily travel interstate. Plus in Morrison the nexus to commerce is kind of a stretch...the VWA lawsuit provisions really had nothing to do with commerce at all and to say it did was pretty eyebrow raising. all that being said, with the exception of maybe Thomas (who was accurately described above as a lawful neutral cleric of justice), I don't think ANY justices are 100% consistent in their logic and holdings. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I suppose one could argue that wheat farming an weed farming are not so different. And I seem to recall in Lopez there was evidence that the guns did not necessarily travel interstate. Plus in Morrison the nexus to commerce is kind of a stretch...the VWA lawsuit provisions really had nothing to do with commerce at all and to say it did was pretty eyebrow raising. D&D sperging about D&D inbound in 3, 2, 1....
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
The argument in Lopez was never contingent on the guns themselves having traveled interstate, but rather that the instruments of violent crime can be regulated under the Commerce Clause as violent crime substantially affects interstate commerce. I actually think that crime has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce (particularly the influx of labor and capital, see any urban redevelopment scheme in the last 25 years or so) to justify both the GFSZ and VAWA, but I read the Commerce Clause very broadly (about as broadly as the Supreme Court did until Lopez and Morrison, actually). I still think the winning argument in Morrison was Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that was probably a non-starter post-Adarand. I agree that all the Justices probably drift a bit, but the Lopez/Morrison/Raich turnabout is pretty egregious. Also ahem lawful and chaotic are opposing alignment values, you mean lawful evil I think ...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
you are correct. Though I'd say lawful neutral. I tend to think most people, even people with whom I disagree, are not evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you are correct. Though I'd say lawful neutral. I tend to think most people, even people with whom I disagree, are not evil. I would actually say lawful good, it's just that "chaotic" and "evil" occupy the same sides of their respective alignment spectra. Thomas is like my third favorite Justice though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Which is keeping with the concept of stare decisis and other Supreme Court decisions on "Aggregate effect" of personal consumption. See e.g. Wickard v. Filburn. (Not saying I agree with Wickard. I think it was a bullshit decision in the first place. but precedent is precedent.) Scalia openly loathes Wickard v. Filburn and takes shots at it every chance he gets. That's what makes it hypocritical: if Raich was about tobacco and not weed he'd have flipped his vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I would actually say lawful good, it's just that "chaotic" and "evil" occupy the same sides of their respective alignment spectra. Yeah, chaotic lawful was a brain fart on my part because I like the idea of Cleric Thomas. As for neutral v. good, I guess I operate on the assumption that, the alignment grid notwithstanding, to be "truly" lawful, one can never be truly good or evil, as law itself is, ideally, neutral, and say one thing for Thomas, his opinions are based on a largely consistent strict text approach, even when he openly says the law he's supporting is stupid. I still don't see how anyone can claim he doesn't like gays because he dissented in Lawrence...unless of course you didn't actually read his dissent. ("I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.") I'd say he leans to the good side of neutral, though. I actually got to meet Thomas once. We spent the entire time talking about college football and no law talk at all. It was awesome. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if Raich was about tobacco and not weed he'd have flipped his vote. I'm not so sure. He's consistently come down on the "pro-drug dealer" side on 4th Amendment issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I guess I operate on the assumption that, the alignment grid notwithstanding, to be "truly" lawful, one can never be truly good or evil, as law itself is, ideally, neutral, and say one thing for Thomas, his opinions are based on a largely consistent strict text approach, even when he openly says the law he's supporting is stupid. I still don't see how anyone can claim he doesn't like gays because he dissented in Lawrence...unless of course you didn't actually read his dissent. ("I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.") I'd say he leans to the good side of neutral, though. I actually got to meet Thomas once. We spent the entire time talking about college football and no law talk at all. It was awesome. Yeah, I've had that moment with Thomas - he's really gregarious. But yeah I'm a crit so I don't really think the law is neutral at all. I don't think Thomas harbors any personal animosity towards the LGBT crowd, but I can't say the same about Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah, I've had that moment with Thomas - he's really gregarious. forgive my ignorance but "crit" means what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:forgive my ignorance but "crit" means what? Critical Legal Studies/Critical Race Theory as a school of legal analysis. More of an academic perspective on jurisprudence than a jurisprudential perspective - I think that judges can and should strive for neutrality, but that it's something you approach without ever achieving and that neutrality in practice requires an awareness of systemic and personal biases. Tablet had an interesting article on motions for Jewish judges to recuse themselves in cases involving Palestinian terrorism (specifically, moving for Judge Borman to recuse in the deportation case of a Palestinian woman who had been imprisoned for bombings in Israel).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Ah. Thank you. I admit it's an idealistic dream...but wouldn't it be a wonderful world if the law were, indeed, neutral? But that was my point initially, that to be "truly" lawful, you'd have to be neutral. But most people are not. And judges are no different in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ah. Thank you. I admit it's an idealistic dream...but wouldn't it be a wonderful world if the law were, indeed, neutral? But that was my point initially, that to be "truly" lawful, you'd have to be neutral. But most people are not. And judges are no different in this regard. Eh, in a world immune to the systemic biases that compromise the neutrality of the law, there would be little need for much law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I'd start singing "Imagine" now, but that would just remind me that John Lennon was ultimately shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I still don't see how anyone can claim he doesn't like gays because he dissented in Lawrence...unless of course you didn't actually read his dissent. ("I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.") I'd say he leans to the good side of neutral, though. I actually got to meet Thomas once. We spent the entire time talking about college football and no law talk at all. It was awesome. Yeah, Thomas isn't malevolent he just has what I consider an extremely bizzare idea of how the law works. But he follows it pretty much no matter what, even when it's obvious his personal preferences would go the other way - in contrast to what I view as what Scalia does, where he very rarely winds up ruling in favor of something he personally dislikes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, Thomas isn't malevolent he just has what I consider an extremely bizzare idea of how the law works. But he follows it pretty much no matter what, even when it's obvious his personal preferences would go the other way - in contrast to what I view as what Scalia does, where he very rarely winds up ruling in favor of something he personally dislikes. Which is part of the reason for at least me being surprised that Windsor wasn't a Tenth decision: Thomas would've probably written the majority opinion. That, and a 7-2 on Tenth grounds (if we're bringing aboard a legacy-obsessed Roberts) would've been hilarious to see the Scalia dissent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
SCOTUS is going to hear the Burwell case, which is a really bad sign
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I'd be utterly stunned if we don't get a 5-4 decision, or worse, that strikes down the subsidies for the ACA. Considering there would be no split to the en blanc hearing it seems rather unlikely that the SCOTUS moved to hear it just so they could agree with the courts when there's no split.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I have to imagine that even if they don't outright take down the subsidies, they will do something akin to messing with the Medicaid expansion that will make things worse for people. I don't believe Roberts will completely remove the subsidies for states without exchanges, but he's going to do something we're going to hate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Wow, it's really magnanimous of the lower courts to give the SCOTUS conservative bloc another chance to make the right decision. Gods, just shoot me now. This loving country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
This is really bad, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
SCOTUS already ruled that ACA was constitutional. They're going to tear it apart to the point where it won't actually be doing anything anymore. If they disagreed with it so much, why did they even rule that way in the first place? ("They" meaning Roberts.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
When they struck down DOMA they also gutted the VRA, so they have to have something to balance out the eventual SSM ruling I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
You guys are hand wringing over nothing. The people already have their subsidies. They aren't taking them back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:29
|
|
