|
The Warszawa posted:Wow, that reads like "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks when the defense moves to suppress." That is why I was lamenting the fact that most people consent to a search. What do the cops have to lose at this point?
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
'Dreamers' in Arizona are legally entitled to receive state driver licenses, in a 6-3 decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:'Dreamers' in Arizona are legally entitled to receive state driver licenses, in a 6-3 decision. Who is the dissent? I'm assuming Alito, Scalia, Thomas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:'Dreamers' in Arizona are legally entitled to receive state driver licenses, in a 6-3 decision. This is a little stronger than I'd put it. The Supreme Court refused to vacate a temporary order of the 9th Circuit. They didn't rule on the merits and there was no opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:'Dreamers' in Arizona are legally entitled to receive state driver licenses, in a 6-3 decision. That's being pretty generous for a vote on whether to block an injunction, considering they haven't decided to hear the case yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Ok the headlines were wrong then. I didn't have a chance to read the whole article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is a little stronger than I'd put it. The Supreme Court refused to vacate a temporary order of the 9th Circuit. They didn't rule on the merits and there was no opinion. I guess technically they are for the time being, assuming the ninth did what the ninth does and said "gently caress that bigotry poo poo?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed suit in SCOTUS to force the repeal of Colorado's marijuana laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed suit in SCOTUS to force the repeal of Colorado's marijuana laws. I think they have a point, to be honest. That the federal government would be willing to enforce their pot laws against me but not other people just based on what state they live in seems unfair. That isn't really how this government is supposed to work. And aside from simple fairness, it makes enforcing the state and federal laws against pot much harder in neighboring states. That said, I hope Nebraska and Oklahoma lose this case hard. Typical conservatives not being all gung ho for the concept of state's rights when a state is doing something they oppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think they have a point, to be honest. That the federal government would be willing to enforce their pot laws against me but not other people just based on what state they live in seems unfair. That isn't really how this government is supposed to work. We enforce laws differently in different states all the time. I can get gay-married in Massachusettes and get federal benefits, but if I live in Texas I can't get a marriage certificate and get those same benefits. Same with cousin marriage which varies between states. The Voting Rights Act imposes preclearance on some states but not others. There's even precedent in the 21st Amendment: if a state bans alcohol, and the surrounding states don't, though titties. That's just federalism. I don't really see how they have standing either. Congress could repeal the federal drug laws tomorrow and then there'd be no unequal federal enforcement, yet those states would still have the exact same problem of drugs coming across the border that they're complaining about now so what's the remedy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
If there was a federal ban on gay marriage the idea would be that you could not get gay married in any state. That's the point of a federal ban. Would you see a problem if Texas wrote a law that said it was legal to violate EPA regulations and a Republican President ignored the violations as a matter of policy? I would not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think they have a point, to be honest. That the federal government would be willing to enforce their pot laws against me but not other people just based on what state they live in seems unfair. That isn't really how this government is supposed to work. And aside from simple fairness, it makes enforcing the state and federal laws against pot much harder in neighboring states. I don't think they have a point. They could have other points, but their valid points would all be directed at the Federal Government. They have no standing to make any claim against Colorado however. Colorado is not required, and cannot be required, to make weed illegal (there's a specific case on point from the Brady gun laws - state law enforcement cannot be ordered around by the Federal government). The law is clear that to the extent someone is prosecuted for violating the CSA in Federal court, Colorado's laws can't protect them. But the party refusing to enforce the CSA is the Federal Government, not Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Yeah, that's true. If there is a point it should be against the feds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yeah, that's true. If there is a point it should be against the feds. I don't think complaints about selective enforcement even work that way. There have been laws repealed that are selectively enforced in a discriminatory way, but those cases have all been because someone was prosecuted for a violation. Like, the executive ignoring EPA rules in a state that made defying them legal by state law, that would be lovely policy, but not illegal selective enforcement. Similarly not prosecuting CSA weed violations isn't illegal, but they're free to think it's lovely policy. Honestly I think it's kind of lovely policy too, though not for the same reasons (better would be to unschedule it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I used the environment as an example because the results of violating those rules can have very clear impact on other states . For instance, risking an oil spill in a coastal area. I can't see how those states shouldn't have some standing to redress that. (I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea if the law says they do or they don't have that standing.) I think the potential for increase in drug smuggling out of Colorado or Washington is potentially a similar issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:If there was a federal ban on gay marriage the idea would be that you could not get gay married in any state. That's the point of a federal ban. Would you see a problem if Texas wrote a law that said it was legal to violate EPA regulations and a Republican President ignored the violations as a matter of policy? I would not. Obviously I would not want that, but I don't see why that's unconstitutional. Congress can repeal the EPA regs at any time and I wouldn't want that either but that's obviously constitutional. If Congress thinks the President is shirking his duties, they have constitutional methods to compel him or remove him. If Congress doesn't give a poo poo about whether the law is enforced or not, well, that's what elections are for. If the voters don't care either then...well obviously that sucks but why should the Supreme Court step in to fix an election that didn't go my way? Also I'm pretty sure Texas has already done that because the federal environmental laws are stronger than the state's. Or at least Rick Perry bitches about the EPA all the time. So we're already in a situation where something legal statewide is illegal federally and if Obama stopped enforcing the regs, should Louisiana sue to force Texas to change its state laws? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Selective enforcement via the administrative apparatus is a big gap in the constitutional structure of the government- I'm not sure what the long-term solution is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Selective enforcement via the administrative apparatus is a big gap in the constitutional structure of the government- I'm not sure what the long-term solution is. Sue the President in federal court if he doesn't enforce the law that you keep pleading with him not to enforce. Duh, didn't you go to law school?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Selective enforcement via the administrative apparatus is a big gap in the constitutional structure of the government- I'm not sure what the long-term solution is. If you're my old Fed Courts professor, the answer is "sue the executive for violation of the constitutional 'faithful execution' requirement."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Has the court even agreed to actually hear the case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Has the court even agreed to actually hear the case? Supremes get original jurisdiction for when states sue each other, I don't think it's discretionary in this case. Colorado has a lot of experience being sued by shittier neighboring states, Kansas v. Colorado is over 100 years old for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Supremes get original jurisdiction for when states sue each other, I don't think it's discretionary in this case. Colorado has a lot of experience being sued by shittier neighboring states, Kansas v. Colorado is over 100 years old for example. This is probably the reason that the case is structured this way, since there aren't too many other good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Hey, we get to see if Scalia will pull a Gonzales v. Raich redux. Legal Principles v. Evil Weed, Round 2!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Selective enforcement via the administrative apparatus is a big gap in the constitutional structure of the government- I'm not sure what the long-term solution is. Be a parliamentary democracy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Speaking of selective enforcement, I just learned that each case of wrongful imprisonment restitution in California has to be individually approved by the legislature, Roman-style. I guess you can argue this isn't about judicial independence, and even if it were, the Constitution doesn't explicitly mandate such a thing, and even if it did, it wouldn't apply to the states, but it is still bizarre to see this kind of bizarro Bill of Attainder in America in this the year 2766 ab urbe condita.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Speaking of selective enforcement, I just learned that each case of wrongful imprisonment restitution in California has to be individually approved by the legislature, Roman-style. I guess you can argue this isn't about judicial independence, and even if it were, the Constitution doesn't explicitly mandate such a thing, and even if it did, it wouldn't apply to the states, but it is still bizarre to see this kind of bizarro Bill of Attainder in America in this the year 2766 ab urbe condita. If you think restitution is a bill of attainder...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Speaking of selective enforcement, I just learned that each case of wrongful imprisonment restitution in California has to be individually approved by the legislature, Roman-style. I guess you can argue this isn't about judicial independence, and even if it were, the Constitution doesn't explicitly mandate such a thing, and even if it did, it wouldn't apply to the states, but it is still bizarre to see this kind of bizarro Bill of Attainder in America in this the year 2766 ab urbe condita. That is in absence of a court order of course. I mean, its allocating new funds, the executive can't do that so...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:If you think restitution is a bill of attainder... Yeah. It's really not the same thing. And it does make some sense to have oversight at some level. Though I would think it would be a judicial function, not a legislative one. hobbesmaster posted:That is in absence of a court order of course. I mean, its allocating new funds, the executive can't do that so... Oh. Nevermind. That clarifies my confusion. So it seems that they are actually giving more rights, as the legislature can effectively override a judicial denial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Supremes get original jurisdiction for when states sue each other, I don't think it's discretionary in this case. The Court considers its docket discretionary even for original jurisdiction cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:The Court considers its docket discretionary even for original jurisdiction cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Congress could start impeaching
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if they were objectively incorrect about this, no one would have the authority to tell them they are wrong. Over the long term, the executive (with Congress) has the power to tell the court it is wrong, by nominating people who will overturn past precedent. In the short term, Congress has the authority to tell the Court it is wrong by impeaching justices for violating the Constitution. You can say neither is likely, but that's an issue of political will, not lack of authority. Also, just so people don't think I'm saying Congress should do this, I have no informed opinion on the Supreme Court's discretion with respect to original jurisdiction cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Over the long term, the executive (with Congress) has the power to tell the court it is wrong, by nominating people who will overturn past precedent. In the short term, Congress has the authority to tell the Court it is wrong by impeaching justices for violating the Constitution. You can say neither is likely, but that's an issue of political will, not lack of authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Congress could start impeaching I can't wait for those hearings. How do the justices treat contested fact issues in original jurisdiction cases?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I can't wait for those hearings. Appoint a magistrate to hear the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:Congress can impeach, but the cases would still have been ignored. The President can appoint, but the cases would still have been ignored (and was ignored for probably multiple decades). My point isn't about likelihood, it's about after the Court decides it doesn't want to hear your case, what recourse you have, which is none. I thought you were talking about the doctrine, not individual cases. If it's just an individual case, then I suppose Congress could still give you the result you wanted, either through legislation or amendment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:Congress can impeach, but the cases would still have been ignored. The President can appoint, but the cases would still have been ignored (and was ignored for probably multiple decades). My point isn't about likelihood, it's about after the Court decides it doesn't want to hear your case, what recourse you have, which is none. Morton for a new hearing
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Morton for a new hearing The tastiest adjudication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
I stand by my phone posting
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Kalman posted:If you're my old Fed Courts professor, the answer is "sue the executive for violation of the constitutional 'faithful execution' requirement." Wouldn't Nixon v. Fitzgerald mean that any such lawsuit would result in a "lol no gently caress off" ruling, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:35
|
|