|
Here's Professor Dorf's rundown of Nebraska's and Oklahoma's suit against Colorado on the basis of Colorado legalizing marijuana, filed in the Supreme Court in late 2014: Nebraska and Oklahoma Take Colorado to the Supreme Court Over Legalized Marijuana. It's a quick, simplified explanation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (allowing Nebraska and Oklahoma to file its suit in the Supreme Court first, and not in a federal district court); the legal basis for Nebraska's and Oklahoma's claims against Colorado (violation of federal treaty; preemption; nuisance) and the problems with those claims; as well as the prospect of Nebraska and Oklahoma filing suit against the Federal Government instead of Colorado. I found it useful, and the non-lawyer folks who browse this thread will possibly find it easy to follow.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Yeah, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how they are going to get over standing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
So is going to be a 9-0 "lol learn to file" dismissal or are Scalia/Alito going to do something retarded?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Do you have a link to a good description of the Wake County case you're talking about? The specifics would really help me understand the argument you're making. VVVV Ok well I'll hunt around, thanks anyway VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you have a link to a good description of the Wake County case you're talking about? The specifics would really help me understand the argument you're making. I don't, I'm afraid- and to the best of my knowledge there was never a direct legal challenge to the program because all parties involved knew it would fail, and be political poison. What I've got on it I've mostly cobbled together from lay press coverage of the effort to change the program in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So is going to be a 9-0 "lol learn to file" dismissal or are Scalia/Alito going to do something retarded? Watch it be 7-2 with another line from Scalia future opinions will smugly cite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I really, really hope the Court finds standing but that's because I think standing doctrine should be expanded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I really, really hope the Court finds standing but that's because I think standing doctrine should be expanded. Can you expand on why you think that? I'm generally of the opinion that standing should be limited. Is there something in this case in particular that you think merits standing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Can you expand on why you think that? I'm generally of the opinion that standing should be limited. Is there something in this case in particular that you think merits standing? Nope, there's nothing about this case in particular, I just think Justice Douglas had the right idea, he was just an underachiever because I believe there are strong policy interests in adjudicating the rights of stakeholders much more attenuated than current standing doctrine recognizes. Like I'm basically in favor of taxpayer standing, it's my Weird Ivory Tower position. I understand why the jurisprudence is the way it is and I'd probably do the same thing in the same situations (because the courts are just not equipped to handle that kind of caseload), but in an ideal world ... The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
States should have a judicial forum to litigate disputes with other sovereign entities (state and federal), because the alternative is warfare between sovereigns. This was a perceived threat of not having a judicial forum to litigate disputes between states at the founding. Also, Justice Douglas was awesome based on my limited knowledge of his jurisprudence and I say, yes, give standing to flowers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Can you expand on why you think that? I'm generally of the opinion that standing should be limited. Is there something in this case in particular that you think merits standing? There are quirky things like unconstitutional domestic spy programs being immune from judicial review if they manage to withhold information on whom they target, denying anyone standing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Nope, there's nothing about this case in particular, I just think Justice Douglas had the right idea, he was just an underachiever because I believe there are strong policy interests in adjudicating the rights of stakeholders much more attenuated than current standing doctrine recognizes. If we're going to increase standing, would we need to increase the rate of appointments to (or seats in) the federal judiciary? Also, does scotus apply the same standing rules for it's original jurisdiction cases as a district court would, just with the additional "states as parties" requirements?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There are quirky things like unconstitutional domestic spy programs being immune from judicial review if they manage to withhold information on whom they target, denying anyone standing. So I'm thinking more narrow in the "federal dockets are over run with federal question cases" sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:If we're going to increase standing, would we need to increase the rate of appointments to (or seats in) the federal judiciary? Yeah, that's why I would probably accept the status quo if I were a judge looking at the modern judiciary. The judiciary should not be shouldering the burden of balancing the caseload of the judiciary with its capacity, the legislature should basically be saying "how many judges do you need" and then listening. Even Roberts is on the side of the angels on this issue. Also, my favorite standing opinion is Justice Marshall's dissent in Lyons - to paraphrase: "This is some bullshit, guys." quote:Also, does scotus apply the same standing rules for it's original jurisdiction cases as a district court would, just with the additional "states as parties" requirements? I don't actually know an example off the top of my head but I believe so - it's more likely that there's almost never a question of standing for original jurisdiction cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:States should have a judicial forum to litigate disputes with other sovereign entities (state and federal), because the alternative is warfare between sovereigns. No problem with the state-on-state action. No problem with a rock having standing (or the next friend of the rock). More concerned about increasing standing (especially things that have been already tossed like taxpayer standing) and having tens of thousands of new suits brought by every PAC in existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Kill diversity jurisdiction. It's worthless. That'll help with the federal courts caseload. I'm skeptical of claims of overwork. Aren't there studies about this? (I'm sure there are, I just don't know them.) Appointing a few more district court judges would not be the worst thing in the world. Appellate courts aren't actually overworked, are they? SCOTUS certainly isn't. I faintly recall taxpayer standing from school, and ultimately agreeing that it shouldn't exist because holy smokes that'd be too much. edit: requiring standing for each form of relief sought is pretty BS, and I thought the prohibition against Third Party Standing (assuming the law a plaintiff is challenging affects the plaintiff) was also pretty BS. edit x2: related to the Third Party Standing beef, the Zone of Interests test is also pretty horrible What I'm saying is, is that I disagree with most of the Court's jurisprudence on the standing doctrine. Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Appellate courts aren't actually overworked, are they? SCOTUS certainly isn't. How many cases does SCOTUS hear in a year? 75-80 for oral argument, give or take? I'd think deciding a case every five days is a pretty hefty workload. Sure, they only write 1 in 9, meaning less than a dozen opinions per justice per year, but then you have dissents & concurrences to write as well. Plus getting prepared for a case, and I imagine it's a lot of work to get up to speed on every case. Plus screening cert petitions on top of that (sure, it's basically just "look at a clerk's recommendation, make a call" but that's a lot of reading to do when there's 10k cert petitions annually).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:How many cases does SCOTUS hear in a year? 75-80 for oral argument, give or take? I'd think deciding a case every five days is a pretty hefty workload. Sure, they only write 1 in 9, meaning less than a dozen opinions per justice per year, but then you have dissents & concurrences to write as well. Plus getting prepared for a case, and I imagine it's a lot of work to get up to speed on every case. Plus screening cert petitions on top of that (sure, it's basically just "look at a clerk's recommendation, make a call" but that's a lot of reading to do when there's 10k cert petitions annually). I guess they're the example of how heavy the caseload for the judiciary should be. I imagine it's far heavier in the circuit and district courts. I can't imagine being a federal trial judge. I know there are some former district court clerks around. I wonder how they viewed their bosses'work loads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:How many cases does SCOTUS hear in a year? 75-80 for oral argument, give or take? I'd think deciding a case every five days is a pretty hefty workload. Sure, they only write 1 in 9, meaning less than a dozen opinions per justice per year, but then you have dissents & concurrences to write as well. Plus getting prepared for a case, and I imagine it's a lot of work to get up to speed on every case. Plus screening cert petitions on top of that (sure, it's basically just "look at a clerk's recommendation, make a call" but that's a lot of reading to do when there's 10k cert petitions annually). No it isn't; they're theoretically deciding based on the briefs before them, so all the hard work's done for them: just choose an argument that you like and have your clerk write it up. Couple of hours per case per justice, tops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
There are several factors mitigating just how strenuous the Justices' jobs are. Not all 80 cases are hard cases. As CJ Roberts likes to remind folks, a lot of cases are 9-0, or close to it. Those types of cases are not hard to write once the Court knows how it wants to rule. Concurrences/dissents on those types of cases are also not time consuming affairs. Each Justice has a team of 4 clerks to help them with every facet of their job: understanding the issues implicated by a cert petitions, becoming knowledgeable about a case, preparing for oral argument, drafting/editing opinions, research, and so on. There's also the Reporter of Decisions who acts as another layer of assistance in drafting opinions. I am not familiar with SCOTUS's Reporter of Decisions, but I'm assuming that they are top of the line. A great Reporter will help catch drafting errors (grammar, citation format), and will also provide the Court with a first "outside the bubble" review of an opinion - which can be incredibly beneficial to make sure that the opinion reads as how it is intended. The most daunting part of the Justices' job is definitely having to wade through the cert process. 10,000 petitions is an incredible volume. But from what I've gathered about the process, it sounds pretty streamlined. All of that said, I stand by the opinion that SCOTUS is not overworked. I wouldn't say that they are underworked either; they're simply worked. An increase in workload would not break them. Edit: I'd be curious in a law clerk's perspective of the workload in comparison to their feeder clerkship, at the circuit court level, and their SCOTUS clerkship. Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
I curious do other countries have contingencies for when their highest court gets sued? I figure a reasonable one would be something like the top two/three most senior judges from each federal appeals circuit hearing the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I curious do other countries have contingencies for when their highest court gets sued? I figure a reasonable one would be something like the top two/three most senior judges from each federal appeals circuit hearing the case. You mean like the SCOTUS being a respondent/defendant in a suit? I know in the US that's generally going to be impossible because for the most part you can't sue a government entity. You can sue an individual in their capacity as x, but that would go through the applicable courts like any other lawsuit. The decisions from the SCOTUS are basically final, there's no equal or higher court unless you count legislation. I imagine that type of supremacy arrangement is a fundamental part of any constitutional government, and once you get countries suing each other you're in the realm of diplomacy and specific-purpose courts (trade disputes or the ICC for example) so I think the answer is "it varies from country to country on specifics but you probably can't have someone sue a supreme court."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You mean like the SCOTUS being a respondent/defendant in a suit? I know in the US that's generally going to be impossible because for the most part you can't sue a government entity. You can sue an individual in their capacity as x, but that would go through the applicable courts like any other lawsuit. To add to this, much like the executive nonaction thing I'd mentioned a few pages back, this is one of those design issues that comes from the US Constitution being such an innovator. In theory, the SCOTUS "good behavior" and impeachment apparatus should fill that void, but obviously the incentives built around that option have made it completely disappear. As far as other countries go, they had the opportunity to look at what the US was doing and make changes to their own systems to avoid this particular problem (although my very limited understanding is that the relatively unassailable nature of SCOTUS has remained more of a feature than a bug- even now, our supreme court is much better at maintaining at least an appearance of apolitical authority than countries in which the high courts are political organs.) I won't get into it, but generally it's very hard to have a supreme court equivalent function in a genuinely independent and responsive way, no matter how it's set up. Our SCOTUS actually still comes off looking pretty good after all these years, under the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So is going to be a 9-0 "lol learn to file" dismissal or are Scalia/Alito going to do something retarded? No. Scalia and Alito should be the strongest voices for telling these states to go take a hike about suing Colorado because the decisions that mean they don't have a case are all conservative decisions. I'm sure they'll add some dicta in about how the proper party for Colorado to sue is the Usurper Obama for not enforcing the CSA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I curious do other countries have contingencies for when their highest court gets sued? I figure a reasonable one would be something like the top two/three most senior judges from each federal appeals circuit hearing the case. What are you thinking would be a legitimate lawsuit against a court itself? I don't really understand what sorts of problems you're thinking this would address so it's hard to give an answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. Scalia and Alito should be the strongest voices for telling these states to go take a hike about suing Colorado because the decisions that mean they don't have a case are all conservative decisions. I'm sure they'll add some dicta in about how the proper party for Colorado to sue is the Usurper Obama for not enforcing the CSA. Scalia being facefucked by his own foot courtesy of lower courts is what happens in marriage equality cases at this point. He may have learned his lesson, but of the nine, I would put money on Scalia and Alito to say stupid poo poo in their opinion/s even though it's seeming likely that/those opinion/s will be in the dissent. Is there prior writing on states suing neighboring states for having gun laws which encourage trafficking, or having such restrictive abortion laws that the tide of "refugee" unwilling mothers is placing an undue burden on their public health systems? I could see states suing some place like Illinois or California for not being sufficiently brutal towards immigrants in cities (i.e. in Chicago or LA) therefore increasing traffic through those desert and Southern Plains states. I bet Scalia/Alito would find totes valid standing for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The decisions from the SCOTUS are basically final, there's no equal or higher court unless you count legislation. I imagine that type of supremacy arrangement is a fundamental part of any constitutional government, and once you get countries suing each other you're in the realm of diplomacy and specific-purpose courts (trade disputes or the ICC for example) so I think the answer is "it varies from country to country on specifics but you probably can't have someone sue a supreme court." SCOTUS rulings can essentially be overturned via constitutional amendment, though. That's real difficult to do, but it's possible. So Supreme Court rulings do actually have a check built into the system, even if it is really difficult to use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
ErIog posted:SCOTUS rulings can essentially be overturned via constitutional amendment, though. That's real difficult to do, but it's possible. So Supreme Court rulings do actually have a check built into the system, even if it is really difficult to use. But that's why I said legislation 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
I'm shocked, shocked to see that nobody has commented on today's opinions, both authored by Scalia, both unanimous. 1. Whitfield v. United States: holds that forcing someone to move simply from one room to another, during the commission of certain types of crimes, satisfies the statutory phrase "forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person," thereby triggering a harsher sentencing scheme under 18 USC § 2113(e). Thoughts: SCOTUS got it right - forcibly moving another from Point A to Point B, even if it is a short distance, certainly is "accompany<ing>" - but hot drat the harsher sentencing scheme is crazy (minimum ten years, life imprisonment/death if the accompaniment resulted in death). 2. Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.: holds that a borrower exercises his conditional right to rescind a loan under the Truth In Lending Act - that is, the statutory right to rescind a loan within 3 years after the loan was made on the basis that the lender failed to comply with the Act's disclosure requirements - when the borrower gives the lender notice of the fact that he will be exercising his right to rescind the loan, and thus a borrower need only give notice and need not file suit in order to act within the 3 year limitation. Thoughts: Blerp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm shocked, shocked to see that nobody has commented on today's opinions, both authored by Scalia, both unanimous. Not often you see Pride and Prejudice cited in a SCOTUS opinion.... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm shocked, shocked to see that nobody has commented on today's opinions, both authored by Scalia, both unanimous. "Held: A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s unequivocal terms—a bor- rower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so” (emphasis added)—leave no doubt that re- scission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his in- tention to rescind." Why did the lower courts rule differently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster" pos t="440185793 posted:"Held: A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s unequivocal terms—a bor- rower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so” (emphasis added)—leave no doubt that re- scission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his in- tention to rescind." In this case, the 8th circuit was following their prior panel decision, which agreed with the 10th and the 9th circuits and split with the 4th. To really shortcut it, the idea was that 1) The statute requires rescission to be accomplished in 3 years; 2) Rescission usually requires judicial action; therefore 3) The obligor has to file suit. quote:The regulation requires notice to the lender of an intent to rescind, and the statute requires that rescission be accomplished within three years or the right expires. Extrapolating from Beach, we hold that to accomplish rescission within the meaning of § 1635(f), the obligor must file a rescission action in court.4
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Based on an incredibly brief scan, both prior approaches have merit based on colorable interpretations of the law, but the Supreme Court's decision was probably correct, and is the more defensible and equitable one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is there prior writing on states suing neighboring states for having gun laws which encourage trafficking, or having such restrictive abortion laws that the tide of "refugee" unwilling mothers is placing an undue burden on their public health systems? Even if there is, I'd think "can you sue a state for having laws more/less restrictive than yours but in keeping with permitted federal boundaries" is pretty different from "can you sue a state for openly allowing for something federally banned", in terms of legal predecent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Even if there is, I'd think "can you sue a state for having laws more/less restrictive than yours but in keeping with permitted federal boundaries" is pretty different from "can you sue a state for openly allowing for something federally banned", in terms of legal predecent. It is still pretty awkward how, in a certain way, they are trying to trump federalism by indirectly attacking selective enforcement. The court might want to wash their hands of it just for being such a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What are you thinking would be a legitimate lawsuit against a court itself? I don't really understand what sorts of problems you're thinking this would address so it's hard to give an answer. Judicial taking? I don't think that Stop the Beach Renourishment killed the theory of judicial takings, and I can see a procedural fact pattern where the proper defendant would arguably be the court (although probably not SCOTUS). Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Judicial taking? I don't think that Stop the Beach Renourishment killed the theory of judicial takings, and I can see a procedural fact pattern where the proper defendant would arguably be the court (although probably not SCOTUS). How could you prove lack of due process if the process led to the taking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
So Gay Marriage and Executions...
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So Gay Marriage and Executions... Sotomayor says torturing folks to death is bad, while the majority basically agreed with the lower court's finding that No, That's Totally Not What Those Drugs Do, right? I'm a layman, so I just read summarizes and hope I'm not being lied to
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, what an ugly case name for the gay marriage decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:00
|
|