|
Finally, Americans will remember the name Obergefell for years to come.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, what an ugly case name for the gay marriage decision. It's not as bad as the flag-burning decision being United States v. Eichman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, what an ugly case name for the gay marriage decision. Any SCOTUS case name that doesn't include a weasel-word loaded 501 organization in it is a cause for celebration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Any SCOTUS case name that doesn't include a weasel-word loaded 501 organization in it is a cause for celebration. I for one am sorry the gay marriage cases will not be under "Americans fighting for the rights of all Americans, freedom, unity, and eagles" name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action had a pretty good name, especially considering it was also called Schuette v. BAMN (By Any Means Necessary).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Mods please change my name to Americans United for Rhetorical Subtlety
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:How could you prove lack of due process if the process led to the taking? Takings (in this context) aren't a due process issue, they're a just compensation issue. If the government seizes private property for a public use, it must pay the owner "just compensation" regardless of how much due process preceded the taking. Since the judiciary is part of the government, the takings clause theoretically applies to it, but it takes an odd fact pattern to result in something that could be described as the judiciary taking property for public use. I don't deal with this part of takings law much, so someone else correct me if you know better, but I think the best arguable example would be a decision by a state court that converts well established private property into public property. To make something up that's somewhat comparable to reality. Assume a state supreme court held in 1940 that shorelines were private property, owned by the upland owner, to the point of the median low tide. Then, in 2015, the same court decided it was wrong back in 1940, and the shoreline is actually public property. That would be a governmental action that converted private property into public property without compensation, and therefore, arguably, would be a judicial taking. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on what will happen with the Obamacare ruling? Will they let the subsidies stay, or leave millions of people suddenly without health insurance? Will they try for a total repeal of Obamacare? Everything I've read is that the GOP is assuming the subsidies will be gone. They were almost right in 2012 until Roberts changed his mind at the last moment. At least back in 2012 some political people thought it was a strategy by Roberts to give him cover for upcoming rulings in 2013/14. Could them rejecting gay marriage bans be good cover for removing subsidies / invalidating Obamacare? Don't they announce them on same or close to the same day? Mitt Romney fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:What's the general consensus on what will happen with the Obamacare ruling? Will they let the subsidies stay, or leave millions of people suddenly without health insurance? Will they try for a total repeal of Obamacare? They won't repeal Obamacare, but given the lack of a lower-court split, the general consensus is that they wouldn't have taken up the case if they didn't think they had 5 votes to overturn (the lower court ruled that the argument was bogus and that the federal exchanges would get subsidies)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:They won't repeal Obamacare, but given the lack of a lower-court split, the general consensus is that they wouldn't have taken up the case if they didn't think they had 5 votes to overturn (the lower court ruled that the argument was bogus and that the federal exchanges would get subsidies) Counterpoint: liberals think they have the swing vote and granted cert to force the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:What's the general consensus on what will happen with the Obamacare ruling? Will they let the subsidies stay, or leave millions of people suddenly without health insurance? Will they try for a total repeal of Obamacare? I don't think the GOP assumes it will win, but thinks it has a serious shot at winning. It's probably pointless to speculate until the oral arguments, but the underlying reality is that the case against the subsidies is laughable and it's an embarassment to the legal system it's gotten this far. If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies it will be a nakedly political ruling and I can at least hope that's a bridge too far 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Counterpoint: liberals think they have the swing vote and granted cert to force the issue. Don't hold your breath. The Supreme Court has reversed or vacated Fourth Circuit decisions about 60% of the time between 1999 and 2008 and no circuit has been affirmed more than 50% of the time. Accepting a case simply to affirm a lower court where there's no split is a waste of time for SCOTUS and all but unheard of. It's the same reason SCOTUS didn't take gay marriage until the Sixth Circuit split with all previous circuit court decisions and upheld gay marriage bans, even though it's widely believed that there's been five votes for gay marriage since Hollingsworth. EDIT: Over at WaPo/Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler, an opponent of the government position, points out that they do sometimes take up cases when a lower court "has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by [SCOTUS]" and because "this litigation creates substantial uncertainty about the operation of the law." As you can probably tell, though, I agree with Nicholas Bagley, who contends that calling King v. Burwell an important question of Federal law is a bit of a stretch to say the least. I mean, under what criteria could this literal case of rules lawyering on a point that no one but a convenient fall guy (Gruber) says was the actual intent be considered a more important question or create more uncertainty than gay marriage? ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, what an ugly case name for the gay marriage decision. Not gay enough for me The Ob Job will be this case's nickname
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, what an ugly case name for the gay marriage decision. Good point. Has there ever been a case name better than Loving Vs Virginia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Is there any reason they didn't just point to Windsor / Perry and say they've done this one already?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Is there any reason they didn't just point to Windsor / Perry and say they've done this one already? Those decisions made sure not to resolve the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted: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 I still can't wrap my head around why these states don't just use pentobarbital. When I asked the same question (I think in this very thread) the answer was because there's concern over changing a protocol with previous case law, but now they're changing the protocol. Why not go with something that is simple to administer and widely accepted to be not painful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I still can't wrap my head around why these states don't just use pentobarbital. When I asked the same question (I think in this very thread) the answer was because there's concern over changing a protocol with previous case law, but now they're changing the protocol. Why not go with something that is simple to administer and widely accepted to be not painful? Because they manufacturers of pentobarbital don't want their products to be used to murder people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Because they manufacturers of pentobarbital don't want their products to be used to murder people. Several states even lied and/or illegally imported drugs to get a last few doses before the company could institute effective controls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Because they manufacturers of pentobarbital don't want their products to be used to murder people. Because one of the manufacturers of pentobarbital (Lundbeck) is headquartered in places where the death penalty is illegal. These remain public corporations- they're not doing it to take a moral stand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Several states even lied and/or illegally imported drugs to get a last few doses before the company could institute effective controls. Well if they didn't break the law then they couldn't enforce the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I still can't wrap my head around why these states don't just use pentobarbital. When I asked the same question (I think in this very thread) the answer was because there's concern over changing a protocol with previous case law, but now they're changing the protocol. Why not go with something that is simple to administer and widely accepted to be not painful? Perhaps concern over being seen as treating people as animals (even though in this case we treat animals differently in order to deliberately be more humane than we are with humans)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I don't understand why a fuckton of morphine won't work. It's not like they don't have options, never mind a bullet to the head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don't understand why a fuckton of morphine won't work. It's not like they don't have options, never mind a bullet to the head. We can't have any chance of an execution feeling good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Oxygen deprivation is probably the most humane way to take a life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don't understand why a fuckton of morphine won't work. It's not like they don't have options, never mind a bullet to the head. Next up in Oklahoma death sentencing: the convicted criminal must ingest an entire bottle of extra strength tylenol. Miltank posted:Oxygen deprivation is probably the most humane way to take a life. Yes but the goal isn't a humane death in these states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don't understand why a fuckton of morphine won't work. It's not like they don't have options, never mind a bullet to the head. The goal of "more humane" methods like lethal injection is not to make the death quicker, but to make the executioner feel less bad. Shooting someone in the head would make them feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Good point. Has there ever been a case name better than Loving Vs Virginia? United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency A case in which a trooper from my wonderful state of Nebraska pulled over a Hispanic man and assumed that since he'd hidden $124k in a cooler in the back seat of his car, it was drug money despite no other evidence of drugs/drug trade in the car except a horrible cover story by the driver (I mean horrible - it was a rental, his name wasn't on the contract, the name he gave the trooper wasn't on the contract either). The district court disagreed, but the 8th circuit was like "YEAH NO FUCKIN' WAY THESE FOIL-WRAPPED CASH BUNDLES HIDDEN IN A COOLER ARE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRUGS" when the government appealed because the explanation given by the driver (It was to keep it from being seen/stolen) didn't really clear it from the connection to drug trafficking. joeburz posted:Next up in Oklahoma death sentencing: the convicted criminal must ingest an entire bottle of extra strength tylenol. This was pointedly highlighted by that old documentary by a British MP who wanted to find a humane way of implementing the death penalty (I think he wanted to implement it in England but it could have just been his own interest) and went all over the US looking at methods used here (at the time I believe they still had the chair and the gas chamber in some states) and ran across some hickass trailer trash boss hogg type who was like "NAH THEY CAN'T DIE WITHOUT PAIN" when questioned on why they can't just use hypoxia. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This was pointedly highlighted by that old documentary by a British MP who wanted to find a humane way of implementing the death penalty (I think he wanted to implement it in England but it could have just been his own interest) and went all over the US looking at methods used here (at the time I believe they still had the chair and the gas chamber in some states) and ran across some hickass trailer trash boss hogg type who was like "NAH THEY CAN'T DIE WITHOUT PAIN" when questioned on why they can't just use hypoxia. That documentary is the bane of my existence when it comes to capital punishment debates. It's garbage, but everyone on the anti side has seen it and thinks it represents the pro side accurately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That documentary is the bane of my existence when it comes to capital punishment debates. It's garbage, but everyone on the anti side has seen it and thinks it represents the pro side accurately. Why else would you bother using capital punishment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Why else would you bother using capital punishment? An evaluation that the person in question cannot ever be rehabilitated to the degree required for release into civil society and that the degree of their crime is sufficiently severe that their death is the only possible measure of punishment that's sufficiently punitive? I oppose capital punishment because we get it wrong (and will always be in danger of getting it wrong), and it's the one punishment you can't even make an attempt to make reparations for if you later find out you're wrong, not because there's something wrong with it in the abstract.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:An evaluation that the person in question cannot ever be rehabilitated to the degree required for release into civil society and that the degree of their crime is sufficiently severe that their death is the only possible measure of punishment that's sufficiently punitive? I would say being locked in a six by eight for sixty years is a worse punishment than being killed but I guess that's kind of an odd opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Why else would you bother using capital punishment? Beyond punitive justifications, there are also financial ones. Arguments against the cost framing of capital punishment focus on the data showing it costs more to perform an execution, but the reality is that most of the cost associated is with elements of the appeals process that aren't bound inextricably from capital punishment itself. Getting an accurate cost analysis would require somehow controlling for the other defects of the prison system, though. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Beyond punitive justifications, there are also financial ones. Arguments against the cost framing of capital punishment focus on the data showing it costs more to perform an execution, but the reality is that most of the cost associated is with elements of the appeals process that aren't bound inextricably from capital punishment itself. Getting an accurate cost analysis would require somehow controlling for the other defects of the prison system, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Beyond punitive justifications, there are also financial ones. Arguments against the cost framing of capital punishment focus on the data showing it costs more to perform an execution, but the reality is that most of the cost associated is with elements of the appeals process that aren't bound inextricably from capital punishment itself. Getting an accurate cost analysis would require somehow controlling for the other defects of the prison system, though. Well the only way you could reduce the cost of appeals would be to get rid of them or have a perfect conviction rate. How could they be separated?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if capital punishment were cheaper, I don't think cost would work as an argument. The existing solution to overcrowded prisons is to let people out, not just shrug your shoulders and point out it is cheaper to not build new prisons (edit: And killing your prisoners to come under capacity is clearly out of the question). I don't know, with the right strategic partnerships with certain correctional corporations, I'm sure you could build a cost neutral or even a profitable facility. That's mostly a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Beyond punitive justifications, there are also financial ones. Arguments against the cost framing of capital punishment focus on the data showing it costs more to perform an execution, but the reality is that most of the cost associated is with elements of the appeals process that aren't bound inextricably from capital punishment itself. Getting an accurate cost analysis would require somehow controlling for the other defects of the prison system, though. Even then, is that an argument against the nitrogen suffocation method from that documentary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
haveblue posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins High Tech Gays v. DISCO is the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Kalman posted:An evaluation that the person in question cannot ever be rehabilitated to the degree required for release into civil society and that the degree of their crime is sufficiently severe that their death is the only possible measure of punishment that's sufficiently punitive? That's pretty much it. The argument made is very often deterrent. And there might be some truth to it: I remember a pretty involved analysis that showed a weak deterrent effect, and given the researchers were anti death penalty themselves I doubt they were cooking the data to invent it. But weak is the important thing. When the cost of a policy is the state actively killing innocent people, the benefit had better be pretty huge. As it is, there are lots of more effective ways to reduce violent crime, so even if you have no moral issues with the idea of murderers being put to death if you had perfect knowledge they are guilty and beyond rehabilitation, in practice there's no reason to allow it. Of course, if someone admits all that and still says they just want to see criminals suffer more, that's a whole other problem. Not an uncommon one either, just not universal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:09
|
|
