|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:If we assume that the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage in one state must be recognized in other states (under the Full Faith and Credit Clause), how would a ruling like that affect items such as Concealed Carry laws? Unlikely without another test case. SCOTUS rarely does suprise double wammy decisions. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jan 19, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Unlikely without another test case. SCOTUS rarely does suprise double wammy decisions. I was not even thinking of a decision like that. I was wondering if their ruling would probably have direct ramifications on the CC debate. But now, I want to see a "double whammy" decision like that. It would probably make me flip out (needless to say, I want it to be 5-4 agreeing with RBG, Sonya from the Block, and Hulk Kagan)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Adar posted:Again, that's an issue of process. DP should not be an option for present day run of the mill criminal trials in the US both because of the possibility of error and the racial disparities in its application. But it's a stretch to argue that this extends to a Paul Bernardo or a Dzhokar Tsarnaev/McVeigh etc. In practice a "scintilla of doubt" standard would restrict its application to self-proclaimed terrorists who have actively committed murder, serial killers and crimes entirely caught on tape. At that point you're talking about a population of high profile defendants who rarely go to trial other than to plead insanity; the mountain of controversy the death penalty generates largely does not exist in those cases. Your argument relies on an assumption that in the case of people who unquestionably committed the act in question, our criminal justice system is able to flawlessly adjudicate the mental health of those individuals (or you believe that insanity as a defense is not morally required). I do not have any confidence in that position, so even in the case of the people listed, I don't think I could support the death penalty in practice, even though I don't believe that the death penalty is always morally impermissible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Chuu posted:This isn't even remotely what that case was about. Really? The supreme court of the united states wasn't arguing the merits cutting a baby in half? I'm sorry to have gotten it so wrong then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
duz posted:Really? The supreme court of the united states wasn't arguing the merits cutting a baby in half? I'm sorry to have gotten it so wrong then. It's understandable- the baby-cutting case was Union Bandsaw, Inc. v. Maternity Ward. If I recall correctly the justices were divided several different ways in the decision. The witness breakdown in Section C got particularly messy. Ironically, some of the physical evidence at the trial level was recycled and showed up again in Youngstown. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
... the first thing I thought when I saw your link was that you were making a joke about Christine (which is a 1958 Plymouth Fury, and is one of those rare Stephen King novels not set in Maine).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Oops, that's not what the case is about.
fuccboi fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Last Week Tonight is popular in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Last Week Tonight is popular in this thread It is popular, but the shark fins case was internet famous for a long time before John Oliver highlighted it. I read about it here a few years ago in a prior incarnation of this thread, I believe. It also might have been one of the law enforcement threads where somebody was talking about asset forfeiture laws. Last Week Tonight is actually somewhat difficult to watch at times for me because I just spend the whole time fist-pumping going, "Yeah, I know about all this poo poo! Thank you so much for letting the world know about it! This poo poo is real hosed up!" ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Presumably the Plymouth appealed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Last Week Tonight is popular in this thread There are many lawyers that frequent the thread and it is a fairly famous case, at least in legal circles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
edit: accidental post
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Presumably the Plymouth appealed. The '58 Plymouths were pretty appealing if you're into tail fins. The front end was a bit busy, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The '58 Plymouths were pretty appealing if you're into tail fins. The front end was a bit busy, though. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Plymouth Fins was a tragic story. Many people think tail fins simply went out of style. In truth, they were hunted to extinction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Last Week Tonight is actually somewhat difficult to watch at times for me because I just spend the whole time fist-pumping going, "Yeah, I know about all this poo poo! Thank you so much for letting the world know about it! This poo poo is real hosed up!" This, so much, this. Also, it gives a nice primer for folks and family that don't snort political news like it was cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Grognan posted:This, so much, this. I freebase my political news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Grognan posted:This, so much, this. I need to get my family to watch Last Week Tonight. They already get like 75% of their news from Daily and Colbert and Reddit so if they're gonna keep going that route...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Holt v. Hobbs came down for Holt - prisons can't restrict 1/2-inch beards mandated by religion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The '58 Plymouths were pretty appealing if you're into tail fins. The front end was a bit busy, though. I look at this, and the only thing I see is  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Holt v. Hobbs came down for Holt - prisons can't restrict 1/2-inch beards mandated by religion. Please tell me SCOTUS set a binding beard length standard, with different length standards argued for in dissents. In fact, thread contest: Without reading the Holt v. Hobbs decision, a Justice, and pretend they wrote a dissenting opinion arguing for a different constitutionally protected beard length or other facial hair classification. State their standard and summarize their argument, providing quotes as necessary to clarify their position. Bonus round: still without reading the decision, IRAC the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Holt v. Hobbs came down for Holt - prisons can't restrict 1/2-inch beards mandated by religion. Ginsburg wrote a concurrence. Here is the entire thing, from start to finish, unedited. quote:Unlike the exemption this Court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014), accommodating petitioner’s religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief. See id., at ___, ___–___, and n. 8, ___ (slip op., at 2, 7–8, and n. 8, 27) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting). On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion. #mastertroll
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Man, that is a lucky clerk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Ginsburg wrote a concurrence. Here is the entire thing, from start to finish, unedited. This is slowly degrading to "The opinion does not include the fact that Scalia is a jackass. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is slowly degrading to "The opinion does not include the fact that Scalia is a jackass. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion." Well he is a jackass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
More SCOTUS opinions should come in the form of a flip book of the justice making a wanking motion while rolling their eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Is the FHA doomed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Robert P. George of NOM tweeted the following to the SCOTUS:quote:To: Supreme Court Justices. Neither did you, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
The expansion with gazebo and rumpus room will be very tastefully decorated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Relevant study on Scalia's dickishness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Relevant study on Scalia's dickishness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:"You are correct, but only in the literal sense" is a pretty loving terrible argument, especially if it begins an article which is trying to claim the person in question is too sarcastic. I think the article was saying he is the most sarcastic, rather than saying he is too sarcastic. And it's a good enough example to use as a lede.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I wonder if Holt\Muhammad can grow any length of beard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I think the article was saying he is the most sarcastic, rather than saying he is too sarcastic. And it's a good enough example to use as a lede. quote:“I think it is a bad thing,” he said. “There is a great deal of value to civility, especially when the court is writing in a sensitive area.” twodot fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Shocking deference by the lower courts in that holt case too. I mean they basically said we will ignore the law if a warden says he doesn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Is the FHA doomed? Pretty much as they won't be able to show housing discrimination using disparate impact any more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I mean it's pretty obvious that someone can be right in a technical sense but really be wrong. That's some Rumsfeld level deflection there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Lowtechs posted:Pretty much as they won't be able to show housing discrimination using disparate impact any more. You know what I'm loving glad Lee Atwater had a brain tumor and I hope it was painful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Is the FHA doomed? It's doom is a little less certain than before Scalia's questions suggested he's at least a possible vote to keep it alive. But relying on Scalia being a swing justice is not exactly a prudent approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Could a friendly congress modify a law to bring back disparate impact or would the court be doing that whole hear no evil thing like when Roberts decided that corruption has to be obvious to an especially slow four year old to be corruption?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:50
|
|
