|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The question of how to execute state prisoners ought to be a moot point because capital punishment is barbaric and it's a national tragedy that it continues shut up
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Once a case is settled the Court no longer has jurisdiction as there is no longer a case or controversy. However the Supreme Court doesn't google things and do things on their own: it's the responsibility of the parties to notify the Supreme Court the issue is now mooted and withdraw the appeal, at which point the Supreme Court will cancel arguments. Technically, since the lack of a case or controversy deprives the Supreme Court of subject matter jurisdiction, the court does have a responsibility to dismiss the case on its own, even if the parties never bring up the settlement. In practice, of course, you are right. The parties know they have settled before the court knows, and the court will strike the argument as a matter of course once they are informed of the settlement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:That is a horrifically tortured analogy. I mean I don't think it's wrong, the past perfect is a tense we only use in reference to other events whether explicit or implied, much like a single passage in an act of law, but that is a terrible, terrible way of kicking off an explanation that is probably going to just confuse most people who read it. Maybe it's a meta-metaphor for the tortured reasoning behind the case in the first place. Really I'm not sure it's possible for any metaphor to be as dumb as the actual argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yeah, it's a bit of a no true scotsman argument. Medicine, unlike law, is not an adversarial process where Death's interest must be served.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Medicine, unlike law, is not an adversarial process where Death's interest must be served. Like law and other professions, however, medical practice is bound up in a tension between obligations of the professional to the client, and obligations of the professional and the profession to society. This is actually captured in the first couple paragraphs of the AMA professional ethics code. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Like law and other professions, however, medical practice is bound up in a tension between obligations of the professional to the client, and obligations of the professional and the profession to society. This is actually captured in the first couple paragraphs of the AMA professional ethics code. Though I don't think lawyers can go "Screw you guys, I'm creating my own Bar association" like you apparently can with medical boards if your last name is Paul
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:That is a horrifically tortured analogy. I mean I don't think it's wrong, the past perfect is a tense we only use in reference to other events whether explicit or implied, much like a single passage in an act of law, but that is a terrible, terrible way of kicking off an explanation that is probably going to just confuse most people who read it. The Fourth Circuit did it better: quote:If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino's, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino's with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. No! Obviously if the pizza comes from Domino's I want a completely bald pizza so everyone will hate it and pressure Pizza Hut to open a chain in our town! A satisfying pizza is the exact opposite of what I asked you to get when I sent you out to pick up lunch, duh! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Fourth Circuit did it better: Well, you did specify either Pizza Hut or Dominos, so there was never any danger of you getting a satisfying pizza.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, you did specify either Pizza Hut or Dominos, so there was never any danger of you getting a satisfying pizza. So what you're saying is, I had the chance to enact real lunch reform but decided to subsidize big corporations instead?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Though I don't think lawyers can go "Screw you guys, I'm creating my own Bar association" like you apparently can with medical boards if your last name is Paul Apples to oranges. Lawyers can, have, and will continue to create bar associations. It's a broader class of organization than what Paul's ophthalmology board was trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Maybe it's a meta-metaphor for the tortured reasoning behind the case in the first place. It's a great metaphor but it was so long by the time I read it I forgot what we were talking about in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
I found it to be a perfectly functional metaphor, too. It's the same kind of quibbly bullshit that might be "technically correct", but is patently stupid from the surface all the way down to the lovely core. And yes, I get that "quibbly bullshit" tends to be the point of lawyers, but even they should be groaning in this case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Join us as we go now to a video in which RBG answers there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Join us as we go now to a video in which RBG answers there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them. She's been saying that for years, and it's amazing every time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Join us as we go now to a video in which RBG answers there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them. We make Cheney and Scalia into liches, yet RBG chooses the Gift of Man 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
She just spoke here at Michigan yesterday, and we were treated to her descriptions of the new opera about her and Scalia, as well as some wonderful stories about her early career and why she gets really annoyed every time somebody says that Weinberger v. Weisenfeld was about discrimination against men. Highlight quotation of the morning: "I think that most of my dissents will be law someday."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:She just spoke here at Michigan yesterday, and we were treated to her descriptions of the new opera about her and Scalia, as well as some wonderful stories about her early career and why she gets really annoyed every time somebody says that Weinberger v. Weisenfeld was about discrimination against men. Highlight quotation of the morning: "I think that most of my dissents will be law someday." You missed the part where she was asked which dissent she'd like to make law, began coughing, but muttered out "all of them" before recovering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Beamed posted:You missed the part where she was asked which dissent she'd like to make law, began coughing, but muttered out "all of them" before recovering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Isn't this something Romer v Evans made it very clear you can't do? Am I missing something here? http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/arkansas-house-panel-advances-bill-to-ban-lgbt-anti-discrimination-ordinances/
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Isn't this something Romer v Evans made it very clear you can't do? Am I missing something here? The fact that it says you can't go past state law, rather than saying you can't pass an LGBT specific ordinance, is enough to distinguish it. It's a plausible fig leaf, maybe enough of one to save it, though still an uphill fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
It's also a law rather than a constitutional amendment, which is what got Colorado in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's also a law rather than a constitutional amendment, which is what got Colorado in trouble. I think Romer would still operate to strike down a statutory equivalent to the Colorado amendment; I've never read Romer as turning on being an amendment but rather on the animus and targeting issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Isn't this something Romer v Evans made it very clear you can't do? Am I missing something here? I'm not sure what's wrong with me but I'm slightly more horrified by the design of the Arkansas state flag. I think I've been reading too much about vexillology. Still, that Arkansas law is at least has a fig leaf of unlike the fresh new Brownbacking Kansas is getting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Justice Ginsburg admits why she took a nap during the state of the union:quote:"The audience for the most part is awake because they're bobbing up and down all the time. And we sit there, stone faced, the sober judges," Ginsburg said. "But we're not, at least I was not, 100 percent sober."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Justice Ginsburg admits why she took a nap during the state of the union: How could you not quote the best part: quote:“So I got a call when I came home from one of my granddaughters and she said, ‘Bubbe, you were sleeping at the State of the Union!”
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
And confirmation that Lich Scalia does not sustain itself on food or drink. Down deep where none may see he feeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Abigail Fisher has filed for another Cert Petition 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Abigail Fisher has filed for another Cert Petition 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Based on what I'm reading her case kept losing after being remanded to a lower court
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Based on what I'm reading her case kept losing after being remanded to a lower court I had to go look it up to see what was going on in this case and I wish she would just give it up. 81% of her freshman class was auto accepted from being in the top 10% of their class which is Texas law. One of the things I didn't see is that texas law has an auto accept for high enough ACT and SAT scores. Her GPA was good but not good enough her test scores weren't anything remarkable (1160/1600 on the SAT). She wasn't discriminated against because she's white. She just wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
I'm so torn on Hammond v. US. It addresses the question of whether certain mandatory minimum sentences violate the 8th amendment, and it directly pits two things I loathe against each other: mandatory minimums (the dumbest idea ever) and Cliven Bundy antifederalist assholes. In this case, the idiots intentionally burned down a big swath of federal land to hide the evidence of their illegal dear hunt, and the judge gave them 3 months and 1 year (respectively) instead of the minimum 5 because he thought the statute was meant for "burn[ed] sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines” and didn't apply "[o]ut in the wilderness here." OK fine I hate mandatory minimums significantly more but still
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I'm so torn on Hammond v. US. It might not be a fit fact pattern to overturn the practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It might not be a fit fact pattern to overturn the practice. Could you tell me more? For the broadest possible ruling (overturn the practice on 8th grounds), isn't the only prerequisite a sentence where SCOTUS thinks the mandatory minimum is cruel and unusual? Or is your concern about the second question relating to the plea bargain? Haven't read the original ruling yet, but it seems like the judge was going for the narrow ruling that his jurisdiction was too rural for federal laws (lol), which seems to provide a pretty trivial path for SCOTUS to rule on the second question before telling Judge Podunk to go gently caress himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Is there any precedent that the eighth amendment forbids grossly disproportionate sentencing? The Ninth Circuit appears to have several cases backing terrible sentences, and while I think basically all sentencing regarding drug possession is grossly disproportionate, I wouldn't argue they are unconstitutional because of the eighth amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is there any precedent that the eighth amendment forbids grossly disproportionate sentencing? The Ninth Circuit appears to have several cases backing terrible sentences, and while I think basically all sentencing regarding drug possession is grossly disproportionate, I wouldn't argue they are unconstitutional because of the eighth amendment. Yes, but it's very rarely successfully invoked. The government's brief in opposition says the only time it's been successfully invoked for less than life without parole before the Supreme Court was a 15 years hard labor, with a minimum of 12 with shackles, for falsifying official documents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Could you tell me more? For the broadest possible ruling (overturn the practice on 8th grounds), isn't the only prerequisite a sentence where SCOTUS thinks the mandatory minimum is cruel and unusual? Or is your concern about the second question relating to the plea bargain? Sorry, I don't mean legally, but practically. The case facts don't make for especially appealing dicta in a SCOTUS decision that would overrule existing mandatory minimum practices. Who is representing Jed Clampett?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sorry, I don't mean legally, but practically. The case facts don't make for especially appealing dicta in a SCOTUS decision that would overrule existing mandatory minimum practices. Who is representing Jed Clampett? Firm called Ransom Blackman LLP from Portland. Out of curiosity, what are the chances this current court would ever overturn mandatory minimums on Equal Protection grounds? (e.g. where systemic biases in the criminal justice system impose an unconstitutional burden on minority citizens)? If it's going, does it have to be 8th?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Firm called Ransom Blackman LLP from Portland. quote:The first question presented is: Under what circumstances does the Eighth Amendment authorize a district court to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
The second question's kinda interesting and at a minimum warrants a response (hopefully "jeez, no, are you crazy?!"). The first... I mean, it's a really weird fact pattern to overturn mandatory minimums, and there are a thousand and one ways to avoid it. From the scotusblog discussion of Hammond as "petition of the day": quote:We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
twodot posted:The petition poses two questions: Right, as I said a few posts up I'm expecting SCOTUS to focus on the second question with a real proceeding and the first question with a unanimous "gently caress you" to the district judge who thinks he lives in the wild wild west. My question is more general - with the present composition of the court, which challenge to mandatory minimums looks stronger right now: 8th amendment grounds or Equal Protection grounds? I'm asking because I'm not a lawyer and don't know the case history of either, but this particular case got me wondering what it WOULD take to end mandatory minimums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:14
|
|