|
Forever_Peace posted: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. Against mandatory minimums as an entire category? I think you'd probably need the whole Court to keel over and, I don't know, a liberal version of Ron Paul in office before either grounds would pass- it's too well-established, and the 8th and EQ arguments are too easily diverted.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Against mandatory minimums as an entire category? I think you'd probably need the whole Court to keel over and, I don't know, a liberal version of Ron Paul in office before either grounds would pass- it's too well-established, and the 8th and EQ arguments are too easily diverted. Bummer. What about just drug sentences then? Those tend to have some of the largest racial disparities (in the sense of biases by the actors within the criminal justice system, not just in outcomes), which should make for a stronger equal protections argument. Like, didn't SCOTUS weigh in on minimums for crack vs. cocaine at some point? It seems like not too much of a stretch to argue that there doesn't need to exist some law that disproportionately advantages white Americans (e.g. the lenient cocaine penalty) for a law disproportionately impacting minority Americans to be unconstitutional, right? In other words, that you don't literally need a "crack law vs. cocaine law" situation for the "crack law" to be overturned. edit: yeah, Kimbrough v. United States. Thought I remembered something like that! It's about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines instead of mandatory minimums though. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Bummer. Speaking as someone not directly in favor of that outcome, that's a lot more doable, but you'd need to count to five for an equal protection outcome, and I don't think the 8th argument would go anywhere that you couldn't get to first, and more easily, with the equal protection argument. More generally, the crack/cocaine thing? Changed already. The main avenue of sentencing reform is going to be legislative- courts usually see themselves as too blunt an instrument. vvvvv Yes. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Isn't hammond still at the cert stage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Yes, it is. My favorite anti-mandatory minimum sentences argument is that sentencing is ultimately a judicial power, and therefore while the Legislature can legislate crimes and recommend sentencing schemes (guidelines) for crimes, the actual sentencing is a judgment inherent to the judicial branch and a mandatory sentence floor/range is an unconstitutional encroachment on the separation of powers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Yes, it is. Smells fishy, but if there's any chance it gets rid of mandatory minimums, I'm all for it. I mean, just look at this recent ABC News story on a man that got a 55 year sentence without possibility of parole for a first-offense marijuana charge.  quote:But Cassell, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said the punishment can go too far, as Angelos' case demonstrates. "It ties the judges hands," he said. "At some point, the message is lost." He added, "If he had been an aircraft hijacker, he would have gotten 24 years in prison. If he had been a terrorist, he would have gotten 20 years in prison. If he was a child rapist, he would have gotten 11 years in prison. And now I'm supposed to give him a 55-year sentence? I mean, that's just not right." Mandatory minimums like this are right up there with the Drug War itself on the list of "worst domestic policy ideas of the last 50 years". Like, MAYBE the corn subsidy has been more destructive overall, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Attorney's show cause response to the SCOTUS regarding disciple Bonus: He had to go and get Paul Clement to write the response. Might as well go for the big guns if you're in the poo poo with the Supremes. More info, of course, at scotusblog. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/a-lawyer-seeks-the-courts-mercy/ Allaniis fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Attorney's show cause response to the SCOTUS regarding disciple the good stuff is redacted 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
That makes me really interested to see the root filing with my own eyes. Is it available?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That makes me really interested to see the root filing with my own eyes. Is it available? Original Cert Petition. It's a doozy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
 Hmmmm, yes, go on...  Oh of course, it's so obvious now. Is it common practice for a lawyer to let his client submit a technical manual for the SCOTUS to review? How dumb is this guy to let his name show up on this, geeze.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
So the lawyer's client is the computer program SCIgen? Also, this is a textbook case of why you should never represent yourself. You're not as smart as you think you are, and the judge is not going to be impressed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:
Still is more readable than a lot of Chinese patent applications
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
It's worse than that. It's not scientific or mathematic notation, it's formal logic symbology. I work with this when I'm doing philosophy research. I guess he uses it in constructing AI logic systems, but come on. edit: I know relatively little of patent law. Could this be more typical of work in that area? It seems pretty drat unlikely. edit2: Oh christ, it's not just that. It's pretty clear looking through the document that they added the symbols by doing a search and replace. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
I was going to say I hope they don't sanction him. But after reading that, I really hope they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's worse than that. It's not scientific or mathematic notation, it's formal logic symbology. I work with this when I'm doing philosophy research. I guess he uses it in constructing AI logic systems, but come on. No, this is completely atypical. I feel for the lawyer in that the client pretty clearly pushed him into filing something the client wrote, but at a certain point, you need to just withdraw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Cross posting from the US senate thread:ComradeCosmobot posted:
So how likely is it that SCOTUS will call it unconstitutional vs punting it due to standing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Cross posting from the US senate thread: So how likely is it that SCOTUS will call it unconstitutional vs punting it due to standing? [/quote] How likely is it that the majority in Shelby will all still be justices by then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Cross posting from the US senate thread: So how likely is it that SCOTUS will call it unconstitutional vs punting it due to standing? [/quote] drat. Sensible redistricting via computer models is one of the nicer elements of Iowa's election laws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
fosborb posted:drat. Sensible redistricting via computer models is one of the nicer elements of Iowa's election laws. It's unclear that a holding on this case would apply to an algorithmic districting scheme.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's unclear that a holding on this case would apply to an algorithmic districting scheme. Not the method but who runs the algorithm. I believe it's currently a commission that presents several options to legislators and they pick between them. Hopefully that's far enough away that the case wouldn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's unclear that a holding on this case would apply to an algorithmic districting scheme. It MIGHT come down gently enough that independent commissions explicitly created by the state legislature would count, but I would be surprised if commissions created by voter, not legislatively-referred, initiatives with no legislative approval mechanism (i.e. Arizona and California; Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey and Washington were all legislatively-referred propositions) are permitted to live. But otherwise yeah, anything which conveniently slaps down those pesky Californians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It MIGHT come down gently enough that independent commissions explicitly created by the state legislature would count, but I would be surprised if commissions created by voter, not legislatively-referred, initiatives with no legislative approval mechanism (i.e. Arizona and California; Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey and Washington were all legislatively-referred propositions) are permitted to live. The voter referendum-derived commissions may be genuinely problematic under constitutional analysis, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
The correct holding is that districting is not the "time, place, and manner" of holding elections and so it does not need to be reserved to the state legislature but that seems unlikely, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
I honestly wonder how long it will remain constitutional to abuse the minority disparity in party identification for the purpose of racial discrimination while using party ID as a fig leaf for creating districts designed to pack minorities into as few districts as possible. You've already got multiple neighboring cities linked by sinuous corridors as one district while the suburbs/exurbs depending on those cities comprise several districts. The current court seems to be dead-set on doing away with consideration of adverse effects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I honestly wonder how long it will remain constitutional to abuse the minority disparity in party identification for the purpose of racial discrimination while using party ID as a fig leaf for creating districts designed to pack minorities into as few districts as possible. You've already got multiple neighboring cities linked by sinuous corridors as one district while the suburbs/exurbs depending on those cities comprise several districts. The current court seems to be dead-set on doing away with consideration of adverse effects. There's a reason that fig leaf has proven so durable. REALLY BAD THINGS result when the judiciary directly controls districting practices. It would allow the judiciary to knowingly influence the content of the legislative branch, at which point, poof, there goes the checks and balances system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a reason that fig leaf has proven so durable. REALLY BAD THINGS result when the judiciary directly controls districting practices. It would allow the judiciary to knowingly influence the content of the legislative branch, at which point, poof, there goes the checks and balances system. When has that ever occurred? If you just mean in theory, then checks and balances don't go poof in this situation any more than they do when the legislature can knowingly influence the content of the legislative branch. It is much more troublesome when the legislature influences its own selection, because it then restricts the most fundamental check on its power - elections. But more importantly, voiding plans isn't presenting your own. "This plan impermissibly discriminates" doesn't mean you get to redraw the district willy-nilly yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The correct holding is that districting is not the "time, place, and manner" of holding elections and so it does not need to be reserved to the state legislature but that seems unlikely, yes. You don't think it should be punted on standing or as a political question?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You don't think it should be punted on standing or as a political question? Not really, no. I think that it is dumb that the Constitution reserves some powers to a specific part of the State governments, but it does and I don't think it can just be disregarded as a political question - I see that as more a way for the Supreme Court to avoid getting into certain spats between other branches of the Federal government. I don't think that we can just disregard the clause entirely, but understanding that the clause is idiotic it should be interpreted as narrowly as possible to cover setting times, setting polling places, and setting the basic mechanics (balloting system, etc). There is no good reason to expand "manner" to include things like redistricting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not really, no. I think that it is dumb that the Constitution reserves some powers to a specific part of the State governments, but it does and I don't think it can just be disregarded as a political question - I see that as more a way for the Supreme Court to avoid getting into certain spats between other branches of the Federal government. I don't think that we can just disregard the clause entirely, but understanding that the clause is idiotic it should be interpreted as narrowly as possible to cover setting times, setting polling places, and setting the basic mechanics (balloting system, etc). There is no good reason to expand "manner" to include things like redistricting. I'd think "manner" would pretty clearly include redistricting. I'd also think political question would pretty clearly apply. (I'd also really like a set of five hypothetical conservative justices not to weigh in on how districting can operate).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd think "manner" would pretty clearly include redistricting. I'd also think political question would pretty clearly apply. (I'd also really like a set of five hypothetical conservative justices not to weigh in on how districting can operate). Like I said, I think this is a dumb clause so I'm inclined to give it a narrow interpretation. In addition when connected with time and place I view the clause as a whole as reserving the technical issues of the actual election to the state legislature, and not relevant to substantive issues such as district drawing which go to the political structure of the state, which are properly reserved to the State Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd think "manner" would pretty clearly include redistricting. I'd also think political question would pretty clearly apply. (I'd also really like a set of five hypothetical conservative justices not to weigh in on how districting can operate). I agree with evilweasel on this one. Manner could be interpreted broadly enough to include redistricting, I'm just not sure why that result is clearly mandated by the language and I find the other interpretation more plausible. Time refers to the dates/times that one may cast votes, place refers to the location that one may cast votes, manner refers to the methods by which one may cast votes. I don't see any reason that manner should be interpreted as broader than that, and certainly no reason it is necessarily broader than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a reason that fig leaf has proven so durable. REALLY BAD THINGS result when the judiciary directly controls districting practices. It would allow the judiciary to knowingly influence the content of the legislative branch, at which point, poof, there goes the checks and balances system. I think there's room between the present tendency towards racially disparate effects and the judiciary-as-praetorian-guard scenario in which the judiciary can operate to ensure voters are equally empowered to elect a representative legislature. Take a look at North Carolina, notably the way they drew the 4th district's boundaries around two of the three cities in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, then scooted all the way down to include Fayetteville in the whole mess, but then split up the suburbs surrounding those cities into the 2nd, 6th, and 13th. NC-12 is even worse - String Charlotte together with Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point and break the burbs into the 8th, 9th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd think "manner" would pretty clearly include redistricting. I'd also think political question would pretty clearly apply. (I'd also really like a set of five hypothetical conservative justices not to weigh in on how districting can operate). Eh. I would lean to place. Manner would be how it's conducted. Not sure how you can get around place though. You might still vote in the same area, but the election is dependent on your house race, which could change due to the redistricting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think there's room between the present tendency towards racially disparate effects and the judiciary-as-praetorian-guard scenario in which the judiciary can operate to ensure voters are equally empowered to elect a representative legislature. Take a look at North Carolina, notably the way they drew the 4th district's boundaries around two of the three cities in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, then scooted all the way down to include Fayetteville in the whole mess, but then split up the suburbs surrounding those cities into the 2nd, 6th, and 13th. You don't need to tell me about NC-4, I worked for Price. That said, I adhere strongly to the Praetorian viewpoint mentioned above- it stems from my Machiavellian roots. The implementation of marriage equality is a pretty good indication of why having the judiciary directly involved wouldn't help the situation. ayn rand hand job posted:Eh. I would lean to place. Manner would be how it's conducted. "Place" is usually thought of as the actual polling place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The implementation of marriage equality is a pretty good indication of why having the judiciary directly involved wouldn't help the situation. How so? That seems like a bit of a non sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:How so? That seems like a bit of a non sequitur. State level judges (including state supreme court ones) are directly blocking it and/or refusing to perform marriages. The supposed benefits of having the judiciary involved in redistricting are undermined in that they would no longer really be viewed as a backstop- they would become directly and intimately susceptible to the politicization of the process. The benefit of political question doctrine is dual- it both protects the judiciary from the political process, and protects the electoral process from the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:State level judges (including state supreme court ones) are directly blocking it and/or refusing to perform marriages. The supposed benefits of having the judiciary involved in redistricting are undermined in that they would no longer really be viewed as a backstop- they would become directly and intimately susceptible to the politicization of the process. The benefit of political question doctrine is dual- it both protects the judiciary from the political process, and protects the electoral process from the judiciary. The House has no involvement in the appointment of the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The House has no involvement in the appointment of the judiciary. I'm not sure I see your point- I'm not suggesting direct incentives here (though of course they do exist). My point is rather (on that direction of protection) that it removes even the remotest semblance that the judiciary is independent of the political ideology of the parties. These issues are bound up in that ideology to the point of being fraught, both in perception and reality-that's why they're political questions. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not sure I see your point- I'm not suggesting direct incentives here (though of course they do exist). My point is rather (on that direction of protection) that it removes even the remotest semblance that the judiciary is independent of the political ideology of the parties. These issues are bound up in that ideology to the point of being fraught, both in perception and reality-that's why they're political questions. Just to be clear, this argument is predicated on the grounds that the judiciary is not currently politicized, right? And that intervention in elections that could be found as discriminatory would make them more (or irrevocably) politicized? Or are you just making a perception argument that people would trust the judiciary less?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:13
|
|