|
Vahakyla posted:I love this thread, but usually just lurk it. I've wantes to ask this question before, but here goes. For the constitutional lawyers in this thread, which justice would you pick for you from the Supreme Court if you had to pummel your agenda through and that justice would always align to to your politics? As it stands now, it'd be whoever is best at convincing Kennedy.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I love this thread, but usually just lurk it. I've wantes to ask this question before, but here goes. For the constitutional lawyers in this thread, which justice would you pick for you from the Supreme Court if you had to pummel your agenda through and that justice would always align to to your politics? I think "agenda" is too broad to really effectively answer your question. Plus, there are other complexities to consider. For example, as a prosecutor my "agenda" should theoretically be to make sure convictions are affirmed. However, I consistently agree with Scalia's 4th Amendment opinions which are largely pro-defendant...because even though I prefer people be convicted for crimes they commit, I also don't think it's that hard to get a goddamn warrant. For me, it really varies from case to case and issue to issue which justice I prefer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:As it stands now, it'd be whoever is best at convincing Kennedy. So whoever would be willing to wear a Confederate-flag-pattern robe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think "agenda" is too broad to really effectively answer your question. Plus, there are other complexities to consider. For example, as a prosecutor my "agenda" should theoretically be to make sure convictions are affirmed. However, I consistently agree with Scalia's 4th Amendment opinions which are largely pro-defendant...because even though I prefer people be convicted for crimes they commit, I also don't think it's that hard to get a goddamn warrant. For me, it really varies from case to case and issue to issue which justice I prefer. I think Vahakyla means you can assume that the justice will support your agenda no matter what. The question is, if you assume the person you pick will always agree with you, who would be best at convincing others to come along. I don't know who I would pick, but I know it definitely wouldn't be Thomas. I probably also wouldn't pick Alito. I don't think I'd pick Breyer either. I don't have enough of an impression of Kagan or Sotomayor to judge how influential they might be. Roberts strikes me as a good deal maker. RBG is awesome and I assume people are convinced by her awesomeness. Scalia is probably better at landing rhetorical jabs than dragging people to his position, but he would be one I would consider (again, assuming he would magically become left-wing Scalia for me). E: I kicked Kennedy off the Court. He's actually an obvious choice, because he is often the deciding vote. Doesn't matter if he doesn't convince anyone else if you already have 4 other votes. From that perspective, it would probably be better to just take the most reliable conservative vote and turn him into a liberal. That basically swings the court to 3-1-5 on most ideological issues. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
The court denied cert in another voter ID case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
why are so many legal blogs loving terrible
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:why are so many legal blogs loving terrible Don't you mean "blawgs" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The court denied cert in another voter ID case. Which was was the case decided at lower courts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
This was the North Carolina case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Xenochrist posted:Don't you mean "blawgs" See this is why I keep telling politicians it should be legal to kill someone through the internet
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. United States http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf quote:Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio than an arrest under Arizona v. Johnson. The duration of the delay that can be tolerated is determined by the reason for the stop -- in this case, to address the traffic violation. So a cop can't stop you for a minor traffic violation and keep you there until the canine unit comes. Looks like Jay Z is finally in the clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Counterpoint: LEO can keep you stopped if there is reasonable suspicion to continue the stop to call in a dog. edit: All this opinion said is that the LEO needs reasonable suspicion to continue the stop after the stop's initial purpose (ticketing) and typical highway safety checks (warrants, driver's license/registration) have completed. Like, it's an important point, but ultimately a narrow one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Yeah, my sense is that reasonable suspicion is not hard to construct, now that cops will know they need to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah, LEO can just said he "smelled weed" and BAM reasonable suspicion created to delay stop to call in a dog. I guess the question then would be how long of a delay would be justified under the 4A in order for the dog to get to the scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Yes, but, correct me if I'm misremembering, but the officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search the car anyway. If they have reasonable suspicion and they want to search, they can do that without holding you for the dog. The big tactic with the dog sniff was to threaten to hold you while the dog comes, unless you want to just consent to a search now, turning a suspicion-based search into a consensual one. If they decline, the dog alerting can give you instant suspicion that you don't really have to back up on your own. Now, if they need the same level of suspicion to hold you for the dog as they need to just do the search in the first place, that will fix that particular problem. With that same suspicion, you can either hold for the dog, or you can just do it yourself, but neither scenario is going to get you out of having to explain what was suspicious. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
You make a good point, and I think you're correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
quote:The Government’s argument, in effect, is that by completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation. It's amazing how well a single phrase like 'bonus time' can be in mocking an argument. It also appears Scalia's snark towards dissents has worn off a little on Ginsburg: quote:The Court of Appeals, however, did not review that determination. But see post, at 1, 10–12 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (resolving the issue, nevermind that the Court of Appeals left it unaddressed); post, at 1–2 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (upbraiding the Court for addressing the sole issue decided by the Court of Appeals and characterizing the Court’s answer as “unnecessary” because the Court, instead, should have decided an issue the Court of Appeals did not decide). evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Wasn't Ginsburg always snarky in her dissents?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Wasn't Ginsburg always snarky in her dissents? Dissents are often snarky towards the majority opinion, but rarely the other way around unless Scalia is writing them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Reading through it it seems like even if the dog were there already it can't be used unless it literally would not have added another second to the time required to issue the citation. You'd need for the officer to be riding with a partner who would perform the sniff while the first did the ticketing. Even then I wonder if you could argue that two officers working together could have finished the stop faster.thefncrow posted:Yes, but, correct me if I'm misremembering, but the officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search the car anyway. If they have reasonable suspicion and they want to search, they can do that without holding you for the dog. They will still threaten to convince people to allow a search. An officer is allowed to lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Reading through it it seems like even if the dog were there already it can't be used unless it literally would not have added another second to the time required to issue the citation. You'd need for the officer to be riding with a partner who would perform the sniff while the first did the ticketing. Even then I wonder if you could argue that two officers working together could have finished the stop faster. Unfortunately there's probably not going to be a Miranda-style case where an officer has to inform someone that there's nothing outwardly and specifically suspicious so they're free to go once the ticket's written but they'd like consent to go fishing anyway. The cynic in me says they'd uphold the constitutionality of such coercion by affirming the driver's responsibility to know when a cop is bullshitting them under color of law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
I think it's laughable how long a traffic stop can be and still be reasonable. Thirty minutes? Twenty eight minutes? Jesus. I've never been stopped longer than ten, and that includes a 4am stop where I took a really bad turn and the cop surely thought I was drunk. But then again, I'm a white male lawyer. It'd be interesting to see how long the average traffic stop actually is, especially broken down racially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I think it's laughable how long a traffic stop can be and still be reasonable. Thirty minutes? Twenty eight minutes? Jesus. I think there's some variance expected for stuff like database queries and whatever might need to be done on the dispatch end, but yeah 15-20 at most is about as far as you can push reasonableness. Cops aren't radioing in plates and names and DL numbers anymore, they typically have everything running on the laptop in their cruiser. If anything, the wireless service is probably the biggest legitimate delay, since it's probably Sprint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I think it's laughable how long a traffic stop can be and still be reasonable. Thirty minutes? Twenty eight minutes? Jesus. Here's a pretty decent 2008 study from the Arizona ACLU. quote:C. Duration of Stops amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
 Chief Justice Roberts writes something sane regarding campaign contributions quote:Simply put, Florida and most other States have concluded that the public may lack confidence in a judge’s ability to administer justice without fear or favor if he comes to office by asking for favors. quote:By any measure, Canon 7C(1) restricts a narrow slice of speech. A reader of JUSTICE KENNEDY’s dissent could be forgiven for concluding that the Court has just upheld a latter-day version of the Alien and Sedition Acts, approving “state censorship” that “locks the First Amendment out,” imposes a “gag” on candidates, and inflicts “dead weight” on a “silenced” public debate. Post, at 2–4. But in reality, Canon 7C(1) leaves judicial candidates free to discuss any issue with any person at any time. Candidates can write letters, give speeches, and put up billboards. They can contact potential supporters in person, on the phone, or online. They can promote their campaigns on radio, television, or other media. They cannot say, “Please give me money.” They can, however, direct their campaign committees to do so. Whatever else maybe said of the Canon, it is surely not a “wildly disproportionate restriction upon speech.” Post, at 1 (SCALIA, J.,dissenting). (the opinion upheld the right of Florida to ban candidates for a judgeship from directly asking for money) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1499_d18e.pdf evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Of course, applying that same logic to other public servants is (for Roberts) absurd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Of course, applying that same logic to other public servants is (for Roberts) absurd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:It has never been attempted in this particular fashion. There's a difference, though. Although it's merely a model set of rules, the model rules for judicial restrict judges running for office from directly soliciting for funds. There is no such set of rules for other offices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Short version: judges are special because they're not supposed to represent an electorate in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Basically. It's not crazy that this was upheld at all. It's almost exactly what the ABA's model rules recommend. Although those have been tossed out before, it would have been silly to do so here for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Basically. It's not crazy that this was upheld at all. It's almost exactly what the ABA's model rules recommend. Although those have been tossed out before, it would have been silly to do so here for that reason. That set of opinions is pretty hilarious. 5 opinions, with Part II (the actual test, strict scrutiny) of the opinion of th court only joined by 4 of the judges in the majority, but then joined by the 3 dissenting judges...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Gotta say, it's funny to hear Scalia whining about how the Supreme Court has already made up its mind about the death penalty, so states and lower courts trying to restrict access and make it legal-in-letter-only is wrong and guerilla warfare and blah blah blah. Gee, I wonder if you'll extend the same logic to any other hot-button political issues? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Basically. It's not crazy that this was upheld at all. It's almost exactly what the ABA's model rules recommend. Although those have been tossed out before, it would have been silly to do so here for that reason. The decision was absolutely the right one. But it was not at all expected, given the gleeful gutting of the very idea of campaign finance restrictions over the past few years (and that the Supreme Court had already gutted major judicial election regulations in White). Just because the decision is completely sane doesn't mean it's not crazy that this Court actually made it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The decision was absolutely the right one. But it was not at all expected, given the gleeful gutting of the very idea of campaign finance restrictions over the past few years (and that the Supreme Court had already gutted major judicial election regulations in White). Just because the decision is completely sane doesn't mean it's not crazy that this Court actually made it. I do agree to an extent, but it prompted me to go digging a bit into other times that the court has said various model ABA rules are unconstitutional, and almost all the ones I found were specifically about lawyers advertising. Even then there was a lot of hemming and hawing over what was and wasn't ethically appropriate. It's nice to see that the majority is able to keep their heads out of their rear end about this. Its funny this case came down because I had a PR test yesterday and a couple of the questions covered this exact type of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Do we know when they're handing down the gay marriage decision yet?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Do we know when they're handing down the gay marriage decision yet? June most likely.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I assume both the gay marriage and Obamacare decisions will be released on the absolute last day(s) possible. When would that be?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I assume both the gay marriage and Obamacare decisions will be released on the absolute last day(s) possible. When would that be? Opinions are usually on Monday and Wednesday, so June 24th or June 29th, depending on how long they stretch the session out.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
So why aren't cameras allowed into the courtroom? Are there reasons that make sense about why the court is so secretive?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:47
|
|