SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

richardfun: Aug 10, 2008; Twenty years? It's no wonder I'm so hungry. Do you have anything to eat?

ErIog posted:

Why do you see Kennedy or Roberts joining in to say that 4 words outweigh both the rest of the bill and also the intention of the people that wrote it? I know the court is politicized, but it's not congress. They're still lawyers who ostensibly are attempting to do what they perceive as a good job.

Departing from the way the supreme court usually handles the interpretation of laws written by Congress would require some kind of good justification on the part of the justices doing so, and in this case they know the end result would be killing the insurance market in states with federal exchanges. That kind of ruling would damage perceptions of SCOTUS even without taking into account the consequences.

If the court is indeed too politicized and overly-concerned with its own legacy then isn't that more support for the view that they probably won't strike it down? Striking it down would be bad both from a jurisprudence and a political standpoint. I think we see 6-3 or 7-2(minus Alito) in favor of the law.

In terms of the timing of cases I think we'll get the ACA decision later this week, but the gay marriage case is going to be last. The ACA decision, if they uphold it, probably isn't going to be so historic in the long term. It's gonna make the news, but not to the same extent as legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states.

They're going to want to take their time writing that gay marriage decision since they know it's going to be widely read/circulated/quoted. That's something that makes into eulogies. They're not going to release it before it's perfect.

Really? You have a hard time believing Kennedy for instance would be willfully obtuse? The man said this: �Independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.�

# ? Jun 25, 2015 13:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 17:50

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

ErIog posted:

Why do you see Kennedy or Roberts joining in to say that 4 words outweigh both the rest of the bill and also the intention of the people that wrote it? I know the court is politicized, but it's not congress. They're still lawyers who ostensibly are attempting to do what they perceive as a good job.

Departing from the way the supreme court usually handles the interpretation of laws written by Congress would require some kind of good justification on the part of the justices doing so, and in this case they know the end result would be killing the insurance market in states with federal exchanges. That kind of ruling would damage perceptions of SCOTUS even without taking into account the consequences.

If the court is indeed too politicized and overly-concerned with its own legacy then isn't that more support for the view that they probably won't strike it down? Striking it down would be bad both from a jurisprudence and a political standpoint. I think we see 6-3 or 7-2(minus Alito) in favor of the law.

In terms of the timing of cases I think we'll get the ACA decision later this week, but the gay marriage case is going to be last. The ACA decision, if they uphold it, probably isn't going to be so historic in the long term. It's gonna make the news, but not to the same extent as legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states.

They're going to want to take their time writing that gay marriage decision since they know it's going to be widely read/circulated/quoted. That's something that makes into eulogies. They're not going to release it before it's perfect.

I was talking about who I think voted to grant cert (Scalia, Thomas, Alito + Roberts and/or Kennedy) - that is, who voted to bring the case to the Court in the first place (which we will never know) - and not final votes on the merits.

I stand by my prediction that the ruling on the merits will be in favor of the government, with Kennedy likely writing the opinion (maaaaybe Roberts but I bet Roberts would be happy to pass the ball to Kennedy on this case even if Roberts joins the government's side) based on a state sovereignty justification. Kennedy loving loves state sovereignty/federalism jurisprudence. Like. loving loves it.

Also, I'll own up to at first agreeing with King's position. Pretty sure that conversation was had in this thread. On its surface, it's looks like a straightforward and correct argument, especially if you tout a hardboner for textualism (which I do). I saw the errors of my judgment, and I think Abbe Gluck put out the best, thorough explanation for why the government should win on textualist grounds over at SCOTUSBlog: Abbe Gluck is cool.

Radish posted:

Would it really? This is an honest question since I really don't know. What's stopping 5 justices from just going "Here's a TOTALLY legit reason why we are siding with King but this is a special case and shouldn't influence future rulings." That seems kinda what they did in Hobby Lobby.

The only time the Court flat out did that - said "this is basically a worthless opinion beyond the facts of this case and should never be cited for anything ever" - was the Bush v. Gore fiasco. The ruling in Hobby Lobby tried to limit its applicability on the basis that it applied to a certain set of facts (distinguishing between certain beliefs that were/were not afforded protection under RFRA I'm pretty sure, but working off of memory here), which is actually a not uncommon tactic for courts in heated cases, but it didn't outright label itself as unciteable precedent.

That never happens (save for Bush v. Gore) in the manner you're thinking: a published opinion is always precedent, and subject to being construed broadly/narrowly to apply/not apply to a new factual scenario. Of course, not all cases become precedent. For example, cases in lower courts are not infrequently disposed of by unpublished opinion/order, which have no precedential value and are effectively "this case has (or at least should have) no influence on future rulings."

# ? Jun 25, 2015 13:33

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Green Crayons posted:

I was talking about who I think voted to grant cert (Scalia, Thomas, Alito + Roberts and/or Kennedy) - that is, who voted to bring the case to the Court in the first place (which we will never know) - and not final votes on the merits.

I stand by my prediction that the ruling on the merits will be in favor of the government, with Kennedy likely writing the opinion (maaaaybe Roberts but I bet Roberts would be happy to pass the ball to Kennedy on this case even if Roberts joins the government's side) based on a state sovereignty justification. Kennedy loving loves state sovereignty/federalism jurisprudence. Like. loving loves it.

Also, I'll own up to at first agreeing with King's position. Pretty sure that conversation was had in this thread. On its surface, it's looks like a straightforward and correct argument, especially if you tout a hardboner for textualism (which I do). I saw the errors of my judgment, and I think Abbe Gluck put out the best, thorough explanation for why the government should win on textualist grounds over at SCOTUSBlog: Abbe Gluck is cool.

The only time the Court flat out did that - said "this is basically a worthless opinion beyond the facts of this case and should never be cited for anything ever" - was the Bush v. Gore fiasco. The ruling in Hobby Lobby tried to limit its applicability on the basis that it applied to a certain set of facts (distinguishing between certain beliefs that were/were not afforded protection under RFRA I'm pretty sure, but working off of memory here), which is actually a not uncommon tactic for courts in heated cases, but it didn't outright label itself as unciteable precedent.

That never happens (save for Bush v. Gore) in the manner you're thinking: a published opinion is always precedent, and subject to being construed broadly/narrowly to apply/not apply to a new factual scenario. Of course, not all cases become precedent. For example, cases in lower courts are not infrequently disposed of by unpublished opinion/order, which have no precedential value and are effectively "this case has (or at least should have) no influence on future rulings."

Abbe Gluck owns, y'all.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 13:52

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

SLOSifl posted:

(*Lethal Injection) Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955 [Arg: 4.29.2015]

Issue(s): (1) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious; (2) whether the plurality stay standard of Baze v. Rees applies when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze; and (3) whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state�s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment

[bold and italics = my emphasis]

Is this case basically saying "is it constitutionally permissible to do something unconstitutional if we cross our fingers and believe hard enough"?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:05

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Green Crayons posted:

I was talking about who I think voted to grant cert (Scalia, Thomas, Alito + Roberts and/or Kennedy) - that is, who voted to bring the case to the Court in the first place (which we will never know) - and not final votes on the merits.

I stand by my prediction that the ruling on the merits will be in favor of the government, with Kennedy likely writing the opinion (maaaaybe Roberts but I bet Roberts would be happy to pass the ball to Kennedy on this case even if Roberts joins the government's side) based on a state sovereignty justification. Kennedy loving loves state sovereignty/federalism jurisprudence. Like. loving loves it.

Also, I'll own up to at first agreeing with King's position. Pretty sure that conversation was had in this thread. On its surface, it's looks like a straightforward and correct argument, especially if you tout a hardboner for textualism (which I do). I saw the errors of my judgment, and I think Abbe Gluck put out the best, thorough explanation for why the government should win on textualist grounds over at SCOTUSBlog: Abbe Gluck is cool.

The only time the Court flat out did that - said "this is basically a worthless opinion beyond the facts of this case and should never be cited for anything ever" - was the Bush v. Gore fiasco. The ruling in Hobby Lobby tried to limit its applicability on the basis that it applied to a certain set of facts (distinguishing between certain beliefs that were/were not afforded protection under RFRA I'm pretty sure, but working off of memory here), which is actually a not uncommon tactic for courts in heated cases, but it didn't outright label itself as unciteable precedent.

That never happens (save for Bush v. Gore) in the manner you're thinking: a published opinion is always precedent, and subject to being construed broadly/narrowly to apply/not apply to a new factual scenario. Of course, not all cases become precedent. For example, cases in lower courts are not infrequently disposed of by unpublished opinion/order, which have no precedential value and are effectively "this case has (or at least should have) no influence on future rulings."

Interesting, thanks. It's still a little disconcerting regarding Bush vs Gore though.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:10

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Yeah. I recall Justice Thomas citing Bush v. Gore a session or two ago for an unremarkable legal principle, and it got some mention in the legal press because that case is supposed to be toxic sludge for precedent. Thomas gives no fucks.

Also, yeah. Abbe Gluck is awesome, and has awesome things to say (I only know her work on statutory interpretation).

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:16

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

Freudian posted:

[bold and italics = my emphasis]

Is this case basically saying "is it constitutionally permissible to do something unconstitutional if we cross our fingers and believe hard enough"?

That's basically the argument against all capital punishment, yeah.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:18

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Green Crayons posted:

I was talking about who I think voted to grant cert (Scalia, Thomas, Alito + Roberts and/or Kennedy) - that is, who voted to bring the case to the Court in the first place (which we will never know) - and not final votes on the merits.

I know what cert is, but the way you broke out the second line made it sound like you were also saying the other 2 justices would join in for a 5-4 decision. I'll admit I haven't been following this thread so I had no idea what you had predicted before. I'm sorry I misinterpreted.

richardfun posted:

Really? You have a hard time believing Kennedy for instance would be willfully obtuse? The man said this: �Independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.�

Did that case have massive ramifications concerning how textualism is applied? I'm not saying Kennedy is a logical genius that writes awesome opinions. I just don't think he would be that obtuse in a case where that kind of obtuseness would both fundamentally change the way the court operates in the future and also wreak havoc on the nation. In the case you cited he was being obtuse in order to maintain ideological purity that congress passing new disclosure laws could offset any perceptions of impropriety if they felt there were any. I don't see an ideologically pure angle on this ACA case that would lead him to do that.

I think Scalia, Thomas, and Alito definitely would for various reasons, but I don't see Kennedy doing it despite past examples of him being dumb.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:19

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Freudian posted:

[bold and italics = my emphasis]

Is this case basically saying "is it constitutionally permissible to do something unconstitutional if we cross our fingers and believe hard enough"?

"what's modus ponens"?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:19

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

OddObserver posted:

"what's modus ponens"?

for clarity posted:

the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (�if p then q �) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

That said, it will honestly come down to what the majority feels like. They've had a chance to get rid of the death penalty before and probably won't here either.

Does violating the eighth amendment matter if the person is a bad guy? Does being sentenced to death remove your protection in this sense? What if it's tradition? Jefferson would have thought lethal injections was pretty cool!

vv If they rule against lethal injection, it will almost certainly be limited specifically to that, and could be worded such that only the specific drugs are prohibited, not the process itself.

Also lol at "nicest way to go", I guarantee you that is not the primary goal.

SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:22

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

I don't think it's going to come down to abolishing the death penalty, but if it came to abolishing or substantially restricting lethal injection then I'd be happy enough. In terms of painless execution I've never quite understood why they don't go for nitrogen suffocation - from what I've heard it's pretty much the nicest way to go that's not dying in your sleep.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:29

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SLOSifl posted:

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314 [Arg: 3.2.2015]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. � 2a(c) permit Arizona�s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.

I haven't been following this one for months. Is there any hope of it going well?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:29

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

I've never quite understood how lethal injections are supposed to be better than the guillotine. Why did we decide to switch to such a terrible method for killing people?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:30

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Is there anything better than the SCOTUSblog live blog? The reader comments make it really hard to find new information there.

GlyphGryph posted:

I've never quite understood how lethal injections are supposed to be better than the guillotine. Why did we decide to switch to such a terrible method for killing people?

The old lethal injection methods are a bit different than the improvised methods states are attempting to use now, but for a long time we weren't really interested in how lethal injection actually worked. By cloaking the the method of execution in medical speak and making the process seem less gruesome overall, the lethal injection process had the appearance of being more humane until we understood exactly how it worked. We probably could have figured out how awful it really is sooner if there had been greater motivation to do so.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:31

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

ErIog posted:

Is there anything better than the SCOTUSblog live blog? The reader comments make it really hard to find new information there.

You are reading curated comments while they kill time until 10am. Responses to real questions right now are all "we have no way of knowing"

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:32

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

GlyphGryph posted:

I've never quite understood how lethal injections are supposed to be better than the guillotine. Why did we decide to switch to such a terrible method for killing people?

Cutting heads off is gross, letting them "fall asleep" on a table feels less barbaric as long as you look away when the seizures begin. Again it has nothing to do with the person being killed or their pain during the process.

The court ruling against lethal injection because of the potential pain would be a positive step, leaving precedent to evaluate other methods on the same criteria.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:35

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

ErIog: sorry about that, wasn't meaning to speak down to you if that's how I came across, just wasn't sure how knowledgeable folks are ITT

Also, I haven't been keeping up with it as much, but I'm pretty sure the conservatives are going to win on the lethal injection case.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:37

richardfun: Aug 10, 2008; Twenty years? It's no wonder I'm so hungry. Do you have anything to eat?

ErIog posted:

I know what cert is, but the way you broke out the second line made it sound like you were also saying the other 2 justices would join in for a 5-4 decision. I'll admit I haven't been following this thread so I had no idea what you had predicted before. I'm sorry I misinterpreted.

Did that case have massive ramifications concerning how textualism is applied? I'm not saying Kennedy is a logical genius that writes awesome opinions. I just don't think he would be that obtuse in a case where that kind of obtuseness would both fundamentally change the way the court operates in the future and also wreak havoc on the nation. In the case you cited he was being obtuse in order to maintain ideological purity that congress passing new disclosure laws could offset any perceptions of impropriety if they felt there were any. I don't see an ideologically pure angle on this ACA case that would lead him to do that.

I think Scalia, Thomas, and Alito definitely would for various reasons, but I don't see Kennedy doing it despite past examples of him being dumb.

Fair point. I have to admit, I'm new to the thread and while I do follow US politics and the major SCotUS cases closely, I can't claim to have the kind of legal knowledge people in this thread seem to have.

I will now resume my regular lurking.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:37

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

SLOSifl posted:

Cutting heads off is gross, letting them "fall asleep" on a table feels less barbaric as long as you look away when the seizures begin. Again it has nothing to do with the person being killed or their pain during the process.

The court ruling against lethal injection because of the potential pain would be a positive step, leaving precedent to evaluate other methods on the same criteria.

I've seen politicians suggest we use the same drug used to euthanize animals. It was shot down by other politicians who disliked the idea of criminals getting a euphoric high before their heart stops.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:39

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

The Warszawa posted:

Abbe Gluck owns, y'all.

Yeah, the textualist argument against King is really beautifully put here. Great read.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:40

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Green Crayons posted:

ErIog: sorry about that, wasn't meaning to speak down to you if that's how I came across, just wasn't sure how knowledgeable folks are ITT

No sweat. I appreciated the links and other info you posted there, and I'll admit you've been following more closely than I have.

Green Crayons posted:

Also, I haven't been keeping up with it as much, but I'm pretty sure the conservatives are going to win on the lethal injection case.

I think they will too. I don't think the court has the energy to actually lay out a coherent framework for what "cruel and unusual punishment" means with regard to the death penalty. There's too many technical medical questions to that they're not going to feel comfortable contending with.

richardfun posted:

Fair point. I have to admit, I'm new to the thread and while I do follow US politics and the major SCotUS cases closely, I can't claim to have the kind of legal knowledge people in this thread seem to have.

I will now resume my regular lurking.

You should consider listening to the oral arguments. I also don't really follow this thread so much, but I find the oral arguments that are posted online very interesting and they don't take too much time to catch up on.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:45

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

Looks like 3-4 opinions today, i.e. leaving the juiciest stuff until tomorrow, as expected.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:52

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

i.e. 2 boxes of opinions. Could be 1 - 4 realistically, some of the remaining decisions include several cases.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 14:54

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Blue Footed Booby posted:

I've seen politicians suggest we use the same drug used to euthanize animals. It was shot down by other politicians who disliked the idea of criminals getting a euphoric high before their heart stops.

hell we could do the same with a facemask and nitrogen, it'd be a poo poo ton cheaper, and it'd most definitely not be cruel and unusual (at least as long as you don't consider killing a person a cruel punishment).

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:00

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Oh thank the various gods they didn't gut the FHA.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:03

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

YES!

I was expecting a loss on Texas

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:03

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

First opinion:

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, No. 13-1371 [Arg: 1.21.2015]

Issue(s): Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

5-4 Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas dissenting

Disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

(This is good)

Unrelated:

Scotus Blog posted:

If we have an opinion from Kennedy, that means we could only get the next opinion or opinions from Kennedy, Scalia, or the Chief Justice.

SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:03

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

By the way, watch for conservatives to suddenly start with conspiracy theories about how King never had standing if SCOTUS upholds the subsidies.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:04

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:04

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

It was 5-4 with Kennedy writing, so my heart skipped a beat, knowing that he's not exactly good on racial issues. But that's good, it looks like.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:05

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

That is a huge victory right there

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:05

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Chamale posted:

In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?

It's going to depend on the opinion which I doubt anyone who isn't a clerk has parsed, but I would be shocked if this revives the disparate impact question settled in Davis more broadly. It's still baller as gently caress.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:05

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

Remaining opinions today could only be issued by Kennedy, Scalia, or Roberts.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:06

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Chamale posted:

In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?

Without disparate impact it's impossible to prove racial discrimination in housing unless someone literally says "I'm not renting/lending to you because of your race." It's huge.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:08

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

Second opinion:

PPACA holy poo poo

Holding: Subsidies are available.
Holding: Subsidies are available.
Holding: Subsidies are available.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:09

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

woah

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:09

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

HOLY gently caress

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:09

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Holy poo poo, 6-3 for Obamacare?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:09

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Chamale posted:

In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?

Sounds like it is more of a statutory finding which would limit it to FHA claims.

Wooo Healthcare is a go and subsidies are OK!

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 17:50

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

6-3

# ? Jun 25, 2015 15:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »