|
Utility Air e: oops not a constitution case
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Xenochrist posted:But Johnson does nothing to change the laws prohibiting sawed off shotguns (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your opinion on that). The case deals with whether that prior conviction counts as a violent felony for ACCA purposes. Hahaha, pull the other one! Next you'll tell me that it would be legal to deny funding my gay marriage to a doctor I selected on a federal exchange even if the funds disproportionately impacted my ability to gay marry a Black doctor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Fake, sadly. I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I want to believe. Sometimes you just have to have faith in a higher power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
People Who Are Going To Be Very Disappointed When They Get To Canada
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Worth pointing out that since Scalia got to write the sawed-off-shotgun opinion, there's a chance Breyer (and not Scalia) could have Utility Air on Monday. Let's keep this party rolling!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
I feel like Scalia's usual decorum and subtlety is getting way more attention than it deserves compared to Noted Black Conservative Honey Badger Clarence Thomas, Esq.:quote:5The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation Laws defining marriage as one man and one woman definitely do not arise out of same sex persecution because Ancient Greece
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Thomas's "dignity" dissent makes it sound like he agrees with Dredd Scott, jfc. No, not really. Consider Thomas's background: a black man, who grew up in desperate poverty speaking a thick dialect, who rose through elite institutions in an era where overt racism was not just acceptable but encouraged. The only way for him to maintain his sanity was to believe in an inherent human dignity that no slurs or discrimination could steal from him. There's plenty to criticize in his reasoning and language, but he's definitely not at the "agrees with Dredd Scott" level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Adar posted:I feel like Scalia's usual decorum and subtlety is getting way more attention than it deserves compared to Noted Black Conservative Honey Badger Clarence Thomas, Esq.: That reads like Thomas is basing his decision on legislative history. Does he normally do that? I know he'd look into old records for questions like, "What did Phrase-X mean in 1780s English?" But divining a meaning is a very different problem than asking why legislators were motivated to write a particular phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
So along with Texas (and I imagine soon to be followed by the rest of 'Dixie') Louisiana is now saying they will not immediately issue same sex marriage licenses. There was a paragraph in the article that I didn't quite get: 'Meanwhile, the Louisiana Clerks of Court Association is advising parish and city clerks to wait until the 25-day period for states to file an appeal of the Supreme Court ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage, Executive Director Debbie Hudnall said in an interview this week." Entire article here: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/gay_marriage_louisiana_attorne.html What is this 25 day period they speak of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Who exactly do they plan to appeal the decision to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:That reads like Thomas is basing his decision on legislative history. It's filler. He dissents because the 14th doesn't cover sexual orientation, in his view. njbeachbum posted:So along with Texas (and I imagine soon to be followed by the rest of 'Dixie') Louisiana is now saying they will not immediately issue same sex marriage licenses. There was a paragraph in the article that I didn't quite get: The petition for rehearing period before the court's mandate is issued.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:No, not really. Really good post (not being sarcastic).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:SCOTUS Thread 2015: With pure applesauce comes great jiggery-pokery Mods, please do the needful
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/was-supreme-court-justice-john-roberts-blackmailed/ Are Obama's NSA thugs forcing the courts to rule according to liberal imperial man-on-mandate? Journalism!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can’t say “friend of the family”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family.” You were saying something about how Voter ID and these other laws that heavily skew against the poor and minorities aren't racist and hostile action, or that we don't have Jim Crow anymore because it's not as blatant?  In hindsight, things like preclearance should've simply been a nationwide standard because racism wasn't always going to just stay in a few states. The fact that states under preclearance immediately started enacting restrictive laws as soon as the VRA was gutted also had shown that their being under it was still justified to this day. The Shortest Path posted:...why does that quiz includes questions that are explicitly in reference to things that would only matter in a court case? I get it's a joke, but they could at least put in the barest amount of It's gawker, so no they really couldn't. Thomas is truly one of the biggest pieces of poo poo I've ever seen. I wish we could send him back in time to meet any enslaved ancestors so he could spout this poo poo to them and then get promptly beaten bloody by said slaves. I hope some Japanese-Americans who were placed in camps during WW2 rip Thomas several new assholes. Both figuratively and literally. Dead Reckoning posted:Who exactly do they plan to appeal the decision to? God Almighty's True Christian Court, obviously. Unfortunately for them. Pope Francis is going to decline to hear the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It's filler. He dissents because the 14th doesn't cover sexual orientation, in his view. What is a Supreme Court rehearing like? Why would anyone expect the same justices to vote any differently?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:What is a Supreme Court rehearing like? Why would anyone expect the same justices to vote any differently? I think its probably an outdated artifact today. Long ago I could see a case where the supreme court makes an error because the facts aren't all known and someone rides in on horseback to yell "Wait stop, you guys were wrong, that didn't happen, it really went down like this!", and they can have a re-hearing to correct their mistake. Today cases are thoroughly briefed months in advance, dozens or sometimes hundreds of interested people all over the country can send in a brief to help out the justices see all viewpoints, all parties basically have agreed on the facts long ago, and there is not really any unknown information relevant to the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Adar posted:I feel like Scalia's usual decorum and subtlety is getting way more attention than it deserves compared to Noted Black Conservative Honey Badger Clarence Thomas, Esq.: "I'm just going to completely ignore that for most of history, a wife was considered a man's property. Marriage has never changed."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I think its probably an outdated artifact today. Long ago I could see a case where the supreme court makes an error because the facts aren't all known and someone rides in on horseback or train to yell "Wait stop, you guys were wrong, that didn't happen, it really went down like this!", and they can have a re-hearing to correct their mistake. It is pretty strange but no stranger than the motion for reconsideration, which is still used today in lower courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I think its probably an outdated artifact today. Long ago I could see a case where the supreme court makes an error because the facts aren't all known and someone rides in on horseback to yell "Wait stop, you guys were wrong, that didn't happen, it really went down like this!", and they can have a re-hearing to correct their mistake. So, according to the AG of Louisiana, the phrase "It is so ordered" at the bottom of the opinion isn't actually an order and so they can just wait until General Sherman rises from the grave and forces him at gunpoint to let two dudes marry each other?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:What is a Supreme Court rehearing like? Why would anyone expect the same justices to vote any differently? Basically the case is reargued. You rarely see them granted. Most commonly it happens when the composition of the court has changed (e.g. cases that were decided after a death or retirement and before confirmation of a replacement.) Occasionally statutes are amended in the immediate aftermath and a rehearing is requested on the amended statute. But mostly the court just denies them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:No, not really. Like, I can appreciate that. At least as a white man I can attempt to identify with it, even if I don't have the life experience to fully do so. I just do not understand why he would think that the government/judiciary must sit by and do nothing to help people achieve functional equality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Why would anyone expect the same justices to vote any differently? As the tides of blood and various plagues descend on the country in the next few days they see the error of their ways and, in a futile effort to appease and angry, jealous God, they grant a re-hearing to reverse their decision... I mean obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can’t say “friend of the family”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family.” That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. Shouldn't be hard for you to find a country that has a voter ID law without having a freely-distributed national ID program or equivalent, then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
tsa posted:That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. National IDs are incredibly common around the 1st world, too. The problem with voter ID laws in America, however, is that it is a solution in search of a problem. When Pennsylvania argued that voter ID laws were necessary, they were unable/unwilling to provide any proof of why they were necessary, simply that they were. Without a National ID, they're an effective form of poll taxes. They cost something that Democratic voters generally have little of: time. Time spent at the DMV, time spent away from work, time spent often times getting to the DMV via public transportation, yadda yadda. Not everyone has a job that is so cushy that they're able to sit in air conditioned offices and post on D&D about how common sense voter ID laws are or whatever. Ditto for reduced voting machines/reduced hours/no early voting -- they all increase the time it takes to vote, reducing the ability for primarily Democratic voters from casting a ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
tsa posted:That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. We can get back to this when national IDs are universal and free for all in the US. While at it, have elections on Sunday like the rest of the first world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Which states have voter id and no way of getting a free one for voting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Which states have voter id and no way of getting a free one for voting? hallebarrysoetoro posted:Without a National ID, they're an effective form of poll taxes. They cost something that Democratic voters generally have little of: time. Time spent at the DMV, time spent away from work, time spent often times getting to the DMV via public transportation, yadda yadda. Not everyone has a job that is so cushy that they're able to sit in air conditioned offices and post on D&D about how common sense voter ID laws are or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Which states have voter id and no way of getting a free one for voting? None, because that poo poo would not hold up against a 24th amendment challenge. They're just universally a pain in the rear end to get for free, in Kansas for example you need to go through a process to get a birth certificate before you can register and a second process to get a free ID so you had better remember to do it long enough before the election to get it done and have the free time to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
UberJew posted:None, because that poo poo would not hold up against a 24th amendment challenge. They're just universally a pain in the rear end to get for free, in Kansas for example you need to go through a process to get a birth certificate before you can register and a second process to get a free ID so you had better remember to do it long enough before the election to get it done and have the free time to do it. And there's no way to get a free both certificate in most states without the order of a judge or someone high up at the record keeping agency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Hasters posted:And there's no way to get a free both certificate in most states without the order of a judge or someone high up at the record keeping agency. I believe that in the states where you are required to have a birth certificate as proof of citizenship to register to vote there's a method available for getting one for free. If there is a state where that isn't true, that'd be an easy law to take out with a 24th amendment challenge. It's the year 2015 we require that you be subtle with your poll taxes
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:So along with Texas (and I imagine soon to be followed by the rest of 'Dixie') Louisiana is now saying they will not immediately issue same sex marriage licenses. There was a paragraph in the article that I didn't quite get: Texas isn't not issuing licenses. Certain counties are with holding them. The Counties holding Dallas, Austin and San Antonio are issuing licenses as of this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
UberJew posted:None, because that poo poo would not hold up against a 24th amendment challenge. They're just universally a pain in the rear end to get for free, in Kansas for example you need to go through a process to get a birth certificate before you can register and a second process to get a free ID so you had better remember to do it long enough before the election to get it done and have the free time to do it. If ID cards are good for only one year, cost $50, and took hours to apply for then I might see it as some kind of difficult burden. They aren't, so I don't, and the vast majority of people already have a DL. The percentage of legal voters who do not have any form of ID is a rounding error. Using my state (Iowa) as one example, an ID card is good for 8 years and costs $7. Going to the DMV once every 8 years and paying less than 10 bucks is not a substantial burden, at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If ID cards are good for only one year, cost $50, and took hours to apply for then I might see it as some kind of difficult burden. The percentage of legal voters who engage in voting fraud is also a rounding error. If voter ID is a trivial solution to a non-existent problem, why are state legislatures spending their time with it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
^^^^ I'm going to fraudulently vote for you to get killedNorthjayhawk posted:If ID cards are good for only one year, cost $50, and took hours to apply for then I might see it as some kind of difficult burden. The number of fraudulent votes cast is even more of a rounding error, so what purpose does voter ID serve beyond making it more difficult to vote?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 Voter ID isn't about disenfranchising people!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Also: paying less than ten bucks is still paying greater than zero bucks. I don't see how that's not a poll tax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Also: paying less than ten bucks is still paying greater than zero bucks. I don't see how that's not a poll tax. Hey, everyone's got ten bucks in their pocket, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:57
|
|