|
Discendo Vox posted:This would be true if the distinction between content and dicta were explicit. As it is, I look forward to the explication of dignity as a new arm of fundamental rights jurisprudence. If Kennedy had said made your argument, and not spent a lot of time making it very explicit that he was stating a new dimension of a right rather than expressing something that had previously been a right not properly expressed in the lower courts, then this would have been a better decision. He wasn't talking about a free-floating right to dignity, though - he was using dignity (which already had some recognition) as a bridge to talking about why marriage is a fundamental right and from there to why gay marriage also qualifies. It's quite clear throughout the opinion that the four steps above are exactly the key. To the extent anyone is arguing for dignity as a fundamental right in and of itself, they're going to need to explain why that particular element of dignity is a "personal choice[] central to individual dignity and autonomy", which was already a SDP justification stemming back quite some time (at least to Griswold, if not further.) Kennedy is explicitly not stating that "dignity" is a free-floating right; instead, he's using existing case law on dignity/autonomy-derived rights (primarily from privacy cases) to buttress his statement that the right to marry is fundamental no matter what the genders of the people who are getting married. The idea that it's bad legal reasoning is itself bad legal reasoning.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Kennedy's opinion on SSM is really unambiguously legislation from the bench- he made no real effort to present the outcome in terms of existing law. This is genuinely a bad thing, and makes it harder to construct a coherent legal framework around the holding, and damages the authority of the court. The dignity material that drove Thomas nuts was genuinely an especially bad offender in this regard. I just had time to read the decision and I totally agree with this. The majority opinion was not optimal at all and pretty weak. It would have been much better to have a proper 14th amendment scrutiny analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I just had time to read the decision and I totally agree with this. The majority opinion was not optimal at all and pretty weak. It would have been much better to have a proper 14th amendment scrutiny analysis. I'm going to link this again. I still think it's the best SSM ruling so far, and provides a pretty good roadmap for what a great decision would have looked like (Walker from San Fransisco re: prop 8). Text starts around 109, but the findings were pretty great too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
I have been seeing tons of "now we can get equal rights for guns in all states" on my Facebook feed. I was going to ask the thread if the SSM ruling could be used to get open carry recognized by all states. While I am still wondering about that (and answer would be greatly appreciated), I have finished reading this thread. I have a new question. Could Kennedy and the rest of the concurring judges have specifically punted on the 14th amendment analysis due to the fact that issues like gun control pop up. Use non distinct and vague language that literally only applies to marriage so that any gun cases (or any tangentially related cases) would have to be brought up separately?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I have been seeing tons of "now we can get equal rights for guns in all states" on my Facebook feed. I was going to ask the thread if the SSM ruling could be used to get open carry recognized by all states. Short answer: no. Long answer: Jesus fuckin' Christ, hell no. Open carry is not a fundamental right being burdened by unequal state treatments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I have been seeing tons of "now we can get equal rights for guns in all states" on my Facebook feed. I was going to ask the thread if the SSM ruling could be used to get open carry recognized by all states. It's my thinking that they punted on the 14th amendment to avoid an awkward showdown with the first amendment right to religious expression. Not some contrived "quid pro quo, libtards  " narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Nostalgia that's one hell of an av.mdemone posted:Short answer: no. There are IIRC 7 states you can't open carry in at all which is what they're referring to as an analogue to not being able to get gay married at all. But the version of this meme I've seen on my FB is that the full faith and credit clause requires states to honor each other's concealed carry licenses which is a little different of a tack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Nostalgia that's one hell of an av. US Constitution, Article IV, section 1 posted:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Emphasis mine. Justice Stone, majority opinion, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION posted:[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See [bunch of citations]. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events. And that's just me pulling poo poo from Wikipedia. I'm sure an actual law-talkin' person could make explain it more thoroughly and persuasively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:It's my thinking that they punted on the 14th amendment to avoid an awkward showdown with the first amendment right to religious expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
For everyone: prolific writer and judge whenever he can fit it in, Judge Posner, wrote a great Slate article "The chief justice’s dissent is heartless." I'll give you three guesses to figure what it's about! For those inclined to read about legal jurisprudence: Jack Balkin wrote a piece suggesting how Obergefell will impact the SDP analysis: "Bye, Bye, Glucksberg." Also, I gotta agree with Kalman. If you accept that SDP is a legitimate constitutional doctrine, Obergefell isn't really radical stuff within that paradigm as set out by the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Is there any chance of the Arizona redistricting commission not being ruled unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
I would normally say that there is not a good chance but this article got me thinking about whether there is more blow back against "more conservative" cases. Roberts could side with them easily but they push so hard that he does not want that as his legacy. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/27/8856465/supreme-court-liberal quote:A few days before the Obamacare and same-sex marriage cases dropped, the New York Times published a fascinating data analysis showing that the Supreme Court was on track to have one of the most liberal terms in years. I still think that the Arizona Commission is going to ruled unconstitutional but I now have a better feeling (because of this and the FHA/ACA rulings)about this and the death penalty cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
What are the legal ramifications to Texas' attorney general telling clerks they can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
He didn't tell them to do that. He said that they have 1st Amendment rights to believe whatever they want, and that they can ask for religious accommodations that they are not guaranteed to (i.e won't) receive. It's a chickenshit non-memo that tells no one anything of value, except that the Texas AG is a coward baby whose convictions extend just short of the point that he gets scared of actual consequences to himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:He didn't tell them to do that. He said that they have 1st Amendment rights to believe whatever they want, and that they can ask for religious accommodations that they are not guaranteed to (i.e won't) receive. It's a chickenshit non-memo that tells no one anything of value, except that the Texas AG is a coward baby whose convictions extend just short of the point that he gets scared of actual consequences to himself. Yeah it's basically him saying "gently caress this ruling  " on a national stage, and possibly confusing some county clerks into not issuing licenses for a few days without explicitly saying anything that will get him in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
He also wouldn't even offer them official state legal representation for the inevitable lawsuits, he's just like "you should totally defy the Supreme Court and rebuff those gays, I bet you can find a lawyer to defend you for free, probably"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:For everyone: prolific writer and judge whenever he can fit it in, Judge Posner, wrote a great Slate article "The chief justice’s dissent is heartless." I'll give you three guesses to figure what it's about! Choice quote from that slate article (bolding mine): The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a maneuver they were experts at. lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Bushmen, incidentally, is pretty much exclusively used in the pejorative these days to refer to the San peoples of Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Google v. Oracle denied
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Today is the very last decision day right? Or did they schedule another
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Looks like Fisher was granted. Be prepared for the end of Affirmative Action next year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Looks like Fisher was granted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Bushmen, incidentally, is pretty much exclusively used in the pejorative these days to refer to the San peoples of Africa. Where do you live, if that's OK too ask? It's the only term I've heard outside an academic setting, and I've never gotten the sense it's being used as a pejorative. Just curious whether it's a regional thing, or if it's time to excise another word from my vocabulary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Isn't that the one with the awful plaintiff Has there ever been an affirmative action case without an awful plaintiff? Blue Footed Booby posted:Where do you live, if that's OK too ask? It's the only term I've heard outside an academic setting, and I've never gotten the sense it's being used as a pejorative. I just call groups whatever they call/called themselves, generally. I'm willing to bet it wasn't "bushmen".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Looks like Fisher was granted. They could have overturned AA the first time around if they had really wanted to. Fisher just doesn't seem like a very good plaintiff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Ah, the classic "5-4, gently caress you" decision, how I missed you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Does "granted" mean the supreme court has agreed to hear the case next term? I looked at the order list, what does vacated mean in this context? In a decision, they say "remanded and vacated" and that basically means "overruled," right? What does it mean in the orders, where it's granted and the lower ruling is vacated? e: goddamnit, I know it was high hopes for the lethal injection ruling but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
The liberals dissent in Glossip, sounds bad, though I don't know what's at stake in the case. Edit: Oh, death penalty. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Midazolam is permitted for executions. 5-4
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Death Penalty - still legal
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Midazolam is the drug they use to sedate because using other sedatives would be "too nice" for them, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Does "granted" mean the supreme court has agreed to hear the case next term? Grant, vacate, and remand means "hey, lower court, fix your poo poo." Typically used when the court thinks a case was wrongly decided but that there's adequate guidance as to how to decide it correctly, or when an intervening decision has rendered a decision wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:They could have overturned AA the first time around if they had really wanted to. Fisher just doesn't seem like a very good plaintiff. They didn't undo AA last time because Sotomayor apparently ripped Kennedy to shreds in a dissent. Upon remand, the 5th Circuit dissent criticized the University's failure to define its stated goal - achieving a "critical mass" of minority students - which prevented the court from doing what SCOTUS told it to do upon remand: not defer to the University in determining whether it was using the most narrowly tailored means to achieve that critical mass. The problem, of course, is that if you go about defining critical mass, you end up looking like you're wanting a quota, which is prohibited. It's a lose/lose situation. Based on how this played out before, and how it got resolved in the 5th Circuit upon remand, its very much a possibility that SCOTUS will say "critical mass" objectives are too vague and an educational institution must provide a more definite goal in order for a court to apply strict scrutiny. It would not be a death knell of AA in theory - the Fisher case does not challenge "diversity" as a legitimate end, just merely the means to that end - but in practice it would likely be devastating for AA. ----- Justice Breyer, joined by RBG, would ask for broader briefing on whether the death penalty is constitutional. That's major. But they obviously do not have the votes for that. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_29_2015#sthash.oMLwBS5w.dpuf Holy poo poo that's major. First time those two have ever voiced that opinion, I think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Breyer and RBG would have asked for a broader briefing on whether the death penalty is constitutional. The other 2 liberals did not join that dissent, so looks like there are 2 votes to end the death penalty
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Bullshit, they know for a fact that Midazolam doesn't work for executions, this is a case of taking the easy way out to avoid confronting the fact that we don't know how to execute people in a way that isn't barbaric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Midazolam is the drug they use to sedate because using other sedatives would be "too nice" for them, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
@chrisgeidner Alito writes for the court that prisoners "failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution." #SCOTUS Looks like the death penalty's here to stay for at least another generation 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Midazolam is the drug they use to sedate because using other sedatives would be "too nice" for them, right? No, Midazolam is the only sedative the states can get their hands on, because the more powerful and effective sedatives have been made unavailable to the states for executions by anti-death penalty advocates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
From Scotusblog:quote:There is a very important part of the Court's opinion: it holds that the inmates did not prove that midazolam was cruel and unusual when compared to known and available alternatives. The inmates had argued that the state could use pentobarbital or sodium thiopental, but the Court holds today that those drugs are unavailable. The inmates argued that they shouldn't have to plead an alternative, but the Court rejected that argument. So the inmates can't argue that a drug that would be used to kill them is cruel and unusual, unless they present another drug that is feasible AND available. Sorry, this drug may be cruel and unusual but you didn't give us an alternative way that you'd like to die. And we really do need to kill you. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:No, Midazolam is the only sedative the states can get their hands on, because the more powerful and effective sedatives have been made unavailable to the states for executions by anti-death penalty advocates. Mostly because the European Union has banned exporting these drugs to the USA if they are used to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:13
|
|