|
Scalia has the EPA case. 5-4, DC is reversed
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Fair Housing is a pretty big case Yeah, but it was unexpected primarily because of this Court's racial issue jurisprudence. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And I would add Obamacare Nah, the unexpected part of Obamacare was that Kennedy flipped, not the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Fair Housing is a pretty big case It was, but so was the Voting Rights Act. After how this court ruled on that, it wasn't exactly out of nowhere to expect they'd rule similarly bad on Fair Housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:A never ending train of And back to  with Utility Air being written by Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Let's not pretend that it's only the Republicans who use gerrymandering, the Democrats just don't have as many opportunities. Well before 1960 a lot of them couldn't vote in the south
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Scalia, again posted:Normally, having arrived at that conclusion, I would express no opinion on the merits unless my vote was necessary to enable the Court to produce a judgment. In the present case, however, the majority’s resolution of the merits question (“legislature” means “the people”) is so outrageously wrong, so utterly devoid of textual or historic support, so flatly in contradiction of prior Supreme Court cases, so obviously the willful product of hostility to districting by state legislatures, that I cannot avoid adding my vote to the devastating dissent of the Chief Justice. He's just full of gems
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
"5-4, gently caress you" part 2 for today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Scalia is a bad justice with bad opinions and a one track note and I hate him
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
The EPA must consider cost before deciding whether regulation is necessary. They can't first decide it is necessary, and then consider cost among the alternatives. In other words, "this poo poo is too expensive to do at all" has to be a possible option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
I don't even mind Alito and Roberts and it's good to have varied views on the bench
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Crappy for the EPA, though hopefully they can account for costs by simply invoking some economic externality argument of health impact? Does anyone here know more about how far the EPA has to go to "account for cost of compliance"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Iowa has a commission too, but no one cares because they only have 4 seats Yes but that was set up by the legislature, not through a citizen-initiative. This case only really impacted the latter, and only Arizona and California have done so that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Scalia is a bad justice with bad opinions and a one track note and I hate him He's at least fun to hate-read
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The EPA must consider cost before deciding whether regulation is necessary. They can't first decide it is necessary, and then consider cost among the alternatives. This line of reasoning makes sense from a business perspective (which is why I'm surprised Roberts isn't writing the opinion) as some industries could simply go under with excessive regulations
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
It doesn't necessarily mean the utilities are off the hook, the EPA just has to go back to square one, and do all the paperwork and have the hearings in a way that satisfies the court. (Unless a republican is president, in which case they find something else to occupy their time)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Crappy for the EPA, though hopefully they can account for costs by simply invoking some economic externality argument of health impact? Does anyone here know more about how far the EPA has to go to "account for cost of compliance"? I haven't read the full opinion but health is definitely a concern and they can factor in increased costs of healthcare as a savings I would imagine
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:It doesn't necessarily mean the utilities are off the hook, the EPA just has to go back to square one, and do all the paperwork and have the hearings in a way that satisfies the court. (Unless a republican is president, in which case they find something else to occupy their time) Yeah if that's all they have to do I'm not really seeing an effective status quo change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Man, Scalia and Utility Air loving things up two terms in a row. And largely about the same issue!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
A lot of the utilities have apparently read the writing on the wall and knew they would eventually lose even if they won this case, and have started to get on with it and voluntarily comply with the EPA's orders. Not many of the utilities in this case are still actively resisting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The EPA must consider cost before deciding whether regulation is necessary. They can't first decide it is necessary, and then consider cost among the alternatives. It's actually not a terribly concerning opinion when it comes to EPA ability to regulate - it just changes the procedure up a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's actually not a terribly concerning opinion when it comes to EPA ability to regulate - it just changes the procedure up a bit. The opinion: "We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost." It essentially changes nothing but how they put the value on things
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah if that's all they have to do I'm not really seeing an effective status quo change. Well I would imagine it will add a "you didn't consider the costs correctly" route of attack against any proposed or implemented regulations. Those sorts of economic impact studies are like environmental impact studies in that you can always find someone to make a study which coincidentally shows that what you want to happen is the only thing that should happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Well I would imagine it will add a "you didn't consider the costs correctly" route of attack against any proposed or implemented regulations. It sounded like they do these studies anyway, just after the fact instead of part of an initial proposal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Sometimes, Gawker rivals SCOTUSBlog for insightful commentary. "Showing a persistence and work ethic she never mustered in her lackluster high school career, University of Texas reject and professional white martyr Abigail Fisher has convinced the Supreme Court to give her one more chance to blame affirmative action for her personal failures."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sometimes, Gawker rivals SCOTUSBlog for insightful commentary.  of the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Mostly because the European Union has banned exporting these drugs to the USA if they are used to kill people. If there's demand, why isn't it produced here? The EU didn't exactly ban those drugs yesterday. Anyways, if we're going to execute people we should use the guillotine, the quickest and most painless way, but the French Revolution gave it a bad name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:If there's demand, why isn't it produced here? The EU didn't exactly ban those drugs yesterday. Probably the same reason why we don't make flu vaccines in America anymore, I assume. The real money is in making the latest and greatest wonder-drug, not wasting time with boring necessary medicine with very small profit margins and no patent protection. If the EU execution ban created a very large demand maybe it would be worth it, but its not like we have hundreds of thousands of prisoners waiting to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:If there's demand, why isn't it produced here? The EU didn't exactly ban those drugs yesterday. It has nothing to do with the French revolution. People just don't like the look of it because a head getting chopped off is a lot more gruesome than a painless* death by just falling asleep**, as in lethal injection. Lethal injection just feels so much better to people who don't want to think too deeply about execution, which is most of us. * May not be painless ** May not actually be asleep when lethal drugs administered
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
If only there were some method that is as cheap, easy, safe, humane, certain, and painless as nitrogen gas suffocation. I guess we'll just have to keep torturing people until someone thinks of one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
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. The northeastern US, but I learned the pejorative stuff from Anthropology courses. E: Specifically, we spent a long time in a few of my courses looking at a case study on the !Kung, a San subgroup in the Kalahari. The ! is a tongue click. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If only there were some method that is as cheap, easy, safe, humane, certain, and painless as nitrogen gas suffocation. Yes but then people wouldn't be SUFFERINGS for their crimes! I heard they actually get a euphoria before they pass away and we can't have that!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Probably the same reason why we don't make flu vaccines in America anymore, I assume. The real money is in making the latest and greatest wonder-drug, not wasting time with boring necessary medicine with very small profit margins and no patent protection. If the EU execution ban created a very large demand maybe it would be worth it, but its not like we have hundreds of thousands of prisoners waiting to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:It has nothing to do with the French revolution. People just don't like the look of it because a head getting chopped off is a lot more gruesome than a painless* death by just falling asleep**, as in lethal injection. Lethal injection just feels so much better to people who don't want to think too deeply about execution, which is most of us. I'm infuriated by Glossip, ofc, but it wasn't really surprising. This court had already established their standard that infinite cruelty is entirely constitutional unless it is also unusual and painful, botched lethal injection is not unusual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
So am I right in thinking the execution decision is pretty much squarely on the lawyers pushing the case not actually caring about the case in question (regarding the specific drugs and their cruelty) and just using it as an excuse to try and ban executions completely? It sounds like they could have easily gotten the drug ruled unconstitutional by actually arguing in favour of one of the other more humane methods of execution, but they explicitly avoided doing so and stuck to methods that weren't available?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Yes but then people wouldn't be SUFFERINGS for their crimes! I heard they actually get a euphoria before they pass away and we can't have that! The problem is that the prisons do not have the discretion to choose whatever method they think is the best. The method of execution is written into the law, and it is more difficult for a state legislature to come together, debate, vote on, and change the law than it is to try to defend it in court. (The other side knows this too, which is why they work so hard to get whatever happens to be on the books declared illegal) For no real logical reason, the people feel better about injections that put you to sleep than something that could be creepily described as a "gas chamber".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sometimes, Gawker rivals SCOTUSBlog for insightful commentary. So good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So am I right in thinking the execution decision is pretty much squarely on the lawyers pushing the case not actually caring about the case in question (regarding the specific drugs and their cruelty) and just using it as an excuse to try and ban executions completely? It probably wouldn't have made a difference. The fact that they lawyers didn't present an alternative method of execution was sufficient to rule midazolam okay, but it wasn't the only reason. They also took a look at the district court's ruling that midazolam was effective and determined that it was not a clear error, which was also sufficient by itself to rule midazolam okay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The problem is that the prisons do not have the discretion to choose whatever method they think is the best. The method of execution is written into the law, and it is more difficult for a state legislature to come together, debate, vote on, and change the law than it is to try to defend it in court. (The other side knows this too, which is why they work so hard to get whatever happens to be on the books declared illegal) For no real logical reason, the people feel better about injections that put you to sleep than something that could be creepily described as a "gas chamber". Depends on the state. Utah was tired of trying to get the stuff for lethal injection, so the legislature got together and brought back the firing squad. After reading about the process, that if you're going to be a fan of the death penalty, it is probably a little more humane than the lethal injections. The Legislature's reasoning was that Lethal Injection will be the primary method, but they want a backup in the event they can't get the meds. Utah also used to give the death row inmates their choice of execution, not that it makes it any better. If there was one thing DnD ever caused me to rethink an issue, it is the Death Penalty. http://time.com/3742818/utah-firing-squad-execution-lethal-injection/ posted:There have been at least two firing squad executions that could be considered botched. One occurred in 1879, when Wallace Wilkerson moved just enough for the executioners to miss his heart. Another came in 1951 when gunmen misfired and hit inmate Eliseo Mares in the stomach and hip. But firing squads appear to have a much better track record than lethal injection. Last year, three lethal injection executions were considered botched. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/24/why-utahs-gruesome-firing-squads-might-not-be-such-a-bad-alternative/ posted:“Lethal injection, which has the veneer of medical acceptability, has far greater risks of cruelty to a condemned person,” Fordham University Law School professor Deborah Denno told the Associated Press in 2010. She called the firing squad a “dignified execution.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:This line of reasoning makes sense from a business perspective (which is why I'm surprised Roberts isn't writing the opinion) as some industries could simply go under with excessive regulations Would someone please think of the asbestos industry? The federal government does not exist to subsidize failed businesses. The public costs of coal based power plants are arguably much higher than the profits you can derive from them. Yeah, it's a big industry but you Three Olives fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
teejayh posted:Depends on the state. Utah was tired of trying to get the stuff for lethal injection, so the legislature got together and brought back the firing squad. After reading about the process, that if you're going to be a fan of the death penalty, it is probably a little more humane than the lethal injections. The Legislature's reasoning was that Lethal Injection will be the primary method, but they want a backup in the event they can't get the meds. Utah also used to give the death row inmates their choice of execution, not that it makes it any better. If there was one thing DnD ever caused me to rethink an issue, it is the Death Penalty. Is there seriously a brutal image of the firing squad here, especially compared to injection screw-ups lately? Americans loving love guns. I loving love me some guns. If I had to choose how to be executed, it'd be a carbon monoxide/nitrogen chamber followed by the honorable Samuel Colt. Keep that electricity and needle poo poo far away from me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:15
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!