|
axeil posted:you joke, but i bet we'd see a constitutional challenge to the income tax if it wasn't already enshrined as an amendment. Well, yes, that's exactly why we have the amendment. To overturn a SCOTUS decision regarding income taxes.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
axeil posted:you joke, but i bet we'd see a constitutional challenge to the income tax if it wasn't already enshrined as an amendment. you joke, but people have tried to have amendments declared unconstitutional before
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you joke, but people have tried to have amendments declared unconstitutional before I'd argue we already have done this, but that is because I think there is an implicit privacy protection in the 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you joke, but people have tried to have amendments declared unconstitutional before Aren't there multiple things in the Constitution and the Amendments that are nearly dead letters due to their interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:This is just weird, because I'm not sure what ability the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court actually has to order Probate Judges to do anything. Yes, he technically oversees the entire court system, but Probate Judges are elected officials, and they don't serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice, they serve six year terms unless impeached. So, if they disobey Roy Moore's order, what's the consequence. He can't do anything about it. He can't. I haven't seen a response to this, but per the LA Times quote:Significantly, Moore’s latest order seems to have had little impact on the availability of marriage licenses throughout the state. According to the Montgomery Advertiser, only three probate courts reported stopping issuing marriage licenses last week. Most of the state’s 67 counties are issuing licenses to all couples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you joke, but people have tried to have amendments declared unconstitutional before see, e.g.,
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Aren't there multiple things in the Constitution and the Amendments that are nearly dead letters due to their interpretation? Yeah, but that's different than declaring them unconstitutional. People took a case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that giving women the vote so contradicted the rest of the constitution that it was an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
axeil posted:gonna laugh for when this destroys unions and as a last measure the unions get every major corporation in america classified as lobbyists. They aren't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:People took a case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that giving women the vote so contradicted the rest of the constitution that it was an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Justice Scalia attempted to respond on the petitioner's behalf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
SCOTUS has taken up Bob McDonnell's appeal. Apparently unexpected. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/688102584708501504
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:SCOTUS has taken up Bob McDonnell's appeal. Apparently unexpected. As noted in USPOL, it sounds like Roberts really wants to reinforce his "the only corruption is explicit quid pro quo caught on tape" jurisprudence, so McDonnell may well go free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As noted in USPOL, it sounds like Roberts really wants to reinforce his "the only corruption is explicit quid pro quo caught on tape" jurisprudence, so McDonnell may well go free. Oh for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
So according to ScotusBlog, apparently McDonnell's cert was limited to this question:quote:Whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional. So IANAL, but it looks like he's still going with the argument that he didn't carry out any "official act" for his businessman buddy. The lower court ruled that under the Hobbs Act the "act" doesn't necessarily need to be a final governmental action, but corruption exists so long as there is an expectation that influence will be used to grease the wheels. At best we get a continuation of the stricter definition of corruption that the Roberts court has previously set out, and at worst, they rule that the government can't prosecute public corruption under the Commerce clause!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:, they rule that the government can't prosecute public corruption under the Commerce clause! A dark part of me wants them to rule this way since gently caress it why bother hiding it anymore. Just make bribery legal and throw off the mask Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:So according to ScotusBlog, apparently McDonnell's cert was limited to this question: I don't think it would be a commerce clause ruling. Rather it would probably be unconstitutionally vague. Basically, the argument is that the court should interpret this law to only criminalize final government action, but, if the court doesn't interpret it that way, then it should decide that it's unconstitutionally vague because it is too difficult for someone, in advance, to determine whether their planned conduct would be criminal under the law. E: While I'm not necessarily agreeing with the argument in this particular case (I don't know enough about it) vagueness is an important concept in criminal law. Criminal laws should be drafted so that a person (or a person's attorney) can look at the law and say that X either is or is not criminal. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As noted in USPOL, it sounds like Roberts really wants to reinforce his "the only corruption is explicit quid pro quo caught on tape" jurisprudence, so McDonnell may well go free. It's ok so long as RBG frees Robert's face with a crowbar afterwards. In reality we'll probably see Roberts rule along the lines of "lol gently caress you plebs and your desire to punish your betters."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Bunch of decisions came down today. First Montgomery v Louisiana http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-280_4h25.pdf This tells louisiana to gently caress off that Miller is retroactive and they can't keep juveniles held for LWOP Musacchio v. United States http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1095_2d8f.pdf Can't bring up a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. Has to be brought up during the original trial. Also a sufficiency challenge does not depend on jury instruction whether right or wrong but whether the actual elements of the crime were satisfied. Menominee Tribe v US http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-510_pm02.pdf Basically they didn't file fast enough to get their money and the circumstances aren't extenuating so the SoL holds up and they don't get paid. FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840_k537.pdf FERC did nothing wrong quit whining bitches. Melene James v City of Boise http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-493_5h26.pdf This per curiam opinion is nothing but a smack down of the Idaho supreme court for saying that it wasn't bound by a SCOTUS deicision and improperly awarded fees under section 1988 without first verifying that the lawsuit was frivolous. Amgen Inc v Steve Harris http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-278_2co3.pdf Basically the 9th circuit hosed up the second time they decided this case because of Fifth Third's requirement that an alternative action must be presented in the original complaint in order to make a fiduciary duty claim regarding and employee stock option program. This now gets kicked all the way back to the district court and will depend on whether the lower court allows the complainants to add in the Fifth Third requirement that the 9th had misapplied. They make sure to say that the 9th's assumption of an alternative was good, but that it's not their job to add it in and it has to be in the complaint itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I think Montgomery might be the first pissed off Scalia dissent of the current term.Scalia from Montgomery dissent posted:Mission accomplished. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Bunch of decisions came down today. Are any of these surprises or substantive changes? Forgive my ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are any of these surprises or substantive changes? Forgive my ignorance. I think its all "Yes you have to follow this court's rulings/federal procedure/laws passed by congress why did you think otherwise"? Really surprised the first one has a dissent and isn't a simple "If we rule something is not allowed, its not allowed full stop." Scalias gotta Scalia I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are any of these surprises or substantive changes? Forgive my ignorance. Not really. A lot of unanimous or per curiam (unsigned and unanimous, generally a way to say "way to gently caress up, idiot" to the lower court when its on the merits as it is here) decisions. First Montgomery looks to be the only vaugely interesting one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Montgomery kinda surprises me given the court's recent "racism isn't real" stance
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think its all "Yes you have to follow this court's rulings/federal procedure/laws passed by congress why did you think otherwise"? Scalia and Thomas argue that they don't have the constitutional jurisdiction to overturn a sentence in this case. Someone should compare it to his dissent from Roper. That was a good read from what I recall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not really. A lot of unanimous or per curiam (unsigned and unanimous, generally a way to say "way to gently caress up, idiot" to the lower court when its on the merits as it is here) decisions. First Montgomery looks to be the only vaugely interesting one. Don't forget we can't let the Canadians get ahead of us and are finding new ways to gently caress native americans. First we tell them to privatize their healthcare and we'll pay them for it. Then we just don't pay them and tell them it's their fault they didn't get paid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Don't forget we can't let the Canadians get ahead of us and are finding new ways to gently caress native americans. First we tell them to privatize their healthcare and we'll pay them for it. Then we just don't pay them and tell them it's their fault they didn't get paid. Being denied a claim because of some crazy arbitrary conditions in your policy is American healthcare in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Being denied a claim because of some crazy arbitrary conditions in your policy is American healthcare in a nutshell. They were denied the claim because statutory deadline to file the claim had passed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Much as the result may be unpleasant, a unanimous decision generally means it's a pretty cut and dried legal issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
quote:
This one's pro click because holy lol even if you're the Idaho Supreme Court and thus lords of your own two thousand mile frozen wilderness why would you ever put that sequence of words in a sentence that SCOTUS will read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Much as the result may be unpleasant, a unanimous decision generally means it's a pretty cut and dried legal issue. The decision was "were really sorry that you had some incredibly lovely legal counsel that cost you tons of money, but we have no way to reverse this"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:The decision was "were really sorry that you had some incredibly lovely legal counsel that cost you tons of money, but we have no way to reverse this" That's the way I read it as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I'm really interested in the Montgomery/Miller decision. My feeble grasp of law made me assume you couldn't retroactively apply laws and that they had appealed before Miller was handed down? Could someone break it down (or point me to a SCOTUSblog post that will simplify it for me?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I'm really interested in the Montgomery/Miller decision. My feeble grasp of law made me assume you couldn't retroactively apply laws and that they had appealed before Miller was handed down? Could someone break it down (or point me to a SCOTUSblog post that will simplify it for me?) It's not retroactively applying a law. It's retroactively applying a decision about what the constitution means to cases decided before that decision. Generally speaking a constitutional decision is always retroactive. If something violates your first amendment rights, it always violated it: the first amendment was there at the time. But there's a special exception for procedure issues: where the Court comes up with a new procedure of criminal law (i.e., reading people their miranda rights). If the procedure wasn't known before nobody could have followed it and you'd have to redo every single conviction, which is unworkable. So the Court came up with a rule that those sorts of decisions only apply retroactively. At issue was if sentencing minors to life without parole automatically is a procedure that doesn't get retroactivity, or if it's a more standard right that is retroactive. There is no ex post facto issue becaue this is retroactively removing criminal punishment. Ex post facto is only an issue when you retroactively criminalize something. Congress could pass a law retroactively voiding, for example, weed laws so that even if you committed a crime when it was a crime suddenly it's no longer a crime. That has no ex post facto issues, because it's not retroactively criminalizing something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I'm really interested in the Montgomery/Miller decision. My feeble grasp of law made me assume you couldn't retroactively apply laws and that they had appealed before Miller was handed down? Could someone break it down (or point me to a SCOTUSblog post that will simplify it for me?) It's not a retroactive application of law: this isn't the passing of a new statute, it's a determination that the sentencing was unconstitutional, and therefore should never have happened in the first place. Basically it was "always" illegal but we only determined this now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Melene James v City of Boise http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-493_5h26.pdf my 10th amendment 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:it's a determination that the sentencing was unconstitutional, and therefore should never have happened in the first place. evilweasel posted:Congress could pass a law retroactively voiding, for example, weed laws so that even if you committed a crime when it was a crime suddenly it's no longer a crime. That has no ex post facto issues, because it's not retroactively criminalizing something. Thanks for the effort posts you two. That clears up where I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I think Montgomery might be the first pissed off Scalia dissent of the current term. Even better, it was a 6-3 opinion with Roberts being the one who joined the 5 liberal justices.  I know it's too much to hope that Roberts has broken in some way after the ACA ruling and the poo poo the right piled on him for it but if he'd get pushed left by the fringe right wing assholes it'd be a small start for him to make up for his other terrible rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
quote:WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court returns from its winter break this month, it will hear two minor cases and reach a major anniversary. Unless something very surprising happens during the arguments that day, Justice Clarence Thomas will have gone 10 years without asking a question from the bench. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/u...WT.nav=top-news Also, it bears mentioning that this should now be the SCOTUS Thread 2016. For what it's worth, I'd prefer personally that we keep the same thread, I have no idea what this SA's obsession is, particularly D&D's, with constantly changing threads over at this point. Please let me use my User Control Panel as God intended, instead of making me sift through D&D's "all megathreads for everything, all the time" setup. That'll be your public service announcement, on with the scheduled thread. Name Change fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
It's nice to clear out all the cruft every once in a while, and the new year is a convenient time to do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:For what it's worth, I'd prefer personally that we keep the same thread, I have no idea what this SA's obsession is, particularly D&D's, with constantly changing threads over at this point. Please let me use my User Control Panel as God intended, instead of making me sift through D&D's "all megathreads for everything, all the time" setup. That'll be your public service announcement, on with the scheduled thread. Basically, it's for the benefit of lurkers/newbies, who are more willing to get in a thread when they don't feel like they need to read 170 pages to understand it. It makes sense for a thread that moves as fast as USPOL, and less so for a thread that moves much slower than it like this one. Evil Fluffy posted:Even better, it was a 6-3 opinion with Roberts being the one who joined the 5 liberal justices. I think he is just like Boehner to Scalia's House Freedom Caucus. He knows that to succeed in politics you need to have some cloak of general reasonableness, especially when all branches are not controlled by your party. I'd love to be proven wrong and find out he's a reasonable swing vote like Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Jethro posted:It's nice to clear out all the cruft every once in a while, and the new Let's not change thread horses in mid term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
