|
Radish posted:Are there any good examples of Scalia, Alito, or Thomas siding against something that followed their ideals but went against what they wanted to happen politically? I'm interested since it feels like it's happened at least one. Scalia's vote on Texas v. Johnson (the flag burning case) comes to mind. He made no secret that he hated the result.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
I thought Thomas dissented in Raich and escaped the commerce clause trap unlike Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:He might not be a toady for Scalia personally, but the dudes a moraless shill for the GOP and white conservatives. He's the ultimate "my black friend". How dare a black person have a opinion other than whatever I've deemed acceptable? loving
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:Are there any good examples of Scalia, Alito, or Thomas siding against something that followed their ideals but went against what they wanted to happen politically? I'm interested since it feels like it's happened at least one. Not exactly the same thing, but Alito was on the dissenting side of an 8-1 case involving free speech protections of animal crush videos (he was against them).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Wait, are you saying videos of people crushing animals are protected speech? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I looked it up and it was more nuanced than I remembered. The law as written was unconstitutional, but the day after, congress passed legislation to re-ban crush videos. Weirdly enough, it started out as an appeal related to dogfighting videos. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens Edit:  but if you want info about this completely awful fetish subculture: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish
SousaphoneColossus fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
There are videos of people crushing animals? I guess I'm not surprised considering snuff films are a thing, but good lord 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Remember that if you pigeonhole Thomas the same way he pigeonholed other black Americans, *you* are the racist. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Not exactly the same thing, but Alito was on the dissenting side of an 8-1 case involving free speech protections of animal crush videos (he was against them). Obviously. The way you kill animals is with your constitutionally protected firearm, so this crushing stuff is just right out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Wait, are you saying videos of people crushing animals are protected speech? The law in question got tossed because it was overbroad, not because the court held the videos in question to be protected speech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Trump posted:I hear Scalia was a big fan of Motivated Reasoning, so I'd just cut out the middle man and make that guy a Justice I'm predicting reality will make this accurate soon
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
ScotusBlog dude thinks Obama is going to nominate Lynch. I could see that happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:The law in question got tossed because it was overbroad, not because the court held the videos in question to be protected speech. You're right about the law being overbroad, but is this summary of the court's holding inaccurate? quote:Depictions of animal cruelty are not, as a class, categorically unprotected by the First Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Wait, are you saying videos of people crushing animals are protected speech? The statute in question was pretty broad and the defendant in that particular case was charge with multiple felonies for distributing self produced, full length videos on the history of the pitbull, which included a few minutes of footage of dog fights in Japan where such practice was at the time of the filming, legal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:ScotusBlog dude thinks Obama is going to nominate Lynch. I could see that happening. If he does that then there is literally zero chance they move on her. At least Srinivasan and Kelly give the veneer of accepting current political realities. I guess it's a good choice if he expects that they won't move on any candidate (or would somehow realize that that means she'd recuse herself and give 4-4 losses to Obama administration initiatives like Clean Air and Immigration)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:You're right about the law being overbroad, but is this summary of the court's holding inaccurate? Yeah, I think the majority basically said how they could re-write the statute to only apply to the crush fetish videos and be constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Remember that if you pigeonhole Thomas the same way he pigeonholed other black Americans, *you* are the racist. Somehow. It is entirely possible for criticism of a white supremacist to itself be racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:If he does that then there is literally zero chance they move on her. At least Srinivasan and Kelly give the veneer of accepting current political realities. Her? I know Gerard Lynch on the 2nd circuit. What Lynch are you talking about? e: Oh, the AG. Sorry, I tunnel visioned on judges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
I would argue that crush videos are protected, but the act of crushing animals is a crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Her? I know Gerard Lynch on the 2nd circuit. What Lynch are you talking about? I assume Party Plane Jones is referring to Loretta Lynch, not Gerard. Was Gerard's name even floated before now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I assume Party Plane Jones is referring to Loretta Lynch, not Gerard. Was Gerard's name even floated before now? Yeah, I was just being slow. And no, I don't think he's been floated. I do agree that there's virtually zero chance of her being confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Yeah, I was just being slow. And no, I don't think he's been floated. I do agree that there's virtually zero chance of her being confirmed. The only Obama appointee this Congress would confirm is Scalia's reanimated corpse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only Obama appointee this Congress would confirm is Scalia's reanimated corpse. Even then they would claim that Obama used his Kenyan witch magic to resurrect Scalua to do his liberal bidding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:ScotusBlog dude thinks Obama is going to nominate Lynch. I could see that happening. So is he just banking on them not confirming? Because I don't know why he would want to have to go through another AG nomination process as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I thought Thomas dissented in Raich and escaped the commerce clause trap unlike Scalia. Thomas dissented in Raich. Scalia wrote a concurrence to differentiate Raich from Lopez and Morrison, two cases which limited the commerce clause. Scalia didn't write Lopez or Morrison, but he was a part of the majority. Its a pretty simple argument, whether you accept it or not. quite possibly satan posted:Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 36-37 (1937). That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel, supra, at 281 (surface coal mining); Katzenbach, supra, at 300 (discrimination by restaurants); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 258 (1964) (discrimination by hotels); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 237 (1948) (intrastate price-fixing); Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 40 (1923) (activities of a local grain exchange); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, 517, 524-525 (1922) (intrastate transactions at stockyard). Lopez and Morrison recognized the expansive scope of Congress's authority in this regard: "[T]he pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained." Lopez, supra, at 560; Morrison, supra, at 610 (same). Weed is easily part of interstate commerce, violence against women is not. EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
So could there be political reasoning that if he appoints lynch and they have to fillibuster for the next 8 months, people will get pissed off enough that they vote republicans out of their senate races?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:ScotusBlog dude thinks Obama is going to nominate Lynch. I could see that happening. how much stuff would Lynch have to recuse herself from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
The split goddamn second there's a nominee, could someone please make a new thread? This one has been excellent for following The Misadventurous Squabblings of Six Papists & Half So Many Jews, but as the make-up of the bench shifts, I'd very much like a new OP to bring idiots (i.e. me) up to speed on the status quo and the issues relevant to the confirmation process and future of the Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:So could there be political reasoning that if he appoints lynch and they have to fillibuster for the next 8 months, people will get pissed off enough that they vote republicans out of their senate races? Republicans literally shut down our government for weeks out of spite and nobody voted any of them out of office. Raving lunatics rule the party now and the reasonable ones can't speak out because they'll get primaried out to the cornfield for another lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:If he does that then there is literally zero chance they move on her. At least Srinivasan and Kelly give the veneer of accepting current political realities. Maybe he wants them to refuse to move on a nominee because it gives the Dems a "look at these childish fucks who won't do their job" line of attack for the elections. They can even toss in a helping of "Regan had Kennedy confirmed and seated in an election year" as an extra gently caress You. Honestly I hope he does it. Having the GOP constantly under fire for loving around with the SCOTUS would have to hurt them. The SCOTUS itself would also speak out sooner or later because while the 8 of them might want someone similar to themselves, not even pretending to give a nominee a fair shake is going to piss off pretty much everyone on the bench.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Would there be precedent for Obama to nominate Lynch only to withdraw her nomination after a few months of obstructionism and nominate one of the other names on the shortlist that got like 97-0 confirmed to their current post? I guess maybe Reagan and Bork but Bork went all the way to a vote in committee (which rejected him). Edit: Or W. Bush and Miers who was rejected almost out of hand but only insofar as being completely unqualified. And there was significant conservative opposition to her appointment as well. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Maybe he wants them to refuse to move on a nominee because it gives the Dems a "look at these childish fucks who won't do their job" line of attack for the elections. They can even toss in a helping of "Regan had Kennedy confirmed and seated in an election year" as an extra gently caress You. The new lie I'm hearing is "A supreme court justice hasn't been appointed in an election year since Rutherford Hayes," which is astonishingly bullshit, but it's what you'll be hearing everywhere because they're harping on it big time on the right wing radio shows. Of course, Kennedy puts the lie to that, but technically he was nominated in november 87, which was in the middle of an election cycle, but not technically an election year. He wasn't confirmed until 88. Of course Mahlon Pitney in 1912, Louis Brandeis in 1916, and Frank Murphy in 1940 were straight up election years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Cruz, McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans believe that Obama should only be allowed to serve 3/5 of his term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I read the pga case long ago but I think the pgas argument was that riding a cart would be an unfair advantage as walking for 4 hours is part of the competition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Blatzmobile posted:Cruz, McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans believe that Obama should only be allowed to serve 3/5 of his term. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The new lie I'm hearing is "A supreme court justice hasn't been appointed in an election year since Rutherford Hayes," which is astonishingly bullshit, but it's what you'll be hearing everywhere because they're harping on it big time on the right wing radio shows. Rutherford Hayes is the only case where the Senate was held by the opposite party. The party of the president held the Senate in the other cases you cited. It also doesn't quite match the precedent because the electors had already presumptively cast their ballots for Hayes's same-party successor, Garfield. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:The split goddamn second there's a nominee, could someone please make a new thread? This one has been excellent for following The Misadventurous Squabblings of Six Papists & Half So Many Jews, but as the make-up of the bench shifts, I'd very much like a new OP to bring idiots (i.e. me) up to speed on the status quo and the issues relevant to the confirmation process and future of the Court. Maybe do it now and just have a nomination speculation, confirmation fight thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I read the pga case long ago but I think the pgas argument was that riding a cart would be an unfair advantage as walking for 4 hours is part of the competition. I actually liked that dissent, it may be my favorite of his. What he said was that all the rules of golf or any other are arbitrary and professional sports organizations rather than courts should be adjudicating their own rule books in deciding what rules are "essential" to the game. Further, the answer for the PGA or any other professional sports league to avoid such litigation in the future is to just not have open tryouts thereby making players part of a private club. Doing so would have the opposite effect of serving the interests of inclusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Maybe do it now and just have a nomination speculation, confirmation fight thread? I'd rather wait until we have an actual nominee, because there's not a whole lot of useful, non-speculation information to consolidate into a good OP until we have a name, and the political situation has had more time than part of a long weekend to coalesce into something meaningful. A YCS thread would be more appropriate for nominee spitballing, until something actually happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
What was with the Harriet Myers nomination? Was she legit unqualified or just not conservative enough? Is it wrong I'd rather have her on the Court than Alito?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:13
|
|