|
Hand in hand with the DOW settlement, it should be noted that the SCOTUS did not take up the American Farm Bureau Federation's appeal of the Third Circuit decision. The case centered around whether or not the EPA overstepped its boundaries when it used Clean Water Act authority to create enforceable standards for Chesapeake Bay states, who collectively organized the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint to meet those pollution limits.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So the 2 would be Alito and Thomas. What is Thomas's reasoning for banning abortion? Abortion is primarily used by PoC, which would adversely affect the founding father's plantation ROI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Alligator Horse posted:Hand in hand with the DOW settlement, it should be noted that the SCOTUS did not take up the American Farm Bureau Federation's appeal of the Third Circuit decision. The case centered around whether or not the EPA overstepped its boundaries when it used Clean Water Act authority to create enforceable standards for Chesapeake Bay states, who collectively organized the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint to meet those pollution limits. As a spergy nitpick, only the first letter of Dow is capitalized. It's the name of the founder of the company, Herbert Henry Dow. Seeing it written in all caps like an acronym bugs the poo poo out of me. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Apparently Clarence Thomas asked not just one, but several questions during today's arguments, the first time he's done so in 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Apparently Clarence Thomas asked not just one, but several questions during today's arguments, the first time he's done so in 10 years. He asked a question a few years ago, albeit not one really germane to the topic at hand. People on the court room said it appeared to be a joke but were so stunned that no one was certain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
From what I read, the case was about the federal law that denies gun ownership for people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, and Justice Thomas asked the government to provide an example of someone being permanently denied any other basic constitutional right for a misdemeanor.
Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:I think this election about wraps it up for the total banning of abortion, but the curtailing of abortion rights in individual states poses the greater threat. I'd say a broad ruling would take care of it but the states have already shown they're perfectly willing to pass laws that have already been struck down (20 week bans and such) so honestly it's never going to stop. The SCOTUS could issue a ruling that states abortion rights include but are not limited to [list of things] and you'd have red states passing new abortion laws for things not listed within the year. Even an amendment stating a fetus is not a person and abortion is legal for the entirety of a pregnancy you'd still see them passing laws to outlaw abortion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:He asked a question a few years ago, albeit not one really germane to the topic at hand. Yeah, he made a quip about Yale being a poo poo law school. He's hated them for years, due to a combination of affirmative action and his belief that they should have done more to have his back during the Anita Hill portion of his confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:He wouldn't agree with the due process cause of the 14th amendment granting a right to privacy. Is he right? I remember some lawyer types here saying Roe was a good outcome policy wise, but the actual legal reasoning was dubious at best ayn rand hand job posted:He asked a question a few years ago, albeit not one really germane to the topic at hand. I remember this It was a law school dick waving comment IIRC
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is he right? Depends on how you feel about substantive due process and unenumerated fundamental rights. Thomas doesn't believe in these. If you believe in unenumerated fundamental rights, then privacy and bodily autonomy would probably qualify as them. Substantive due process is a kinda iffy concept, but its pretty important to functioning as a modern society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
here's the current basis of Penumbra Theory, asaccordingto WikiJustice William Douglas posted:Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."[ I'm generally sympathetic, but the 9th seems a p slam dunk basis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
DOOP posted:It was a law school dick waving comment IIRC a pivotal moment in the history of the supreme court posted:"She was a graduate of Yale Law School?" Scalia asked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is he right? It doesn't explicitly state "you have a right to privacy". Anything that you must infer from text instead of reading the text directly is illegitimate in the mind of a textualist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm generally sympathetic, but the 9th seems a p slam dunk basis. Yeah, without the 9th then the decision would look like a huge stretch, but the 9th pretty much says we have other rights not spelled out in the constitution. The court has to be very, very careful going down that road, or they can become a quasi-legislature if they were to declare a right to education and shelter, and then order the government to spend more money to provide it. But "privacy" seems fundamental and obvious enough that its probably OK to use it to restrict an abuse of power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Depends on how you feel about substantive due process and unenumerated fundamental rights. Thomas doesn't believe in these. If you believe in unenumerated fundamental rights, then privacy and bodily autonomy would probably qualify as them. The problem with arguments centered on the mother's bodily autonomy and substantive due process are that they try to side step if that fetus is a person or not. The Roe v. Wade decision is a fantastic piece of work because the court considered when "unenumerated fundamental rights" attach to a fetus and when the government's duty to protect those rights outweighs the mother's privacy right. Please don't interpret this as a pro-life argument. I'm just pointing out that there comes a time when you have to admit that there is a new person that person has rights and shouldn't be killed for being difficult or inconvenient. I often think that should be the 43rd trimester or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:It doesn't explicitly state "you have a right to privacy". Anything that you must infer from text instead of reading the text directly is illegitimate in the mind of a textualist. And Thomas, unlike Scalia, actually sticks to this philosophy no matter what ridiculous outcome that leads to. Scalia would abandon it and tangle himself into knots trying to find the logic behind the decision he wanted. Thomas seems like he'd be pretty cool to talk to because he's truly, strongly actually principled instead of watching too much TV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:The problem with arguments centered on the mother's bodily autonomy and substantive due process are that they try to side step if that fetus is a person or not. The Roe v. Wade decision is a fantastic piece of work because the court considered when "unenumerated fundamental rights" attach to a fetus and when the government's duty to protect those rights outweighs the mother's privacy right. I don't know where you get this idea from: quote:All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
How can we possibly know if a justice is racist? It is impossible to tell.quote:Phillip Hampton, now senior counsel at Haynes and Boone in Washington, DC, studied law at Chicago a year beneath Arnim Johnson, and was president of the Arnim black law student group, BALSA. Although his recollection differs slightly, Hampton corroborates much of Arnim’s claims: “It seemed very strange that almost every black student’s lowest grade was in Scalia’s class,” he told me via phone. “I don’t think any black person got more than a C- from Scalia...black students received Ds and Cs, [and Scalia] failed Arnim [Johnson]” along with another black, very high achieving student.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:How can we possibly know if a justice is racist? It is impossible to tell. Was just about to post this. The best part imo: quote:He made a statement once that he could tell - because he was such a linguist - that he could usually tell papers that were written by African Americans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I don't know where you get this idea from: quote:Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I don't know where you get this idea from: Well, the 43rd trimester of human development typically occurs at a human's tenth birthday. Patentmagus is saying that a human should not be aborted after that date, but possibly before then. Seems like a modest proposal to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:It doesn't explicitly state "you have a right to privacy". Anything that you must infer from text instead of reading the text directly is illegitimate in the mind of a textualist. HARRISON Gentlemen, laws must emanate from the Constitution. TOBY There are natural laws, judge. HARRISON I do not deny there are natural laws, Mr. Ziegler. I only deny that judges are empowered to enforce them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Yeah, without the 9th then the decision would look like a huge stretch, but the 9th pretty much says we have other rights not spelled out in the constitution. The unenumerated rights frameworks are really squiffy and I hate 'em. "Privacy" as a concept is stupidly easy to abuse- it can be used to argue in favor of virtually anything. I think due process is a much better foundation for such a decision, but the unpleasant truth is it wouldn't have gotten us to 5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Was just about to post this. The best part imo: I wonder if he wrote "have you considered a slower paced school more suitable for you?" in the margin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The unenumerated rights frameworks are really squiffy and I hate 'em. "Privacy" as a concept is stupidly easy to abuse- it can be used to argue in favor of virtually anything. I think due process is a much better foundation for such a decision, but the unpleasant truth is it wouldn't have gotten us to 5. At least privacy as a concept naturally leads to a restriction of government power in most cases rather than an expansion of their power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Well, the 43rd trimester of human development typically occurs at a human's tenth birthday. Patentmagus is saying that a human should not be aborted after that date, but possibly before then. Seems like a modest proposal to me. A Modest Proposal is available via project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Apparently Clarence Thomas asked not just one, but several questions during today's arguments, the first time he's done so in 10 years. Plot of Ghostbusters 3: Ghost Scalia possesses the body of his friend Clarence Thomas. No one suspects anything until Thomas suddenly begins acting suspicious in court. Now, the new Ghostbuster crew must find a way to exorcise Scalia before he completes his plan of raising the founding fathers back to life! Anubis fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The unenumerated rights frameworks are really squiffy and I hate 'em. "Privacy" as a concept is stupidly easy to abuse- it can be used to argue in favor of virtually anything. I think due process is a much better foundation for such a decision, but the unpleasant truth is it wouldn't have gotten us to 5. I disagree, I think when you read the preceding decisions (Griswold especially) it lays a logical foundation for the right to privacy (or more accurately the right to be free from inordinately invasive government interference in private matters) that's pretty pretty ironclad. Though I will admit the first time I had someone explain Roe V Wade to me my reaction was "I like the outcome but wow they're squinting hard at that".
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Well, the 43rd trimester of human development typically occurs at a human's tenth birthday. Patentmagus is saying that a human should not be aborted after that date, but possibly before then. Seems like a modest proposal to me. As you can tell, I pay a lot of attention
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I disagree, I think when you read the preceding decisions (Griswold especially) it lays a logical foundation for the right to privacy (or more accurately the right to be free from inordinately invasive government interference in private matters) that's pretty pretty ironclad. Though I will admit the first time I had someone explain Roe V Wade to me my reaction was "I like the outcome but wow they're squinting hard at that". Griswold honestly doesn't feel very logical, with all it's references to "penumbras" and "emanations" as some substantive thing. Reading it today is just weird. Harlan's concurrence using due process feels much more modern and way more logical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Griswold honestly doesn't feel very logical, with all it's references to "penumbras" and "emanations" as some substantive thing. Reading it today is just weird. Harlan's concurrence using due process feels much more modern and way more logical. Bingo. Griswold reads like someone trying to justify a sacred mystery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
penumbras just means 'this is implied but not directly stated' and the 9th amendment says that things don't have to be directly stated to be rights seems pretty straightforward
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Griswold honestly doesn't feel very logical, with all it's references to "penumbras" and "emanations" as some substantive thing. Reading it today is just weird. Harlan's concurrence using due process feels much more modern and way more logical. Why are you putting scare quotes around the words "penumbra" and "emanations"? Also the majority used substantive due process as well, the main difference was Harlan was continuing his long held tradition of bitching about incorporation and complaining that the majority used the other amendments as justification of the existence of the substantive right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Bingo. Griswold reads like someone trying to justify a sacred mystery. Yes, and that's a penumbra circa 1965. That vision of privacy seems so quaint these days what with the umbra of the patriot act, the credit card companies selling our purchase histories to valued channel partners, and our devices loading our locations, heart rates, etc. into the cloud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Though I will admit the first time I had someone explain Roe V Wade to me my reaction was "I like the outcome but wow they're squinting hard at that". This was me as well, which is why I brought it up. Legalese is hard y'all Someone once told me an analogy that a fetus is more like a tumor than an actual human being and I like that reasoning a lot more than unenuermated rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
DOOP posted:This was me as well, which is why I brought it up. Legalese is hard y'all Well, someone saying it's a tumor certainly settles all the moral and ethical questions regarding when life begins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Well, someone saying it's a tumor certainly settles all the moral and ethical questions regarding when life begins. While a bit glib, I don't believe life begins at conception nor is a fetus and why am I posting about abortion noooooo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
DOOP posted:This was me as well, which is why I brought it up. Legalese is hard y'all This doesn't actually mean anything legally though because without some sort of unenumerated right the state could absolutely ban doctors from removing tumors. Actually this makes me wonder if any practitioners of pseudoscience "treatments" have argued that abortion jurisprudence prevents states from banning whatever they might do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:penumbras just means 'this is implied but not directly stated' Not legally. It's a nightmare because there's no concrete basis or structure, or respective limit, for deontological norms that have no textual basis. The right means whatever you want it to, against whomever you want it to, in a particular moment. Rand Paul discovers one weird trick to wrap yourself in the American Flag- textualists hate him! Jarmak posted:Why are you putting scare quotes around the words "penumbra" and "emanations"? They're lovely legal concepts because they're impossible to operationalize consistently. This lets people argue them to mean whatever they want in a particular setting. Example: patentmagus posted:Yes, and that's a penumbra circa 1965. That vision of privacy seems so quaint these days what with the umbra of the patriot act, the credit card companies selling our purchase histories to valued channel partners, and our devices loading our locations, heart rates, etc. into the cloud. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
I don't see the problem. The constitution says we have unenumerated rights so we do, and anyway it wouldn't work without them (the constitution never says you can't ban vaccines or give the state governor the right of prima nocta), and looking at what other rights are logically implied from the ones enumerated seems like a good place to start. Maybe you don't like it if it's not spelled out but I'd rather not have a government that gets to play  with the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 01:06
|
|
