|
TheAngryDrunk posted:They say the first person that will live to 150 years old is alive today. I think we'd just change the law to limit justices to a one-time term of 50 years or something like that. The only thing that really matters is that you're avoiding SCOTUS having to run in a normal election.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:40
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Today the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously reminded its state that since it remains part of the United States, subject to its Constitution and Supreme Court, that the state can't attempt to amend its constitution to prohibit abortion. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I think we'd just change the law to limit justices to a one-time term of 50 years or something like that. The only thing that really matters is that you're avoiding SCOTUS having to run in a normal election. Clearly the correct solution is to peg the number of justices to the life expectancy. then it drops down to 3 when we go all Mad Max 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I think we'd just change the law to limit justices to a one-time term of 50 years or something like that. The only thing that really matters is that you're avoiding SCOTUS having to run in a normal election. Yes, that would be the logical solution. But wouldn't changing it require a constitutional amendment? And if one party is benefiting from the existing rules at the time, good luck with that!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Bwuh? His case was terrible! edit: wow, this rational makes no drat sense. At least the finding's narrow. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Err, could you elaborate on that? How does that even work? It's fairly common for justices to agree with both sides on some issues, rather than one side on all issues. I don't know if it's common to join a majority in part and a dissent in part, I would think it's more common to write a concur/dissent in that situation. Luckily, the justices aren't stupid (despite how you fee about their ideology) and are smart enough to avoid complications that like a 5-4 majority and 5-4 dissent
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Today the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously reminded its state that since it remains part of the United States, subject to its Constitution and Supreme Court, that the state can't attempt to amend its constitution to prohibit abortion. If Oklahoma's justices are elected I see some recall attempts in their future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Bwuh? His case was terrible! Neither side defended the ninth's reasoning on the only question at issue, so the court decided to go with a: "we don't know what the right answer is, but we do know that the Ninth is dumb." Most of the opinion is just summarizing the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Bwuh? His case was terrible! What a punt. They didn't reach any of the material issues. I expect the ninth circuit to find some other basis for jurisdiction on navigable waterways inside park boundaries. Several justices seemed to be pushing pretty hard in that direction during oral argument. If they don't, Alaska parks will be gutted. I also expect to deal with a bunch of people who think this means the park service doesn't have any jurisdiction in Alaska parks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
quote:In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward, serving under President Andrew Johnson, negotiated a treaty to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. They really don’t cut corners on background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I like the idea of the president getting one pick per term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I like the idea of the president getting one pick per term. And when three court members kick the bucket, then what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think we also got the first tie vote today, upholding the lower court decision 4-4 on this case: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hawkins-v-community-bank-of-raymore/ Which is a problem because the 8th Circuit decision caused a circuit split. I wonder where Scalia would have fallen on it. Considering that they haven't bothered to take on the prior cases before the split I wonder if they were perfectly happy with courts deferring to the Federal Reserve on the meaning of "applicant". As a side note I really hate when courts refer to dictionaries for definitions as the 8th did in this case. I just personally feel that it is a way to play dumb and when actually analyzing the words in their context and use would lead to a result you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Further re: Sturgeon, while the issue of navigability was not contested, there is a pretty fundamental contradiction between arguing at the same time that the Nation River is navigable, and the only way for this guy to access lands up the Nation is via hovercraft. Requiring a hovercraft to get up the river strongly suggests it is not navigable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Which is a problem because the 8th Circuit decision caused a circuit split. Having an even number of justices is such a bad idea. Another should resign so we have seven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Further re: Sturgeon, while the issue of navigability was not contested, there is a pretty fundamental contradiction between arguing at the same time that the Nation River is navigable, and the only way for this guy to access lands up the Nation is via hovercraft. Requiring a hovercraft to get up the river strongly suggests it is not navigable. The part of the river at issue is not necessarily the part he needs a hovercraft for so the question remains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Wish I still worked in Yukon-Charley. I'd wait upstream and cite him past the point of navigability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Neither side defended the ninth's reasoning on the only question at issue, so the court decided to go with a: "we don't know what the right answer is, but we do know that the Ninth is dumb." Most of the opinion is just summarizing the arguments. I see- my bad, I wasn't following the case closely enough. I only followed the D's initial pleadings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Would someone with better knowledge of SCOTUS reasoning and legal nuances explain a question regarding the Tyson case today, please? Why would they hold that Tyson has to pay back-pay for the time workers require for putting on protective gear as part of their jobs and yet not too long ago they ruled that the security searches Amazon conducted as a requirement of working in the warehouses? Is it just that the original law used as a basis in the Amazon case is anti-labor? I can't rationalize how a company can require something of an employee, but not have to pay them for it if it isn't directly related to their work product. What's the difference in the two requirements?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
RusteJuxx posted:Would someone with better knowledge of SCOTUS reasoning and legal nuances explain a question regarding the Tyson case today, please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
RusteJuxx posted:Would someone with better knowledge of SCOTUS reasoning and legal nuances explain a question regarding the Tyson case today, please? Workers are required to do only one of those things by law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
RusteJuxx posted:Would someone with better knowledge of SCOTUS reasoning and legal nuances explain a question regarding the Tyson case today, please? It depends on if the action is integral and indispensable to the duty. Getting dressed in protective gear, quite obviously is. This wasn't really challenged at all by Tyson, they had more of an issue regarding class certification and methodology. Waiting in a security line after you get done being a runner wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
The Tyson case is also mostly about class certification
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
The gist of it is that Congress passed a law called the Portal to Portal act that specified that under the FLSA, the time that employers have to compensate you for is the work itself, and activities that are an integral part of performing those duties. (e: or rather, it defined things other than the principal activity to be noncompensable) So there's a lot of litigation over whether something's an essential part of an employee's duties, or whether it's incidental. It's not everything that the employer requires of the employee that winds up being compensable, because the statute says that "preliminary and postliminary" activities fall outside that scope. The idea being that stuff like traveling to the workplace, while being necessary to do your job, is not actually what your employer is paying you to do. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
But traveling to a non regular place of work is work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The Tyson case is also mostly about class certification I'm glad Scalia's dead and I really hope we get class action rights enshrined in law before conservatives manage to wipe it out entirely since it'd make stuff like this impossible to sue over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm glad Scalia's dead and I really hope we get class action rights enshrined in law before conservatives manage to wipe it out entirely since it'd make stuff like this impossible to sue over. While I agree with the sentiment, availability of attorneys' fees as a remedy under the FLSA means those suits are very different from most in terms of viability for a plaintiff attorney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
hyperbowl posted:It absolutely wasn't on the mind of the people who put together Australia's Constitution. It was only added after after a referedum in 1977. It was introduced because McTiernan was on the court for nearly 50 years and certain people were sick of his poo poo. McTiernan ended up quitting one year before the vote, at age 84. He quit because he broke his hip and the chief justice refused to add a wheelchair ramp to the high court building that was under construction. It's not a model I'd advocate for other countries to pick up. Whoops, I probably really should have known that, thanks for the heads up! I suppose you could counter argue that it removes "fossils" from the bench and allows other equally capable justices a fair shot at the top job in the country, as well as giving you a pool of retired justices available for the odd Royal Commission. You don't necessarily end up with a powerful PM/party appointing a HC that suits their ideology that will last for 20+ years that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:While I agree with the sentiment, availability of attorneys' fees as a remedy under the FLSA means those suits are very different from most in terms of viability for a plaintiff attorney. It's still a massive headache for individuals and those who don't just drop it will coincidentally be let go for totally unrelated reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Yeah can't wait to get those sweet coupons for $1 off X company's product while the class action lawyers get a cool $20 mil
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
RusteJuxx posted:Would someone with better knowledge of SCOTUS reasoning and legal nuances explain a question regarding the Tyson case today, please? In the Tyson case the wearing of protective gear was required in order for employees to perform their job function, whereas in the Amazon case the screening was not actually necessary for employees to do their work, even though it is beneficial to the employer. Therefore, time taken to don protective gear is compensable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
NAT-T Ice posted:In the Tyson case the wearing of protective gear was required in order for employees to perform their job function, whereas in the Amazon case the screening was not actually necessary for employees to do their work, even though it is beneficial to the employer. Therefore, time taken to don protective gear is compensable. Still sets a terrible precedent, since any sane person would think the standard would be that 'stuff that you have to do to not get fired' should be compensated. In the Amazon case, surely the employees were free to not go through the security screening, as it wasn't a necessary job function, but I'm sure any employee that refused would be fired immediately. But since it was a unanimous decision, I'm sure it was a case where the law as-written was crystal clear, and asking the SC to do anything else really would have been legislation from the bench. Still a lovely, lovely result, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:Still sets a terrible precedent, since any sane person would think the standard would be that 'stuff that you have to do to not get fired' should be compensated. In the Amazon case, surely the employees were free to not go through the security screening, as it wasn't a necessary job function, but I'm sure any employee that refused would be fired immediately. But since it was a unanimous decision, I'm sure it was a case where the law as-written was crystal clear, and asking the SC to do anything else really would have been legislation from the bench. Still a lovely, lovely result, though. Congress should fix the law, but  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm glad Scalia's dead and I really hope we get class action rights enshrined in law before conservatives manage to wipe it out entirely since it'd make stuff like this impossible to sue over. Class action is already on life support at the federal level, and flat out dead in a lot of states, like Texas imo. I did just get my red bull class action payout tho, so who knows
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yeah can't wait to get those sweet coupons for $1 off X company's product while the class action lawyers get a cool $20 mil Well we could get zero I guess and not bring class actions at all and let companies continue to abuse consumers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yeah can't wait to get those sweet coupons for $1 off X company's product while the class action lawyers get a cool $20 mil Hahahah yah those loving lawyers screwing people over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hahahah yah those loving lawyers screwing people over. agreed, OP
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
If it took a team of 5 plaintiff attorneys five years to get that 20,000,000 that is only 800,000 attorney/year which - considering the risk they get nothing - is reasonable. Bear in mind they are fronting the cost of doing business for five years. Most likely they had 4 losing cases to go with that one winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Sorry, but coupon settlements and disclosure settlements (in securities class-actions) aren't wins for the class and shouldn't be compensated as one. Of course, 90% of the stuff that's done by class action should instead be done by a relevant regulatory agency, but that's what 20 years of gutting regulatory agencies gets you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Oh yeah. No doubt a functional gov would be better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:06
|
|