|
Breyer posted:But the point is they lost, because, says the Court, we can't let you just sue on the basis that you, as a taxpayer, will have to spend more money. Because if we do, taxpayers all over the country will be suing in all kinds of cases, many of which will involve nothing more than political disagreements of all kinds. And before you know it, power will be transferred from the President and the Congress, where power belongs, to a group of unelected judges. It's pretty good reasoning, but the crazy part about it is that it's even more tenuous than that. The example cedes the question of whether or not this harm actually exists. Texas is not required to give driver's licenses to anyone. Texas is choosing to do so, and even if it was decided later by a court that they were required to give licenses on some grounds then that still wouldn't require Texas to subsidize the granting of licenses. So Texas is trying to say they're harmed by Federal by citing licenses they're choosing to give and choosing to subsidize. Then even if you do consider this state program funding issue to be actual harm then it should still be thrown out under the rationale in Massachusetts v. Mellon described by Breyer. The fact that this case was able to make it this far to be argued is really a testament to how partisan some members of the judiciary can be. While SCOTUS justices can be partisan as well, the visibility of their work really incentivizes them to not be so nakedly partisan. That's why I think they'll be able to put together 5 justices. I think at least 5 of them will be able to see the absurdity of the suit or be convinced of it. ErIog fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Apr 19, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Are people staying angry about Merrick Garnish, or whoever it was again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Well, he still hasn't had a hearing, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:On a certain day, to uncertain parents, incarnate jowls and star reborn. With Garland's nomination, the thread of prophecy is severed. Elect a Republican President to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the better world you have created.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:On a certain day, to uncertain parents, incarnate jowls and star reborn. Does the NRA pronounce it whore-tater?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:With Garland's nomination, the thread of prophecy is severed. Elect a Republican President to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the better world you have created. I love you for this
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:With Garland's nomination, the thread of prophecy is severed. Elect a Republican President to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the better world you have created.  A more fitting addition I could not have imagined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that's A+ Morrowind posting. Is Obama's recess appointing Garland in the seconds between this Congress and the next looting Wraithguard from Vivec and brute forcing the prophecy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:Are people staying angry about Merrick Garnish, or whoever it was again? https://www.whitehouse.gov/scotus#confirmation-tracker
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
ErIog posted:It's pretty good reasoning, but the crazy part about it is that it's even more tenuous than that. The example cedes the question of whether or not this harm actually exists. Why did the lower court rule against Obama? Isn't it pretty unusual for an appeals court to issue a stay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 16:26
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why did the lower court rule against Obama? Isn't it pretty unusual for an appeals court to issue a stay? They found a conservative judge that disliked Obama, then got it sent to the conservative 5th circuit. The legal reasoning I believe is whether it was issued properly, ie whether it should have been subject to notice and comment EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:
That was the district courts reasoning. But the 5th circuit thinks that the take care clause means something bizarre and totally ahistorical. Edit: no I'm wrong the fifth circuit didn't say that. Worse, the SCOTUS itself asked the parties to brief that ridiculous question. The fifth circuit did think the executive had exceeded its statutory authority though. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
loving lost my poo poo when I noticed Thomas back there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:loving lost my poo poo when I noticed Thomas back there. Can you imagine if anyone outside of the wonk addicts saw that on TV all the time? Lordy
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Can you imagine if anyone outside of the wonk addicts saw that on TV all the time? Clarence's naps are why we do not have TV cameras filming oral argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Does he snore?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Does he snore? dude probably sounds like a '94 civic with a coffee can attached to the exhaust header.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Does he snore? He actually is listening to the arguments; you can tell if you read opinions he wrote, and he often leans over and whispers something (typically to Breyer). The idea that Thomas is lazy or disengaged is dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:He actually is listening to the arguments; you can tell if you read opinions he wrote, and he often leans over and whispers something (typically to Breyer). Yeah he just doesn't normally ask questions during oral arguments, which may change given how much of the talking was done by Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:He actually is listening to the arguments; you can tell if you read opinions he wrote, and he often leans over and whispers something (typically to Breyer). When I saw an oral argument if he wasn't asleep there was no way to tell. Eyes closed, head down exactly as if he was napping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:When I saw an oral argument if he wasn't asleep there was no way to tell. Eyes closed, head down exactly as if he was napping. I've definitely seen him go from exactly that posture to talking to Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Isn't he of the opinion that oral arguments are pointless since everything is being submitting in writing anyways? I can't exactly say he's wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
It's not like we're missing much by not having more insight into the leanings of the most predictable Justice on the bench.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Isn't he of the opinion that oral arguments are pointless since everything is being submitting in writing anyways? I can't exactly say he's wrong there. That, and he thinks it is disrespectful to counsel to eat up their limited time. I tend to think that is a pretty fair opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Or he's just a lazy old prick that gets away with napping at work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Oral arguments might not matter often, but if they matter ever, they’re worth having because of how high the stakes are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Even if they're mostly a kind of theater, it's nice that some aspect of the Supreme Court's procedure take place in full view of the public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:It's not like we're missing much by not having more insight into the leanings of the most predictable Justice on the bench. Mostly, down in his chair and head forward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Thomas says that oral arguments are pointless because the constitution either permits something or it doesn't and you can't "argue a right into existence."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
So I guess he's more saying that he will never be convinced by an argument as to the constitutionality of any given topic because he is just that confident in his infallible interpretation of the document. I see a few parallels with biblical literalist types there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Thomas says that oral arguments are pointless because the constitution either permits something or it doesn't and you can't "argue a right into existence." Yeah, nor can you "brief a right into existence." He's basically saying he already knows the law, and it doesn't matter what the parties say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
OK now if we can just get a joke about Thomas needing to speak for Scalia or being unsure what opinion to hold now that Big S is gone we can have liberal racism bingo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Oral arguments might not matter often, but if they matter ever, they’re worth having because of how high the stakes are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Well, only in so much as we think oral arguments are more likely to result in just outcomes than written ones. Maybe oral arguments are biased towards attractive looking speakers from non-minority groups, for example. Clearly the solution here is to have all parties wear Darth Vader costumes, complete with voice modulators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:That, and he thinks it is disrespectful to counsel to eat up their limited time. I tend to think that is a pretty fair opinion. Fair, but the solution is to remove the time limit not to shut up. The decisions of the court are earth shaking, why do we have a stage hook on the lawyers like it's an open mic night?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Isn't he of the opinion that oral arguments are pointless since everything is being submitting in writing anyways? I can't exactly say he's wrong there. You might be surprised how often judges can misread or misunderstand something written clearly in plain English.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Fair, but the solution is to remove the time limit not to shut up. The decisions of the court are earth shaking, why do we have a stage hook on the lawyers like it's an open mic night? Have you met any lawyers? If there were no time limit, oral arguments in Marbury v. Madison would still be ongoing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:OK now if we can just get a joke about Thomas needing to speak for Scalia or being unsure what opinion to hold now that Big S is gone we can have liberal racism bingo. I've got to say, "black people are strict constitutionalists" is a new stereotype to me. Exactly what part of the country are you from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:So I guess he's more saying that he will never be convinced by an argument as to the constitutionality of any given topic because he is just that confident in his infallible interpretation of the document. How often do you think a sitting member of the SCOTUS has been swayed by oral arguments? Even Roberts' last second swap on the ACA doesn't appear related to arguments. Plus the idea someone thinks they've got such a good argument that they can sway a justice's view on the subject is insane. No orator will ever be able to convince RBG that abortion is bad, or talk someone like Alito in to supporting gun control. Ron Jeremy posted:Fair, but the solution is to remove the time limit not to shut up. The decisions of the court are earth shaking, why do we have a stage hook on the lawyers like it's an open mic night? Because spending a few more days arguing your case isn't actually going to swap the justices to accept or ignore evidence they can and will read without listening to a lawyer speak and grandstand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:53
|
|