|
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? I think they could certainly be more flexible and allocate more time for a momentous constitutional question than, say, a really niche question of statutory interpretation, or on the basis of how familiar the justices collectively are with the area of law or w/e (didn't they have longer than usual oral arguments for the ACA cases in 2012?). But at some point you have to put a limit on lawyers talking or they will just not stop, at least for anlol of them.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted: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. Are you saying that they should just do away with oral arguments are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, because in that case
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think they could certainly be more flexible and allocate more time for a momentous constitutional question than, say, a really niche question of statutory interpretation, or on the basis of how familiar the justices collectively are with the area of law or w/e (didn't they have longer than usual oral arguments for the ACA cases in 2012?). Also more time for US v Texas, but it's based more on importance than how familiar justices are (or every IP / tax / bankruptcy case would get four hours).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think they could certainly be more flexible and allocate more time for a momentous constitutional question than, say, a really niche question of statutory interpretation, or on the basis of how familiar the justices collectively are with the area of law or w/e (didn't they have longer than usual oral arguments for the ACA cases in 2012?). But at some point you have to put a limit on lawyers talking or they will just not stop, at least for anlol of them. If only there were some people who could adjuticate this whole mess. Judge it perhaps. Maybe bring some justice to the whole thing. But really, the justices should get as much time as they need. Give the lawyers an interrupted opening then give the justices as many questions as possible. Why it has to be tumbled into one time period is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
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. Nah, we're missing someone posting the "Thomas would rule own marriage unconstitutional" article and not realizing it's satire
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:If only there were some people who could adjuticate this whole mess. Judge it perhaps. Maybe bring some justice to the whole thing. The judges set the time, so it is already as much time as they need
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted: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. I think you're misunderstanding what oral arguments are for. They're not a trial, and the point isn't to try to sway the opinion of every justice. Oral arguments are an opportunity to discuss the material that has been submitted for the case. It's not to adjudicate the entire matter. It's just there to allow the justices to ask a bunch of quick questions that can help them write their final decision. It could be done just through documents, but then every case would go back and forth for weeks. If a justice wanted to ask a follow-up question then it would drag on even longer. It's much simpler to just bring everyone into a room for an hour or two and have a discussion. SCOTUS decisions really aren't as binary as they seem. SCOTUS has a really wide latitude in how they go about enacting their decisions, and how a decision is enacted is just as important as which side they found in favor of. So while the decision itself might not turn on oral argument, how far the court goes in striking something down or upholding something is certainly impacted by oral argument. A justice who plans to dissent can certainly sway the court toward more narrowly tailoring a final decision by asking tough questions. Oral arguments also allow less senior justices to have their opinions heard in a way that there is no other opportunity for in the process. Kagan and Sotomayor are not really swing votes on the court. They're not really the ones that push a case one way or the other, and they haven't been there long enough to have a big impact on how things play out. However, during oral argument they can put their mark on a case by bringing their concerns to the attention of the other justices via questioning. Thomas thinking oral arguments are unnecessary stems from his specific understanding of the function of the court. That kind of thinking makes less sense if you don't subscribe to his specific brand of jurisprudence that takes a very limited view of the court's powers. Given the reality of how broad SCOTUS decisions can be in the modern day, I think oral arguments are an efficient way to serve some of the purposes I outlined above. ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
on the other hand...quote:“Justice Sotomayor is assuming that you’re going to lose,” Alito quips, filling the silence. “So she wants to know what your reaction is to that.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, this is what the Supreme Court looks like when angered and tag teaming people trying to skirt Constitutional Rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Nah, we're missing someone posting the "Thomas would rule own marriage unconstitutional" article and not realizing it's satire What about Thomas' record makes you think he would have voted for Loving?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about Thomas' record makes you think he would have voted for Loving? "De jure race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny" is consistent with all his votes/opinions. IIRC his concurrence in Fisher 2012 is particularly helpful in understanding his views on segregation and strict scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about Thomas' record makes you think he would have voted for Loving? He was about 19 when the Court decided Loving, so almost his entire adulthood and the whole of his legal career have taken place in a post-Loving world. We have no goddamn idea how he'd have treated the case if he were in a world where that kind of thing weren't settled law, especially if he, his family, and god knows how much of his peer group were facing the realities of that world. Like anything else, judicial philosophies have context, as do the manner of their application. It's silly to project someone's philosophy of law into a different context and use that to prove a point about that person. Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence is wacky moonman nonsense, and it's sketchy as hell that people so often try to demonstrate that by skirting a "Clarence Thomas, self-hating ~*real racist~*" argument. There's no shortage of ways to point out the absurdity of his philosophy, that don't go near that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Holy gently caress, this is what the Supreme Court looks like when angered and tag teaming people trying to skirt Constitutional Rights. And this i exactly why we need vigorous and vicious oral arguments. When those silent paper arguments can’t be supported outside of their tiny little silent paper boxes, said arguments are likely poo poo. Same was true in Loving and Obergefell. Think of a world where silently writ opinions were thrust upon the public and solely influenced by silent paper evidence submissions. I only wish the public would pay way more attention to the oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Otteration posted:And this i exactly why we need vigorous and vicious oral arguments. When those silent paper arguments can’t be supported outside of their tiny little silent paper boxes, said arguments are likely poo poo. Same was true in Loving and Obergefell. If they actually let cameras in people would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If they actually let cameras in people would. This isn't necessarily true. There have been cameras in congress for decades. How often do you see that footage used? I think it's nice that we have it in congress, but there's nothing that cameras would add to the SCOTUS proceedings over the audio recordings they already provide. The oral arguments are also already covered pretty widely when there's major cases. The problem there isn't lack of coverage, but the poor quality of the majority of court coverage. There's some places that do really good work, but the majority is just people quote-mining justices to try to read the tea leaves on a decision. People are paying attention to oral arguments, but mostly for the wrong reasons. We need better education about the court and its proceedings. Most people probably don't realize that audio from oral arguments exists and that it's very listenable even as a non-lawyer. So they just rely on whatever their regular news is to tell them what's going on, and it serves them poorly. The arguments in the media concerning cases can end up bearing little resemblance to what's actually in dispute. This also ends up making people misinterpret their decisions. United States v. Texas is like this. The media portrays it like there's a credible constitutional challenge to Obama's executive action. However when you listen to the oral arguments directly you realize that the Texas side has mostly conceded that Obama actually has the authority, given to him either by acts of congress or the constitution itself, and that the arguments are resting on the technicalities of the way in which Obama did the executive action. Much of the executive action itself is not in dispute. So if the court actually ends up not striking down the executive action then get ready for lots of, "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" talk even though the entire rationale for that kind of decision was laid out in oral argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about Thomas' record makes you think he would have voted for Loving? He dissented in the cross burning case, Virginia v black, saying cross burning shouldn't be protected, and he joined in the majority in the recent Texas license plate case, saying that Texas shouldn't have to have confederate license plates. You might not like Thomas, but he's pretty aware of his skin color Also, you can get recordings of the oral arguments for most if not all Supreme Court cases, so video doesn't serve much of purpose
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
esquilax posted:"De jure race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny" is consistent with all his votes/opinions. IIRC his concurrence in Fisher 2012 is particularly helpful in understanding his views on segregation and strict scrutiny. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the history, but I thought that the gay marriage debate kept going even after the law was well settled that sexual orientation is a protected class? That is, even with discrimination against gay people being illegal, the conservative justices including Thomas were still arguing that gay marriage was not a Constitutionally protected right because ... reasons. What is the internally consistent argument for protecting marriage rights for one protected class, but not another? e: Huh, what do you know, the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. That seems like nonsense, but I stand corrected. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Maybe I'm misunderstanding the history, but I thought that the gay marriage debate kept going even after the law was well settled that sexual orientation is a protected class? That is, even with discrimination against gay people being illegal, the conservative justices including Thomas were still arguing that gay marriage was not a Constitutionally protected right because ... reasons. What is the internally consistent argument for protecting marriage rights for one protected class, but not another? The Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is a protected class and has never (openly) applied anything but rational basis review. It just happens that sexual orientation is the only time ever that anything has ever failed rational basis review and keeps failing it because Kennedy is clearly applying something stricter but refusing to admit it. My interpretation is that he refused to admit it so that he could control the pace of cases to avoid getting too far out in front of public opinion, but there may be other explanations. The Second Circuit (and maybe others) has held that sexual orientation is a protected class and that might be what you're thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
evilweasel, what are the chances Ballghazi makes it to SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is a protected class and has never (openly) applied anything but rational basis review. It just happens that sexual orientation is the only time ever that anything has ever failed rational basis review and keeps failing it because Kennedy is clearly applying something stricter but refusing to admit it. My interpretation is that he refused to admit it so that he could control the pace of cases to avoid getting too far out in front of public opinion, but there may be other explanations. Hold on, am I reading this right... are you really saying that nothing has ever failed to pass "rational basis review"? What's the point of that standard then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
These people weren't even out of their league, they were playing tee-ball in the majors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Hold on, am I reading this right... are you really saying that nothing has ever failed to pass "rational basis review"? What's the point of that standard then? Legitimize lovely laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Hold on, am I reading this right... are you really saying that nothing has ever failed to pass "rational basis review"? What's the point of that standard then? That *is* the point of that standard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
DOOP posted:evilweasel, what are the chances Ballghazi makes it to SCOTUS? Basically none, unless the NFL's other appeal in a different circuit (Adrian Peterson's, I think) goes the other way so there's a circuit split for them to resolve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Hold on, am I reading this right... are you really saying that nothing has ever failed to pass "rational basis review"? What's the point of that standard then? Almost nothing. The three standards are: 1) Strict scrutiny, more commonly known as "the government loses." Almost nothing survives this level of review. 2) Intermediate scrutiny, aka "this maybe isn't so bad as to require strict scrutiny, but there's still something going on. Most commonly used for sex-based classifications, because obviously women don't deserve the same level of protection as black men; also used for bastardy / illegitimacy. Also used for gun restrictions these days. 3) Rational Basis review, aka "the government wins." The real work goes into defining the standard of review, aka how important the relevant interests are. e;f,bx2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Hold on, am I reading this right... are you really saying that nothing has ever failed to pass "rational basis review"? What's the point of that standard then? The point of the standard is to avoid courts needing to weigh in on every single law that treats people differently that are actually political issues to be resolved by the legislature, e.g. "is it fair that the state lets only certified doctors prescribe medication and doesn't let people who passed an unaccredited course in acupuncture and holistic medicine?" It's a way to turf out cases that aren't actually discrimination as fast as possible and make it clear not to even bother. Basically, the 14th is there to prevent discrimination on the basis of impermissible factors - race as the most prominent example. But there's thousands of cases where laws discriminate based on completely legitimate reasons and having courts weigh in on every one of them would be dumb. And even if the solution picked by the legislature is dumb, it's not a good idea to have a rule that a court must think every law is intelligent. So the court basically ignores any claimed discrimination unless you make a case - based on the type of discrimination - that it's an impermissible reason. Race-based discrimination is basically never legal because there's no reason you'd do that. Gender based discrimination is suspicious but not essentially banned - there are legitimate reasons to discriminate based on gender (for example, putting transgender issues aside, nobody thinks that gendered bathrooms are an affront to women in the same way white-only bathrooms would be, or same-sex schools in the same way segregated schools are like oh hell no) and there are illegitimate ones (why, women can't be doctors, that would be insane!). But then there's things like "well, is it really fair that the state required 100 hours of training to become a hairdresser, when I think that 50 hours would be just as good" - that's just not the sort of thing that courts need to decide because those sort of judgment calls are what legislatures are for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:But then there's things like "well, is it really fair that the state required 100 hours of training to become a hairdresser, when I think that 50 hours would be just as good" - that's just not the sort of thing that courts need to decide because those sort of judgment calls are what legislatures are for. And then you get cases where requiring coffins to be sold by funeral directors only is declared irrational as pure protectionism: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-30756-CV1.wpd.pd http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1262873.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Chief Justice Roberts's war against political corruption (charges) continues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Chief Justice Roberts's war against political corruption (charges) continues. Am I insane to view their defense of "charging any sort of political contributions (and their extensive luxury "gifts") as corruption and you criminalize politics as a whole" more than a little arrogant?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Am I insane to view their defense of "charging any sort of political contributions (and their extensive luxury "gifts") as corruption and you criminalize politics as a whole" more than a little arrogant? Part of the problem is that (unlike at the federal level) the extensive luxury gifts were clearly legal for McDonnell. So the Feds are using honest services fraud as the approach, which is definitely a stretch - arguing that by accepting the gifts and doing things for the donor (things which actually aren't out of the ordinary for constituents in a lot of cases) McDonnell deprived VA of his honest service as governor. If you charge anyone who receives gifts and does things for the donor under honest services, then they have a point, even if - in a situation like McDonnell's - it seems appropriate. It's a reasonable example of why you often want domain-specific laws to, say, make it illegal to accept that type of gift, rather than trying to shoehorn it into another approach.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Part of the problem is that (unlike at the federal level) the extensive luxury gifts were clearly legal for McDonnell. Well, they're both right. It's both obviously corrupt *and* completely typical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Am I insane to view their defense of "charging any sort of political contributions (and their extensive luxury "gifts") as corruption and you criminalize politics as a whole" more than a little arrogant? "If you make our corruption illegal then all our corrupt politicians will be criminals  " is a pretty terrible defence in my opinion, but then again this is the Supreme Court that said money is free speech so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Chief Justice Roberts's war against political corruption (charges) continues. Thank god Scalia's still dead because at worst we might get a 4-4 ruling and the appeals court upheld his conviction. Being legal under Virginia state law just means the state laws need to change because "well we got 6 figures worth of freebies we never needed to pay back until the Feds started snooping" being legal on the state level is hosed up. It's not as bad as West Virginia buying judges but it's still pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
How could you not say donations of money to political causes is not protected under the 1st amendment. It's crazy to think it would not be. Edit The Supreme Court has made lots of dumb decisions but political money being protected by the first amendment is not one of them. euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How could you not say donations of money to political causes is not protected under the 1st amendment. It's crazy to think it would not be. Sure, but that protection isn't absolute. Otherwise "I am donating to your campaign if you promise to pardon me for the bank robbery I just committed" would be legal. Protection isn't absolute. Here it looks like there is pretty good evidence of a quid pro quo which is the hallmark of what should be illegal under anyone's definition. My guess is that the Supreme Court has gotten spooked by the populist backlash against Citizen's United and is taking this case as an opportunity to retrench a bit and say that some things are still illegal. Either that or we're about to enter corruption thunderdome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How could you not say donations of money to political causes is not protected under the 1st amendment. It's crazy to think it would not be. In this case it sure sounds like some of the gifts were directly to the politician rather than a campaign commitee, however. Pretty sure the guy's daughter's wedding wasn't political, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but that protection isn't absolute. Otherwise "I am donating to your campaign if you promise to pardon me for the bank robbery I just committed" would be legal. Protection isn't absolute. I was responding to that one dudes line about money not being free speech. What is this case that you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I mean yeah I don't think it's controversial to say "bribes are crimes" and therefore not protected speech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I mean yeah I don't think it's controversial to say "bribes are crimes" and therefore not protected speech. That sounds reasonable on the face of it, but have you considered how this kind of thinking hamstrings the unbelievably wealthy from influencing the political process?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
They can just run for office themselves. Self financing is not bribery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:30
|
|