|
EwokEntourage posted:But where do Druids and shamans fit in Sadly in our modern era Druids have been reduced to mostly national park work, or as hired entertainment at furry conventions.
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
If ya'll want a quick laugh at my trainwreck family, I posted some documents the cousin filed with the identifying information blotted out: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659&pagenumber=562#lastpost
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Garland 'wrote a kind of sad update in this periodical I sometimes read called The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/quick-question-what-am-i-supposed-be-doing-right-n-52938
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
No sitting on Wittman v. Personhuballah, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-1504. Ruling that district lines were drawn improperly stands.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
The Court ruled, 7-1, that striking each and every black juror with a mountain of evidence you did it because they were black, is unconstitutional: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf Clarence Thomas dissented 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:No sitting on Wittman v. Personhuballah, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-1504. Ruling that district lines were drawn improperly stands. Uh... Case got punted because none of the parties could prove injury.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:No sitting on Wittman v. Personhuballah, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-1504. Ruling that district lines were drawn improperly stands. I think you mean no standing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
The Court is not sitting on the case, it got punted. Either way.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:The Court is not sitting on the case, it got punted. Either way. Bit of there's no sitting it has standing, which there clearly was not 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Bit of there's no sitting it has standing, which there clearly was not It's not sitting or standing, it's freely falling under the influence of gravity back down to the lower courts?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
Tldr, although it's only one page: "We might not have jurisdiction and if we did we shouldn't be basing our decision on new evidence from after the dude's conviction." 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Tldr, although it's only one page: "We might not have jurisdiction and if we did we shouldn't be basing our decision on new evidence from after the dude's conviction." The one page is just the summary, it's much longer than one page.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I'm haven't followed the case, but Thomas's dissent doesn't appear particularly interesting- it's rather kitchen sink-y, with argument in the alternative throughout.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
My favorite chunk of it was his "first argument". That "the Georgia court had already ruled against them, and why should we question that?" What the gently caress kind of argument is that?
Schizotek fucked around with this message at 18:01 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:My favorite chunk of it was his "first argument". That "the Georgia court had already ruled against them, and why should we question that?" What the gently caress kind of argument is that? It's more complicated than that- higher courts can't just pick and choose cases to hear, there's a fairly complicated set of issues involving whether or not a case can come before the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:My favorite chunk of it was his "first argument". That "the Georgia court had already ruled against them, and why should we question that?" What the gently caress kind of argument is that? "Why supreme court exist?" - a supreme court justice
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The one page is just the summary, it's much longer than one page. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
alnilam posted:"Why supreme court exist?" - a supreme court justice What is the 11th amendment
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
There is a reason court watchers consider Thomas to often be living on his own little island of strange jurisprudence completely independent from the other justices. What makes it really strange is he often pens decisions which are well within accepted legal thought which the other justices join, then he follows it up with a seriously  opinion in the next case.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:There is a reason court watchers consider Thomas to often be living on his own little island of strange jurisprudence completely independent from the other justices. I think he tends to only get the opinions with black-letter law everyone agrees on (including him) because if you give him an opinion where there's any real dispute giving the majority opinion to Thomas is a good way to no longer have a majority.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-in-immigration-case-issues-sweeping-new-order/ Can anyone explain this to me? It seems a little crazy, but I'm probably not understanding it. Why did he originally think it would be kicked back to him?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
"Why are you making me do work, I'm on vacation!" - Thomas
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-in-immigration-case-issues-sweeping-new-order/ What was appealed was his preliminary injunction. He never ruled on the merits and so regardless of the higher court decision on his preliminary injunction, you would expect it to be remanded for a trial on the merits. However, if the Supreme Court just resolves the merits as well, it won't ever come back to him except to enter a judgment for [winning side].
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Is this sort of wide-teaching order normal or appropriate? As a layperson, this sort of thing feels really weird jurisdictionally --- how often do states ending up suing outside their circuit happen? Why would this sort of thing end up in some particular Texas district anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Is this sort of wide-teaching order normal or appropriate? As a layperson, this sort of thing feels really weird jurisdictionally --- how often do states ending up suing outside their circuit happen? Why would this sort of thing end up in some particular Texas district anyway? The State of Texas is the named plaintiff, and the case has to be filed somewhere, no? ...to tease that out a little more, if the States of Texas, Georgia, Utah, and Maine are going to be jointly suing the federal government, 3 of them are going to be outside their state and circuit.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Is this sort of wide-teaching order normal or appropriate? As a layperson, this sort of thing feels really weird jurisdictionally --- how often do states ending up suing outside their circuit happen? Why would this sort of thing end up in some particular Texas district anyway? It's pretty bug-poo poo crazy. quote:Ethics scholar Kathleen Clark of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law said she was “astounded” by the sanctions Hanen imposed. http://www.nationallawjournal.com/s...r#ixzz49WjW6kGs
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Court ruled, 7-1, that striking each and every black juror with a mountain of evidence you did it because they were black, is unconstitutional: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf When I saw it was 7-1 I knew he was the dissenter. He's the judicial version of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. Hackan Slash posted:http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-in-immigration-case-issues-sweeping-new-order/ It's insane and part of me wonders if he sees any of the irony involved in him making a bunch of sweeping declarations in response to what he saw as the Obama administration making a bunch of sweeping declarations. Judge needs to be removed from the case because he's lost his goddamn mind.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's insane and part of me wonders if he sees any of the irony involved in him making a bunch of sweeping declarations in response to what he saw as the Obama administration making a bunch of sweeping declarations. Judge needs to be removed from the case because he's lost his goddamn mind. Why do you think that a group of 26 states that could have filed the case nearly anywhere picked his court? It wasn't a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:It's pretty bug-poo poo crazy. Someone put Fox News on at the gym last night and I caught Megyn Kelly and Andrew Napolitano apparently taking it seriously. I think I pulled a muscle rolling my eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:He's the judicial version of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. Man, shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Man, shut the gently caress up. He's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Uncle Ruckus is a fairly apt comparison, though obviously it can be taken too far. I doubt Thomas believes in White Heaven, though he probably believes in a highly idiosyncratic heaven that happens to be populated almost exclusively by whites.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Yeah, bring it on out. He's just an Uncle Tom, huh. His name is even Tom. Keep going.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if Thomas is just being contrarian just because he can. Perhaps its what happens when you go full Toblerone Triangular but don't stop soon enough.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
While this isn't strictly SCOTUS related, I have a semi-legal question - what's the deal with "unindicted co-conspirators"? From a cursory glance, it seems like a tool prosecutors can use to quasi-legally smear people they don't like that they have a mere hunch is involved in something? It doesn't seem to require any proof, and while it has no real legal meaning, the fact that it's coming from a prosecutory authority seems to lend it more credence than if it was just Glenn Beck ranting about stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:While this isn't strictly SCOTUS related, I have a semi-legal question - what's the deal with "unindicted co-conspirators"? From a cursory glance, it seems like a tool prosecutors can use to quasi-legally smear people they don't like that they have a mere hunch is involved in something? It doesn't seem to require any proof, and while it has no real legal meaning, the fact that it's coming from a prosecutory authority seems to lend it more credence than if it was just Glenn Beck ranting about stuff. I've always assumed it meant someone known to have been involved, but not enough evidence could be gathered to bring charges against them. It is sort of a smear and a violation of "innocent until proven guilty," IMO. I guess the point is to make a note that an indictment could be forthcoming in the future if more evidence appears.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I always thought it was OK to say in the general (this person had unindicted co-conspirators) but not the specific (this person is an unindicted co-conspirator). The first is just 'we're entirely sure there are more people involved, but they haven't been indicted yet' - even if putting it that way lets people make a pretty good guess as to who it might be, it wasn't actually claimed at any point. The second is, as you say, kind of a smear.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Try the legal questions thread.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I think it's pretty cool that a bunch of slimy government lawyers are having to face actual consequences for their actions.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:I think it's pretty cool that a bunch of slimy government lawyers are having to face actual consequences for their actions. What are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:43
|
|