|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Has Hillary previously explicitly voiced support for Merrick Garland? Just wondering how he's doing in purgatory and whether her plan is to try to get him on there in 2017 or what. She has said he should be confirmed by the current Senate but nothing to indicate that she'd renominate him if she wins.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Would he need to be explicitly renominated by the next president, or does his nomination stand until it is withdrawn or he is confirmed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
nm: I was probably stupid and wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Would he need to be explicitly renominated by the next president, or does his nomination stand until it is withdrawn or he is confirmed? He would have to be nominated again after Hillary is sworn in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Williams v Pennsylvania is a fun case. Prosecutor is found to have brady violations that resulted in a death penalty sentence for a dude. Said prosecutor is now chief justice on the state supreme court and declared that the brady violations didn't matter, refused to recuse himself, and struck down the dudes challenge. Thankfully, the SCOTUS squashed that poo poo and said the dude deserves a fair hearing. John Roberts feels that since it was 30 years ago, the guy is obviously fair and impartial and the court is being crazy. This case may have gone the other way if Scalia was alive. Lol get hosed Castille Too bad you retired 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It has some ground to stand on. Open carry is by no means needed or necessarily implied for the 2A's "well regulated militia" aspect. Unless they're doing militia-related activity such as training or deployment I'm ok with "no open/concealed carry" as a default and making people jump through hoops to get permission to carry publicly. Like "are you law enforcement or work a job (such as a personal bodyguard) that being armed is a crucial part of the work? No? Prove you have a vital need to be armed at all times outside the home."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Lol get hosed Castille Heard an NPR story that expands on this a little bit. Turns out that the evidence that the prosecution held back was that the victim was molesting children. The defendant, of course, was claiming this as mitigating evidence. Oh, and it helpfully reminded me that Castille resigned as an alternative to being impeached because of all the porn and racism found in his official e-mail accounts. E: link: http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481433854/supreme-court-overturns-death-sentence-in-judge-recusal-case
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Would he need to be explicitly renominated by the next president, or does his nomination stand until it is withdrawn or he is confirmed? The President can appoint a justice after the justice has been confirmed by the Senate. Is the appointment and not the confirmation that is the what legally elevates the person to the office. Nomination is just a formal request for Senatorial consent to the (future) appointment. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I"m pretty sure there have been a few cases where the senate confirmed someone without even a nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Is Hillary actually going to get her SC justice when she wins or will the GOP keep the court at 4-4 forever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
The 2ND amendment was included at the insistence of slaveholders. Provided it s for the right kind of person, I think both concealed and open carry are assumed under the original intent. Thankfully, we aren't hidebound to interpret the constitution like 18th century slave holders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Is Hillary actually going to get her SC justice when she wins or will the GOP keep the court at 4-4 forever? Depends on the Senate. This is why while Liz Warren as VP would be cool and all, Mass. has a Republican governor who would appoint her replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Keep and bear arms. The supreme court is going to legalize open carry everywhere aren't they. A 4-4 court will punt the poo poo out of this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Would he need to be explicitly renominated by the next president, or does his nomination stand until it is withdrawn or he is confirmed? Kobayashi posted:Is Hillary actually going to get her SC justice when she wins or will the GOP keep the court at 4-4 forever? Unlikely to matter because if the GOP holds on to the Senate they'll claim that it's the Will Of The People for them to stonewall her and keep the court 4-4 until a Republican wins the White House, another justice dies/retires, or the Dems take the Senate (in 2020 at best) and if the GOP loses the Senate they're going to confirm Garland in a heartbeat so that Schumer can't nuke the filibuster and let Hillary appoint whomever she and the Democrats want. The GOP knows that losing the WH race is bad and very likely, but losing the Senate as well means that not only can Hilary appoint people without them being able to do anything about it, but she'll also get to fill all those vacancies they've caused for the last several years. Ceiling fan posted:Heard an NPR story that expands on this a little bit. Turns out that the evidence that the prosecution held back was that the victim was molesting children. The defendant, of course, was claiming this as mitigating evidence. Not just that the deacon he murdered had molested children, but that the deacon had also molested him for some time as well.  Proprietorial misconduct really needs a lower bar for punishment and imprisonment. Thomas continues to be a loving monster in his dissent too. There is a silver lining to all of this though: quote:Moreover, the court has been so wracked by scandal that the state legislature is now considering whether to abandon the election of supreme court justices and to substitute a merit selection appointment process. Less judges being elected by popular vote is always a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I don't think any current judicial precedent hinges on the "militia" part of the second amendment the way you're implying. But previous precedent does prior to a 5-4 decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It has some ground to stand on. Open carry is by no means needed or necessarily implied for the 2A's "well regulated militia" aspect. Unless they're doing militia-related activity such as training or deployment I'm ok with "no open/concealed carry" as a default and making people jump through hoops to get permission to carry publicly. Like "are you law enforcement or work a job (such as a personal bodyguard) that being armed is a crucial part of the work? No? Prove you have a vital need to be armed at all times outside the home." Also, the explanatory militia clause is not relevant to the application of the 2nd. ShadowHawk posted:I don't think any current judicial precedent hinges on the "militia" part of the second amendment the way you're implying. archangelwar posted:But previous precedent does prior to a 5-4 decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Thankfully, we aren't hidebound to interpret the constitution like 18th century slave holders. Unfortunately we still will
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really OK with the idea that people should have to demonstrate a "need" the government finds agreeable in order to exercise enumerated rights outside their homes. What does this interpretation mean for state laws regulating concealed carry, like for example prohibitions on carrying in bars, courtrooms, and such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What does this interpretation mean for state laws regulating concealed carry, like for example prohibitions on carrying in bars, courtrooms, and such. It's a states rights interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
I don't really know judges but I hope Hillary nominates the farthest left she can until they get Garland anyways and she makes the GOP look like the awful fucks they are. Bonus points if she can find a left leaning Mexican Muslim judge.
Arrgytehpirate fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's a states rights interpretation. DR disagreed with the ruling, I was asking about the implications of his interpretation, not the 9th Circuit's
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:DR disagreed with the ruling, I was asking about the implications of his interpretation, not the 9th Circuit's My bad. I just love reversing the framing on these sorts of things to fit common conservative talking points. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Is Hillary actually going to get her SC justice when she wins or will the GOP keep the court at 4-4 forever? It's relatively unlikely that the GOP holds the Senate if Hillary wins. Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really OK with the idea that people should have to demonstrate a "need" the government finds agreeable in order to exercise enumerated rights outside their homes. An explanatory clause is absolutely relevant when interpreting ambiguities. One of the best examples is if you ban "vehicles" from a park without defining vehicles, are bikes banned? If you have an explanatory opening such as "In order to prevent pollution and extra noise from wrecking the park..." the answer is obviously no, but if you have an explanatory opening such as "Because the senior citizens are worried they'll get knocked over by anything traveling faster than a slow walk..." the answer is obviously yes. Here, there's a question what "bear arms" means. What the 9th Circuit is doing is adopting Stevens' interpretation: that (the individual/collective right issue aside) that the 2nd Amendment specifically says that it's about a militia, not personal self-defense. That's helpful here because part of the definition of a lawful combatant is carrying arms openly. So under this interpretation there's a possible argument that open carry is mandated by the Constitution (which I'd vehemently disagree with, but that's an issue for another thread going to the "well-regulated" part), there's no room for an argument that the 2nd bars states from restricting the concealed carrying of weapons. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
quote:Justice Thomas, writing for himself alone, said that in his view, once a person has been tried and convicted, he does not have the same rights to due process of law because, after a first set of appeals, the case is over. The defendant, said Thomas, by then has no right to counsel, no right to demand that the state turn over exculpatory evidence that was not disclosed, and no right to a claim of actual innocence. What a bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:I don't really know judges but I hope Hillary nominates the farthest left she can until they get Garland anyways and she makes the GOP look like the awful fucks they are. Bonus points if she can find a left leaning Mexican Muslim judge. As a practical matter it doesn't matter how far left the replacement justice is, because this Court has been so far to the right that it'll take a decade of just undoing what they've been doing. The practical difference between Garland and the farthest left justice you can find is, in practice, going to be pretty small. What would be a big deal is if Hillary finds some 40 year old who can get appointed - that's what Bush I did, and that means that Thomas and Alito are the same age despite being appointed by two different generations of Bushes. Garland's primary downside is that he's old and will get replaced a decade earlier than the standard appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Miller is more about a finding that a short barreled shotgun is not an individual soldier's weapon than a finding that the 2nd is contingent on militia participation. Which was, I should point out, both uncontested _and_ bullshit, based on what I know about Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What a bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean Scalia had similar opinions. I'm pretty sure he once said that even if someone was found innocent sometime later that shouldn't reduce their punishment for *reasons* The specific (real) quote was that the Constitution does not recognize a claim of "actual innocence".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached. That's the fake quote. http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
esquilax posted:That's the fake quote. I had googled it to make sure I worded it right, saw that on snopes, and copied it off not realizing that it was the wrong one. quote:We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What a bastard. Well, Dred Scott was the end of that question, except maybe for Plessy. Then it's definitely done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
It amazes me that people want to treat trial courts like ancient monarchs. So it was written, so it was. Are they against the concept of exoneration since there isn't an explicit process for it? I can't even come close to wrapping my mind around that point of view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It amazes me that people want to treat trial courts like ancient monarchs. So it was written, so it was. Are they against the concept of exoneration since there isn't an explicit process for it? I can't even come close to wrapping my mind around that point of view. Well, I can agree with the general principle. A convicted prisoner could make up continuous false claims of exoneration, and requiring a new trial for every one becomes an abuse of the system. IANAL, so I don't know how things really work, but there ought to be some sort of process for adjudicating claims of innocence to determine if they are significant enough to merit serious reconsideration of the verdict. It seems to be primarily appealing to the chief executive of the state or country for a pardon on a case by case basis at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The actual quote from Scalia, in context, is highly defensible. He was concurring with the majority on the case, and it was 6-3. per snopes: quote:Justice Scalia's words regarding that decision are often quoted out of context, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that he believed it was perfectly acceptable for our legal system to execute people whom we knew to be innocent. In the fuller context, what he was actually expressing was that once a person had been fairly convicted and sentenced in court, and had exhausted all his possible avenues of appeal, a last-minute claim of innocence was not by itself sufficient grounds for further delaying the carrying out of the sentence.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What a bastard. Give him credit, he's wasting no time in making sure everyone knows he's the biggest rear end in a top hat on the bench now that Scalia's dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
I would call BS on the snopes "debunking" then, given the accurate quote they provide --- surely Scalia's "newly discovered evidence of innocence" is not the same thing as Snopes' "claim of innocence".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Antti posted:Depends on the Senate. This is why while Liz Warren as VP would be cool and all, Mass. has a Republican governor who would appoint her replacement. Massachusetts holds an election to replace Senators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Massachusetts holds an election to replace Senators. Not precisely true, it's appointed for a temporary senator, did you look that up or are you just going on memory of what the legislature changed to say gently caress you Romney?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Massachusetts holds an election to replace Senators. A law specifically passed to prevent Romney from replacing Kerry if he'd won in 2004 I believe. Unfortunately that law backfired when Kennedy died and the Dems managed to blow an election they had no excuse to lose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Massachusetts holds an election to replace Senators. They do both actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
