|
mastershakeman posted:So is warrantless breathalyzer but here we are In many states if you refused the "optional" breath test they just auto suspended your license, right?
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:But, yeah, nothing I can find too important and recent. The most recent circuit court opinions I see are pretty explicit that the Ninth Amendment doesn't give any rights. quote:Plaintiffs finally seek succor in the Ninth Amendment. But, we have held, "[t]he Ninth Amendment is not an independent source of individual rights." Jenkins v. C.I.R., 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007). Because plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege a violation of any other constitutional right, their effort to recast their unsuccessful claims as a violation of the Ninth Amendment also fails. quote:The bar owners also assert that the Ninth Amendment shields them from the smoking ordinance. This argument is a non-starter, as the Ninth Amendment "is a rule of interpretation rather than a source of rights." Froehlich v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 196 F.3d 800, 801 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 271 (7th Cir. 1982) (noting that "the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory.").
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:In many states if you refused the "optional" breath test they just auto suspended your license, right? Yep. In every state there is a presumption to agreeing to a breath test in order to have your license. Driving is not a protected right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The same way you distinguish between specific speech rights protected by the first amendment and those not - through the courts. Obviously. You are acting as if you arent just describing something the courts already do. quote:So, since you are reaponding for vox, are you arguing that the 9th is completely meaningless or what? That it was just included on a lark and was not intended to hold any actual weight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So is warrantless breathalyzer but here we are It's really not at all horrifying
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Immigration is 4-4. Dollar General is also 4-4. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745989401289826305
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Never mind, I'll ask my phone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Immigration is 4-4. Dollar General is also 4-4. SCOTUS Thread 2016: In a 4-4 decision ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Confirmation that Monday the 27th will be the last day for opinions.FlamingLiberal posted:So that just leaves the abortion case? And two others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
So that just leaves the abortion case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So that just leaves the abortion case? Voisine v. US, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and McDonnell v. US to be decided on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So that just leaves the abortion case? Spoiler alert: hobbesmaster posted:SCOTUS Thread 2016: In a 4-4 decision ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much. Which is a disaster because a lot of clinics would close before the court takes up the issue again. Plus states are just copy/pasting the Texas clinic regulations outright, so expect more to move forward on that
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Hell, most of them have already shut down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Is there any possibility of tea leaves-reading with the fact that the Monday decisions aren't being released today I.e. they would have announced a 4-4 shruggie with the others if that was the result?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is there any possibility of tea leaves-reading with the fact that the Monday decisions aren't being released today I.e. they would have announced a 4-4 shruggie with the others if that was the result? If anything it makes it more likely, they really don't want to leave these important cases up in the air so both sides will be desperate to get a vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
I've read the lawthread posts on attacking a breathalyzer- at least a couple of lawgoons oughta be toasting this decision. No client of theirs ever gets convicted on breathalyzer results because they've got contesting them down to a science.twodot posted:No, I'm asking how the courts do this. If you asked me how the courts find the limits of the right to free speech, I would have an answer better than "a wizard does it". I'm pretty much in agreement with evilweasel on this- it's effectively a limit on a controverted interpretation. It's just that the interpretation it blocks is weird enough that it doesn't normally come up. Remember, I was responding to disagree with the argument: quote:It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. The opposite scenario, where the 9th does not hold and where the controverted interpretation is applied, could conversely be used to effectively remove all rights in the protection of enumerated ones. Basically, balancing tests wouldn't exist. Again, a legal system built on strong liberal concepts is weird. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
So DACA's done then? EDIT: Slate predicted this would be the most disastrous way to decide this case: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...disastrous.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:So DACA's done then? I agree with the editorial, but bear in mind that it's part of a weird (and good) inter-columnist correspondence thing that Slate does on some political issues. It's one author's opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:So DACA's done then? My understanding is that this was a fight over a pre-trial injunction and that it now goes back to the district court judge. But effectively it is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yep. In every state there is a presumption to agreeing to a breath test in order to have your license. Driving is not a protected right. This is my take on it as well. Just as asking for a driver's license and registration in a traffic stop is reasonable, but asking for ID to a random pedestrian is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Can we all just take a moment to say get hosed Abigail Fischer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Can we all just take a moment to say get hosed Abigail Fischer? Only if you also swear you'll add "also immigrants, sort of, I guess"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
get hosed Abigail Fischer
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Can we all just take a moment to say get hosed Asian applicants?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Really?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
alnilam posted:get hosed Abigail Fischer
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Really? That's who is largely impacted by AA, not the Abigail Fishers of the world, so yes. Turdis McWordis fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:My understanding is that this was a fight over a pre-trial injunction and that it now goes back to the district court judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Turdis McWordis posted:That's who is largely impacted by AA, not the Abigail Fishers of the world, so yes. "won't somebody please think of the Asians" is an argument only someone willfully unfamiliar with any of the possible rationales behind AA could make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Can we all just take a moment to say get hosed Abigail Fischer? Also, I read somewhere that proDACA folks might force the issue in another circuit to argue it should be enforced. Is that likely?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Abigail Fischer continues unremarkable streak of mediocrity . I heard someone arguing the Obama administration should just reissue it slightly modified, claiming this 'cured' any issue. But the time it's ready for review again, it's a whole new Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So is warrantless breathalyzer but here we are Especially since their accuracy is questionable and their use should be outright prohibited because of that, but they're still good for nailing people who can't afford a good defense so the system works*! * against poor people
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Twitter has been having some amazing fun with the Fisher case. http://www.theroot.com/blog/the-grapevine/beckywiththebadgrades-and-other-hilarious-reactions-about-abigail-fisher/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/BeckyWIthTheBadGrades?src=hash https://twitter.com/sohosultry/status/746035962510184448
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Fisher deserves less hate or mockery than the people behind her who set up the suit, and who are now rapidly moving to their next prepared test case plaintiff. per the Post: quote:Edward Blum, president of the Project on Fair Representation, which supports Fisher, said: “Racial classifications and preferences are one of the most polarizing policies in America today. As long as universities like the Univ. of Texas continue to treat applicants differently by race and ethnicity, the social fabric that holds us together as a nation will be weakened. Today’s decision is a sad step backward for the original, colorblind principles to our civil rights laws.” Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Turdis McWordis posted:I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself. uh what
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Turdis McWordis posted:I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself. There were plenty of black people rejected that had higher grades than Abby. She wasn't passed over for people with lower grades/test scores for the most part. EDIT: For those that haven't followed the case, this isn't Fischer's first time at the SCOTUS for this issue. The state of Texas has auto acceptance into any of it's public colleges for incoming freshmen if you're in the top 10% of your high school class or score high enough on the SAT or ACT. Fischer was not top 10% and did not score high enough for auto acceptance. So she got tossed into the general pool of applicants. From there applicants are looked at from the whole person perspective. Race is one of the factors that gets weighed, but it isn't at all a sole determining factor. There were students of all races that had better grades than Abby that were rejected, just as there were people of all races with poorer grades but better extra curriculars, community service, etc that were admitted. She wasn't rejected because she was white in place of someone non-white with worse grades. She was rejected because she was a poor applicant. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Turdis McWordis posted:I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself. You seriously have no idea how affirmative action works, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
I actually think UT's non auto admit pool is incredibly selective but I can't remember the percentage. All of the out of state and international applicants get thrown into that same pool.Turdis McWordis posted:I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself. How do you know they got worse grades? Do all minorities automatically have worse grade than whites and Asians? Sounds racist!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:41
|
|