|
The supreme court doesn't really seem to give a gently caress about standing anymore when it just wants to get law settled.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes but you're forgetting that Fisher is an entitled brat. Yeah. "The darkies took what's MINE!!" Was her entire temper tantrum of a thought process and white supremacists just seized the opportunity to use a white girl as their figurehead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The supreme court doesn't really seem to give a gently caress about standing anymore when it just wants to get law settled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Yeah. "The darkies took what's MINE!!" Was her entire temper tantrum of a thought process and white supremacists just seized the opportunity to use a white girl as their figurehead. edward blum is a real fucker who's also been involved in shelby, apparently also i giggled at the last part quote:An organization Blum created, Students for Fair Admissions, is suing Harvard University, accusing it of discriminating against Asian American applicants and drawing comparisons to the university's past record of bias against Jews. The complaint, filed in federal court in Boston in November 2014, argues that exceptionally qualified Asian kids, including many with perfect SAT scores, are being shut out because Harvard wants to limit their numbers. Blum's group has launched a similar case against the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. lovely white boy tried and failed to get any asian plaintiffs aside from an anonymous harvard reject (who probably has similar feelings re:THE BLACKS and latino folks as abby fisher does)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The supreme court doesn't really seem to give a gently caress about standing anymore when it just wants to get law settled. Similarly, they might kick down on standing because it amounts to "no one has standing on this issue so please stop suing about it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:edward blum is a real fucker who's also been involved in shelby, apparently
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Late night Arzy posting, what's the forecast for Monday's abortion case? It would be nice to not have the whole week be ruined even though I don't have a vag. Also gently caress TX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
My prediction is Texas loses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
When you shake the magic 8 ball, the answer is always "ask again later."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Benagain posted:When you shake the magic 8 ball, the answer is always "ask again later." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Late night Arzy posting, what's the forecast for Monday's abortion case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't trust Kennedy on abortion, so I'm assuming 4-4 split which would uphold the law but not create a precedent The silver lining on that very dark cloud is that this guarantees that the court will hear it again because there will almost certainly be a circuit split in short order. And if Hillary wins we could at that point get a 5-4 decision penned by the liberal wing of the court which firmly establishes that trying to ban abortion via pointless regulations not backed by evidence is just as unconstitutional as directly banning it. Kennedy's wishy washy poo poo has just encouraged the TRAP laws. But odds are we would get that decision anyway because NARAL would get a new challenge on the fast track the instant Hillary made her nomination. So it would be a whole lot better if Texas didn't get to be an rear end in a top hat to women in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Yes, of course the problem is that there are not going to be a lot of clinics left by the time that gets to the court, so it's a Pyrrhic victory
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes, of course the problem is that there are not going to be a lot of clinics left by the time that gets to the court, so it's a Pyrrhic victory That's why Texas' ban is going to fail, imo. You cannot simultaneously argue that the clinic requirements are necessary for women's health and safety while saying that women aren't restricted abortion access in El Paso because they can cross the border and use an "less-safe" clinic in New Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Texas is going to be 4-4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Texas is going to be 4-4. I have a feeling that Texas is being too blatant about restricting abortion for Kennedy, he likes it when you restrict abortion in more subtle ways. Ways that make him feel good about stopping abortion but still let him pretend that's not what's happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I never give him credit like that on cases with women's health.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Thinking that "surely the court won't rule this way, they can see how bad it would be for the nation" is somewhat naive, imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Either Kennedy's going to side with the liberals or he's going to make it 4-4 with the opinion that women in El Paso going to New Mexico are wrong and that the solution is for all states to have those requirements or something equally dumb. If it's a 4-4 split then at best maybe there'll be a consensus that those admittance requirements are only permitted if a hospital can't deny privileges solely because abortion. But there's zero loving chance of that when so many hospitals are owned by religious organizations. Honestly, the best chance for women's health is to make sure Clinton's elected and that we get a 5th liberal on the bench so that a bunch of groups can start challenging awful laws to get them all struck down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Thinking that "surely the court won't rule this way, they can see how bad it would be for the nation" is somewhat naive, imo It's definitely not surely. It's just my gut feeling that Kennedy isn't going to be an rear end this time. He could totally be a total rear end though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Lyle Denniston will quit SCOTUSblog after next Monday  http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/one-journey-over-the-quest-continues/
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I think that Kennedy's going to vote to strike these laws down. The goals of the laws are just too blatant for him to approve it without just deciding gently caress it he's against abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Lyle Denniston will quit SCOTUSblog after next Monday That's kinda sad, end of a small era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:we actually overwhelmingly support affirmative action, so please don't drag us into your crusade against it, thank you very much The one part of Alito's dissent that bothers me and I've never seen addressed is the fact that schools do not distinguish between Indian/Chinese/et al students, and Cambodian, Hmong, et al. What criteria are we using to lump together the least educated minority groups in America with the most educated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
A paper bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Squinty posted:The one part of Alito's dissent that bothers me and I've never seen addressed is the fact that schools do not distinguish between Indian/Chinese/et al students, and Cambodian, Hmong, et al. What criteria are we using to lump together the least educated minority groups in America with the most educated? ironically, a lot of asian (and particularly chinese) anti-affirmative action advocates are also against disaggregating the asian-american category, even though southeast asians indeed are much less well-off and less educated than chinese-americans\ e: here's something about the failure of a disaggregation bill in california, and a new attempt to push one forward quote:Despite broad bipartisan support for data disaggregation in California, a few California-area Chinese American groups have also emerged against the AHEAD Act this year. Their opposition is truly bewildering: these groups advocate the silencing of Asian American and Pacific Islander voices alongside concealment of their oppressions, all to advance baseless fearmongering for a conservative anti-affirmative action cause. tl;dr dylann storm liu's are absolute fuckers Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Squinty posted:The one part of Alito's dissent that bothers me and I've never seen addressed is the fact that schools do not distinguish between Indian/Chinese/et al students, and Cambodian, Hmong, et al. What criteria are we using to lump together the least educated minority groups in America with the most educated? Most affirmative action programs these days are less "[race]? +20" than a subjective preference towards disadvantaged people. Admissions boards are able to use paperwork and essays to see the difference between the poor child of a Hmong refugee and a well-off third generation Chinese-American immigrant, or between a poor black kid from a city and the child of a couple black lawyers in the suburb of said city. The goal is diversity, not checking off boxes on a census form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Most affirmative action programs these days are less "[race]? +20" than a subjective preference towards disadvantaged people. Admissions boards are able to use paperwork and essays to see the difference between the poor child of a Hmong refugee and a well-off third generation Chinese-American immigrant, or between a poor black kid from a city and the child of a couple black lawyers in the suburb of said city. The goal is diversity, not checking off boxes on a census form. "Most?" Is there some sort of legislative or judicial oversight to ensure this is the case in all schools or do we just accept it on faith that no one's seeing a check next to Asian and putting all the applications in the same box? Many universities, particularly the ones most underrepresented Asian Americans will be applying to, don't require essays at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Lyle Denniston will quit SCOTUSblog after next Monday He's leaving to take up some of the unused Trump media credentials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:38
|
|
Squinty posted:"Most?" Is there some sort of legislative or judicial oversight to ensure this is the case in all schools or do we just accept it on faith that no one's seeing a check next to Asian and putting all the applications in the same box? Many universities, particularly the ones most underrepresented Asian Americans will be applying to, don't require essays at all. Schools have legal departments. Their admission policies are, iirc, publicly available (hence the Fischer lawsuit). Judicial oversight is generally reserved for jurisdictions that can't be trusted to apply policy appropriately.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
College admissions are also super subjective and there are plenty of stories of people denying admission for the dumbest of reasons, so it's a fools game
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
What does "remanded" mean when the SC uses it? I thought it meant to send it back to the lower court for a do-over. I was looking at the SCOTUSblog page for Heffernan v. City of Paterson, and the decision was "reversed and remanded". The wikipedia page says "when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded."". Is that just fancy lawyerin' talk, or does the lower court actually do something in these cases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
myron cope posted:What does "remanded" mean when the SC uses it? I thought it meant to send it back to the lower court for a do-over. I was looking at the SCOTUSblog page for Heffernan v. City of Paterson, and the decision was "reversed and remanded". The wikipedia page says "when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded."". It means it's sent back to the lower court to enter any necessary orders that are needed based on the Supreme Court's opinion. Generally anything that's not upheld is remanded - it's rare that there's no additional orders or the like needed after the reversal. It doesn't mean it's a do-over unless that's what the SCOTUS decision called for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
myron cope posted:What does "remanded" mean when the SC uses it? I thought it meant to send it back to the lower court for a do-over. I was looking at the SCOTUSblog page for Heffernan v. City of Paterson, and the decision was "reversed and remanded". The wikipedia page says "when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded."". the lower court is forced to make a new ruling on the case in accordance with the higher court's decision and continue the proceedings until its finally settled
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Lyle Denniston will quit SCOTUSblog after next Monday Goodnight sweet prince
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
9 minutes 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
1 minute  Last #waitingforlyle ever 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Kagan writing Voisine. 5-3 affirmed. Prob not good for abortion e: 6-2 not 5-3 30 TO 50 FERAL HOG fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Four boxes suggests Texas might not be 4-4, since if it was it would be a single page, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:03
|
|