|
McConnell unanimously reversed. So that'll be interesting, waiting on the actual decision.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747437246056374272
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Are they going to take the out that McDonnell never gave any official favors to his patron so there was no quid pro quo and thus coeruption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Holding: An official act in the statutes at issue is a decision or action on a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy. More: That question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power and must also be something specific and focused -- that is, pending or may by law be brought before a public official.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Looks to be a pretty strong ruling:quote:Holding: An official act in the statutes at issue is a decision or action on a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy. As I read that, he's got a very good shot on winning at retrial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Now, how bad is that for public corruption? Sounds bad but not more than expected?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Reading the summary, the decision isn't one of the usual crazy corruption doesn't exist ones - they give reasonable interpretations of all of their points. What they're basically saying is arranging a meeting, with nothing more, is not an official act - there has to be some decision made by the accused or the accused must pressure another official. Given that they're not denying that indirect pressure on other officials can be corruption that decision seems likely to be reasonable-ish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Which was the case that Thomas asked a question?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Reading the summary, the decision isn't one of the usual crazy corruption doesn't exist ones - they give reasonable interpretations of all of their points. What they're basically saying is arranging a meeting, with nothing more, is not an official act - there has to be some decision made by the accused or the accused must pressure another official. Given that they're not denying that indirect pressure on other officials can be corruption that decision seems likely to be reasonable-ish. Seems okay. Again, not incredible, but it's really hard to argue with a unanimous court, usually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Which was the case that Thomas asked a question? Voisine I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Voisine I think. Yea that's what i was thinking, and his dissent has some pretty funny hypotheticals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Reading the summary, the decision isn't one of the usual crazy corruption doesn't exist ones - they give reasonable interpretations of all of their points. What they're basically saying is arranging a meeting, with nothing more, is not an official act - there has to be some decision made by the accused or the accused must pressure another official. Given that they're not denying that indirect pressure on other officials can be corruption that decision seems likely to be reasonable-ish. They refused to rule on the Hobbs act claims he raised. Mixed bag, it'll depend on how strong the USA's case was against him if they retry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
quote:"HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives," Paxton said in the statement.  why won't the mean supreme court just let us protect women's heath
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:They refused to rule on the Hobbs act claims he raised. I don't think they refused to rule on them, I think they rejected his arguments: quote:Here is a concluding part: Governor McDonnell raises two additional claims re constitutionality of honest services statute and Hobbs Act. Court rejects those claims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Why does the SCOTUS like protecting corruption so much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
Holy smokes these are some vile, vile people. How can men hate women so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Why does the SCOTUS like protecting corruption so much? because money is speech Shuka posted:Holy smokes these are some vile, vile people. How can men hate women so much. most of them dont actually give a gently caress, its a ploy for votes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Scalia dying and dragging HB2 and other assorted lovely laws into the grave with him is still making me smile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Scalia dying and dragging HB2 and other assorted lovely laws into the grave with him is still making me smile. Who's next anyway? I'd be quite tickled if sheer attrition made it swing liberal while the GOP refuses to even hear nominations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Who's next anyway? RBG is almost certainly the next to go. Then probably Kennedy or Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Scalia dying and dragging HB2 and other assorted lovely laws into the grave with him is still making me smile. Scalia's death didn't directly affect HB2 because it was 5-3. With Scalia, it's 5-4. Indirectly though, it might have had an effect because it's really not clear to me what would have happened with 4 votes for Alito's opinion (we need to remand for further fact-finding) and 4 votes for Breyer's (gently caress em). So Kennedy couldn't compromise and join the conservatives for a weaker opinion where perhaps the 5th Circuit can't just take Texas's word for it (or threaten to do so and water down the liberal opinion). He either had to deadlock the court, upholding the lower decision, or join the liberals and overturn it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:RBG is almost certainly the next to go. As long as her health holds up, I think RBG has indicated she wants to a few more years. Agreed on Kennedy and Breyer. Maybe Breyer first if Clinton gets in. Wonder how Kennedy's health is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:As long as her health holds up, I think RBG has indicated she wants to a few more years. RBG is 83 and a cancer survivor. She will not be on the bench in 2025 and pretty unlikely to be there in 2021. There is a 95% chance that she is the next one off, regardless of what she plans. I just don't see her doing the job when she is 92.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:As long as her health holds up, I think RBG has indicated she wants to a few more years. Yeah, but she's the oldest of the three. She wasn't interested in retiring just so Obama could fill her seat and probably won't be any more interested in retiring just because Clinton wins and has 2 years (maybe) of a friendly Senate, but people were pushing her to because she's very likely to need a replacement during the next Presidential term. Given that the most likely situation right now is a Clinton win/Democratic senate in 2016, then a Democratic shellacking in 2018 (because the Senate map is hilariously unfavorable) it's really likely that the Scalia situation could happen again if someone were to kick the bucket 2018-2020. The right thing for her to do, if she values her legacy, is to resign during those two years so Clinton can appoint a strong replacement instead of someone who needs to pass a Republican senate (if at all).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
The evisceration of the severability clause is sooooo goodquote:First, Texas argues that facial invalidation of both
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Why does the SCOTUS like protecting corruption so much? I don't think they do. Was there a constitutional issue at the basis of this ruling? This seems more like the law (and the Congress that wrote it) being the ones that protect corruption here, and the Supreme Court accurately recognizing that limitation in the existing law? I'm very possibly misunderstanding the decision, but it seems like more of a case of "the law is clear, and by the law this is not corruption" rather than simply "this is not corruption and could never be found to be corruption and you can't change the law to say it is corruption"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Shuka posted:Holy smokes these are some vile, vile people. How can men hate women so much. They're Republicans
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I'm glad Kennedy proved me wrong for once
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
McDonnell is about what the definition of "official act" is. The court states that it takes a more "bounded" approach than the Lower courts. The government would have "official act" cover nearly any activity by a public official
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Is Roberts really that weak willed/narcissistic? With Scalia dead and the majority readjusted he seems to have changed his mind on abortion so he can still be the deciding swing vote. I mean, it's a great thing for the court and for America, but still. . .
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Is Roberts really that weak willed/narcissistic? With Scalia dead and the majority readjusted he seems to have changed his mind on abortion so he can still be the deciding swing vote. I mean, it's a great thing for the court and for America, but still. . . He didn't change his mind. He tried to win the case and salvage the regulations because he knew he didn't have the votes to ban abortion. Thomas is the only one who doesn't give a gently caress about putting together a majority, the rest of the justices try to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:The evisceration of the severability clause is sooooo good They had to abort that genie before it got out of the bottle because had they not a similar clause would be stuck in every single law for any subject from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
lol that severability clause is so over the top.  Every single word is severable so even if you separately strike down every other word then by gawd we'll still have HB2 on the books even if it contains only the word 'whereas'
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Shuka posted:Holy smokes these are some vile, vile people. How can men hate women so much. Being a women hardly prevents you from having terrible opinions about abortion and in fact can be some of the most vocal opponents of abortion rights. Iirc studies with proper controls say gender is not statistically significant factor among Republicans. tsa fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
"This cross-cutting paper shredder is really good for severability clauses like this!" - SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:McDonnell is about what the definition of "official act" is. The court states that it takes a more "bounded" approach than the Lower courts. The government would have "official act" cover nearly any activity by a public official Yeah I heard an analysis of this on the Diane Rehm show coming in to work today - basically if they had ruled differently, it would have meant any prosecutor who doesn't like democrats could bring charges whenever they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Between HB2 and AA, Kennedy is slowly working his way off of my shitlist for that gawdawful Hobby Lobby decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
alnilam posted:lol that severability clause is so over the top. As a clueless non-lawyer, what exactly does this level of severability actually buy you? Or is it just another attempt by a state to make the federal government's/court's job as hard as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
So how many states had laws on the books like Texas? This ruling also kills those right, or do people need to mount legal challenges, cite this case, and have the courts in those states kill each law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Between HB2 and AA, Kennedy is slowly working his way off of my shitlist for that gawdawful Hobby Lobby decision. Never Forgive the Bush v Gore Five.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:34
|
|
