|
Mr. Nice! posted:5th has 3 Clinton judges, 3 Obama, 6 Reagan, 6 GW Bush, 2 Carter, 2 GHW Bush, and 2 vacancies. There are 14 conservative appointments to 8 liberal and two empty seats at the moment. Lol loving what, how old are these judges, 90?
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:Lol loving what, how old are these judges, 90? One had his ninety‐fifth birthday a week ago. The other is 78 (41 when appointed).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Can someone more familiar with Casey compare the application of the undue burden standard there and in this case? Does this ruling indicate that the undue burden standard may have more teeth than it has had before? One of the profs at my school wrote a pretty good article about what the majority did with undue burden yesterday. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/symposium-the-court-once-again-makes-the-undue-burden-test-a-referendum-on-the-facts/ Basically where there was no real test before from Casey, there is now a balancing test for lower courts to use to weigh any benefit (if any) using scientific evidence against the actual burden caused to women. In the present case there was no actual benefit to any of Texas' regs and a massive burden on the women of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Can someone more familiar with Casey compare the application of the undue burden standard there and in this case? Does this ruling indicate that the undue burden standard may have more teeth than it has had before? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:A more typical severability clause would say that each part of the act's text should be reviewed and invalidated separately. If any paragraph or clause of the act is finally found to be unenforceable, then that paragraph or clause is effectively off the books. Okay, so it's an attempt to change the way remedies are done in law back to the older method, which only allowed remedies for the exact case being dealt with. Or at least that's how I remember it being explained to me in a poli sci course 15 years ago. It confuses me why they'd bother, since any court willing to strike down the law would also wreck that provision too. Or is this another case of lawmakers attempting to write into a law what the judiciary is allowed to do with it, ala those laws that state that the court doesn't have the ability to review them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:One of the profs at my school wrote a pretty good article about what the majority did with undue burden yesterday. The primary thing that concerns me about having fact based inquiries is that the pro-life side has no problem manufacturing expert testimony, and friendly courts might be willing to turn a blind eye to it. Also Texas Politicians are really mad that they are being prevented from being shitheads and are promising to pass new anti-abortion laws come spring. quote:“We do not know exactly what’s possible under this decision,” said Joe Pojman, executive director of the advocacy group Texas Alliance for Life. “We’re going to be poring through it with our attorneys and our physicians to figure out if the Supreme Court will allow the state to do anything meaningful to raise the safety standards at those freestanding abortion facilities.” Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Has anyone listened to Radiolabs's More Perfect? Right now I'm listening to their latest episode, which is about Lawrence v. Texas and the Fisher case. So far I think it's interesting, tho I don't know about having Edward Blum on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Has anyone listened to Radiolabs's More Perfect? Right now I'm listening to their latest episode, which is about Lawrence v. Texas and the Fisher case. So far I think it's interesting, tho I don't know about having Edward Blum on. I've listened to the first two so far, the episode on Baker v. Carr was really good. I don't know how much they played up the drama caused by Frankenfurter and Douglas but it was a good story at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:He said his group was also pushing for a "wrongful birth" law that would prevent parents from suing a doctor who fails to warn them about fetal problems. That is absolutely vile. "We want your doctor to be legally able to lie to you, but it's for a good cause!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Something similar was done down here with a law that prevented doctors from asking parents about guns when discussing their child's safety. That's currently in court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:That is absolutely vile. "We want your doctor to be legally able to lie to you, but it's for a good cause!" I'm sure their motives are vile, but that's actually an issue that's been hotly debated for a long time outside the general abortion debate and courts have come down on both sides of it. There is a certain .. well, wariness ... of a court looking at a person and awarding damages for allowing that person to exist. It's one of those things that either choice is kind of going down a rabbit hole of unexpected consequences. However, there's obviously a very big difference between malpractice in failing to discover and warn about problems that are not fixable, and affirmatively refusing to disclose stuff the doctor knows. To the extent that the laws allow doctors to lie as opposed to it being a malpractice issue it becomes very simple because you don't need to find that allowing the now an actual person child to exist is damages, you've got a doctor withholding important information from a patient which is itself damages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Also Texas Politicians are really mad that they are being prevented from being shitheads and are promising to pass new anti-abortion laws come spring. quote:"I would expect an absolute onslaught of pro-life legislation in the next session," said state Rep.Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford. “I’ve never been this upset before, I mean just like truly upset,”
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Whoa whoa whoa. Pro-life? Wait, I thought these bills were about women's health and safety??? Love it when the GOP gets trolled into admitting the actual reasons behind stuff. Like when a Republican official in PA bragged in an interview that voter ID laws had "worked" because PA went slightly more for Romney than expected 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Has anyone listened to Radiolabs's More Perfect? Right now I'm listening to their latest episode, which is about Lawrence v. Texas and the Fisher case. So far I think it's interesting, tho I don't know about having Edward Blum on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Has anyone listened to Radiolabs's More Perfect? Right now I'm listening to their latest episode, which is about Lawrence v. Texas and the Fisher case. So far I think it's interesting, tho I don't know about having Edward Blum on. Along these lines, anyone have any recommended podcasts for hearing about court rulings and their legal reasoning? I started listening to Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court recently and have enjoyed it (probably because the two guys spend half the episode talking about food in a side tangent) and SCOTUSBlog and Supreme Court Briefing seem to give concise explanations of various rulings. Any others that anyone would recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Also Texas Politicians are really mad that they are being prevented from being shitheads and are promising to pass new anti-abortion laws come spring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
g0del posted:If they really wanted fewer abortions, maybe they should try funding more than just "parenting information". Like food, diapers, childcare, children's clothes, etc. It's funny how I never seem to see pro-life groups pushing stuff like that. But taxation is theft 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Along these lines, anyone have any recommended podcasts for hearing about court rulings and their legal reasoning? I started listening to Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court recently and have enjoyed it (probably because the two guys spend half the episode talking about food in a side tangent) and SCOTUSBlog and Supreme Court Briefing seem to give concise explanations of various rulings. Slate's Amicus podcast has been decent when I've listened to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Bloomberg I think puts out a quick 10-15 min legal podcast that covers legal news. Had it recommended by a professor but have never listened to it
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
g0del posted:If they really wanted fewer abortions, maybe they should try funding more than just "parenting information". Like food, diapers, childcare, children's clothes, etc. It's funny how I never seem to see pro-life groups pushing stuff like that. If they wanted fewer abortions, they'd promote safe sex and sex ed that isn't just abstinence. But, y'know, Jesus. Also, apparently the SCOTUS refused to hear a case on a Pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs, which upholds the lower courts ruling that you do not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription based on belief. Good. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/alabama_senate_passes_bill_to_3.html Short backstory: Alabama passed laws similar to Texas, requiring wider doors and hallways. One clinic jumps through all those hoops, builds new facility near a school. Alabama responds by banning clinics near schools. Would yesterday's ruling have any effect on this situation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/alabama_senate_passes_bill_to_3.html What he says, basically the Supreme Court has called out states that try to argue they are making access safer by denying access as failing to actually support those claims. Chances are Alabama cannot support their claims and reasoning either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/alabama_senate_passes_bill_to_3.html Yes, there's even less of an argument the state could make for a law like this because it is arbitrary as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/alabama_senate_passes_bill_to_3.html - The followup ban has no legislative findings. If the state government wants to argue that it serves some state interest, they have the work cut out for them. - It was publicly justified on the grounds of protecting children from abortion protests. So why is it unconditional? Why doesn't it tell the licensing authority to make the call according to circumstances? - Or, why isn't the local jurisdiction trusted to set appropriate time/manner rules for the protests? Of course we both know what's up with this law, it's just a question of how the clinic can persuade the court that it lacks any legitimate purpose. Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Also there's specific precedent regarding a protestor's veto so
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:- It was publicly justified on the grounds of protecting children from abortion protests. So why is it unconditional? Why doesn't it tell the licensing authority to make the call according to circumstances? Ban protests when children are present, you know, like the school zone speed limit. Coincidentally, these happen to be prime business hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
you all thought the  ing was done after the abortion decisionyou were wrong quote:This case is an ominous sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Oh no! People who refuse to do their job are unemployable! [Fœtus‐sized violin plays.]
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you all thought the 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:zygote‐sized violin plays. It has not been a good year for the Religious Right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Oh no! People who refuse to do their job are unemployable! There goes my dream of being a declared Christian Scientist and Pharmacist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
quote:At issue are Washington State regulations that are 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
About the domestic abuser case, how impactful is this case when it is increasingly easy for even felons to regain their gun rights? Article is a couple of years old: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I wonder if they've ever considered a test case for a Catholic 7/11 worker who refuses to sell condoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:About the domestic abuser case, how impactful is this case when it is increasingly easy for even felons to regain their gun rights? Article is a couple of years old: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?_r=0 I am confused. I thought that any felony conviction barred you from possessing a firearm under federal law, but reading that article it sounds like if you are convicted in state court then the Feds are punting to the states to as to whether gun rights are restored, and only in federal convictions does the federal bar apply (and, barring a pardon, good luck trying to get gun rights restored by the federal government). Is that truly the case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
LongSack posted:I am confused. I thought that any felony conviction barred you from possessing a firearm under federal law, but reading that article it sounds like if you are convicted in state court then the Feds are punting to the states to as to whether gun rights are restored, and only in federal convictions does the federal bar apply (and, barring a pardon, good luck trying to get gun rights restored by the federal government). Is that truly the case? Confirmed for Texas at least...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Awww, people that selectively refuse to do their jobs can't keep their jobs? Do tell. [Jeremy Irons voice] My religion tells me I hate all government in all its shapes and vices and vile forms. And yet I'm running to be your mayor. And yet I'm running to be your state legislator. And yet I'm running to be your Congressperson. And yet I'm running to be your Senator in the United States of America. And, alas, I'm running in your To Make America Grate Again. I await, eagerly, on your docket. [Aside] It has not been a good year for the Religious Right. Yay!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Awww, people that selectively refuse to do their jobs can't keep their jobs? Do tell. I think Individual pharmacists can still refuse to personally dispense contraceptives on a religious basis. The lower court ruling seems to say that's fine, as long as the pharmacy still stocks the contraceptives and has at least one person on hand who doesn't have a religious issue with dispensing. Not totally sure how I feel about that one - forcing a marketplace to carry certain products. I'm guessing because a pharmacy has to be accredited by the state somehow, they can dictate that they must have X, Y and Z products to get a license or qualify, and the state just put contraceptives on that list. Otherwise, could a state dictate that all establishments who want a liquor license must sell Snakejuice[tm]?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:
I think that booze a healthcare product are pretty different. Though some states do require places that sell booze to also sell food so yeah I guess they totally could require snakejuice be sold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:31
|
|
