|
Jesus, the poo poo in the Buck case must be awful for Sam "Concerned Alumnus" Alito to say "what occurred in the penalty phase of [Buck' s Trial] is indefensible. "
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
What's the Buck's case ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What's the Buck's case ? Buck v Davis. Death Penalty case. Buck claims he wasn't adequately represented because his trial attorney introduced psychological testimony arguing that Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he's black.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
We agreed this was the Federal Circuit thread too, right? This is a concurrence, but Judge Mayer last week in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec was not loving around: quote:Given that an “idea” is not patentable, see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, and a generic computer is “beside the point” in the eligibility analysis, Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358, all software implemented on a standard computer should be deemed categorically outside the bounds of section 101. WhiskeyJuvenile, make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Jesus, the poo poo in the Buck case must be awful for Sam "Concerned Alumnus" Alito to say "what occurred in the penalty phase of [Buck' s Trial] is indefensible. " quote:After inquiring about the statistical factors of past crimes and age and how they might indicate future dangerousness in Buck’s case, the prosecutor said: “You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more violent than a female because that’s just the way it is, and that the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that correct?” Id., at 160. Quijano answered, “Yes.” quote:he elaborated further that “[i]t’s a sad commentary that minorities, Hispanics and black people, are over represented in the Criminal Justice System.” SCOTUS already denied cert on Buck, so I have to look up how it got back here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-6391Alito.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-6391Sotomayor.pdf ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What's the Buck's case ? From hearing it on the radio this morning: Buck was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and trying to murder his step-sister, but during the sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to death in part because his own defense lawyer had an expert witness say he would too dangerous to live because Buck is black A few years ago, another very similar case like this from Texas hit the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS granted a new sentencing hearing to that inmate and said Texas should look at giving a new sentencing hearing to 6 other cases where the above lovely lawyer/witness was used. This included Buck's case. Eventually, all of these cases had a new sentencing trial except for Buck. For some reason, all of his petitions were denied. So now Buck went all the way to SCOTUS to get a new sentencing trial. The consensus from today's oral arguments is that Buck is certainly going to get a new sentencing trial because even the Conservative justices think his Buck's trial was hosed up bad. The point of contention is whether they'll just grant Buck a new hearing or whether to smack down the Texas courts and Federal circuit for being idiots- those two court systems have denied 10x the number of appeals and relief hearings than other court systems, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
This, naturally, being the Fifth Circuit, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
ulmont posted:We agreed this was the Federal Circuit thread too, right? It won't. Mayer's view isn't going to be taken up by a majority of the Federal Circuit (because it is bad and wrong and a complete misreading of Alice) and Mayer isn't viewed as a leading light on the circuit so it's not a particularly influential concurrence. Enfish, from a couple months ago, is much more in line with the Federal Circuit: "Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the second step of the Alice analysis." (That's from the majority, not a concurrence.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Buck v Davis. Death Penalty case. Buck claims he wasn't adequately represented because his trial attorney introduced psychological testimony arguing that Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he's black.  So that attorney's out of a job due to this right? Antti posted:This, naturally, being the Fifth Circuit, right? God willing, Clinton wins in November and gets a Dem Senate that proceeds to stack the 5th with people who aren't to the right of Scalia's distilled hatred. The GOP explicitly files its anti-Obama lawsuits there and in specific locations to ensure they get the most right wing judges too (like for the immigration case).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:We agreed this was the Federal Circuit thread too, right? You missed one of his finer assertions: "Mayer's concurrence, first paragraph" posted:
WTF - so much for the fiber laser patents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:We agreed this was the Federal Circuit thread too, right? I've been trying I've been saying that every 101 rejection should be appealed on APA grounds because we have no idea what we're doing, and every infringement action should have the defense that the patent was illegally granted, again APA
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It won't. Mayer's view isn't going to be taken up by a majority of the Federal Circuit (because it is bad and wrong and a complete misreading of Alice) and Mayer isn't viewed as a leading light on the circuit so it's not a particularly influential concurrence. Enfish held that pivot tables are patentable subject matter tho so let's not go crazy singing its praises
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Enfish held that pivot tables are patentable subject matter tho so let's not go crazy singing its praises I mean Enfish was dumb but not especially so on 101 grounds - it was dumb on 102. Either way, the idea that Mayer's concurrence is going to have any effect is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Either way, the idea that Mayer's concurrence is going to have any effect is laughable. Hey, the idea that software could be patentable was laughable until State Street. But no, I'm not expecting anything other than 101 issues to depend on what judges you draw for your panel. Same as always.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Chocolate Chunk posted:his own defense lawyer had an expert witness say he would too dangerous to live because Buck is black How did they actually phrase it? Was it like "Look at this guy! Just look at him! wink wink. He's too dangerous to live." or was it full blown uncoded "he's black, black men are dangerous, kill him."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
It was bell curve poo poo. The sentencing hearings in Texas need proof of future likelihood of danger/violence for a death sentence to be given out. The psychologist that the DEFENSE lawyer brought in said that black men are statistically likely to commit crimes in the future. The prosecution of course lept on this, which got Buck the death sentence, because black men will totally kill again you guys! Look at the bell curve! ! !
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Chocolate Chunk posted:It was bell curve poo poo. The sentencing hearings in Texas need proof of future likelihood of danger/violence for a death sentence to be given out. The psychologist that the DEFENSE lawyer brought in said that black men are statistically likely to commit crimes in the future. Eonwe, I'm sorry, but it turns out that I will be nuking your state after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Hey, the idea that software could be patentable was laughable until State Street. Still is, OP
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
No link, phoneposting The en banc Federal Circuit just overturned itself in the February Apple/Samsung case and brought back a 120 million fine against Samsung. But SCOTUS is hearing a different Apple/Samsung patent troll case this term. No matter how SCOTUS rules in their case, is it likely they would hear this one as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:phoneposting You sure are 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The en banc Federal Circuit lately SCOTUS seems to hate the Fed Circuit, so likely 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Vote deadlocks at 4-4 with Garland abstaining*. *Because he isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:No link, phoneposting SCOTUS is hearing a design patent damages case. The en banc decision overturned a panel decision that explicitly based itself on evidence outside the record and used that evidence to overturn something the parties had agreed upon and not appealed (and which was itself previously decided by the Federal Circuit) to thereby overturn a jury verdict. I'd be shocked if SCOTUS took this up. The panel decision was really, really bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Vote deadlocks at 4-4 with Garland abstaining*. Garland should just start writing concurrences and dissents, as though he were already on the court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Garland should just start writing concurrences and dissents, as though he were already on the court. This, but secretly. Release them all on the day HRC appoints him to the Court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:This, but secretly. Release them all on the day HRC appoints him to the Court. Garland will be confirmed no later than the 18th of November after  is elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Garland will be confirmed no later than the 18th of November after at this point there is suddenly a serious chance they confirm him before the election they grab him right by the pussy, as it were
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:at this point there is suddenly a serious chance they confirm him before the election Imagine an 8 Justice SCOTUS taking a case for the RNC about forcing Trump off the ticket
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Imagine an 8 Justice SCOTUS taking a case for the RNC about forcing Trump off the ticket RBG responds with a single page that just says "HA!".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:at this point there is suddenly a serious chance they confirm him before the election Before the election is unlikely but afterwards when Clinton wins, especially if the Dems retake the senate? He's absolutely getting confirmed then to stop Clinton from getting a potentially younger and more liberal pick with a friendly Senate. Hell they'd probably confirm a bunch of other Obama appointments they've been blocking just to deny Clinton as much as they can. I'm hoping Clinton wins and her victory speech has her explicitly call out the Senate, demanding they confirm Garland immediately. Then, if/when they do so it'd come across as the GOP bowing to Clinton's demands and piss off their base. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Imagine an 8 Justice SCOTUS taking a case for the RNC about forcing Trump off the ticket Surely the RNC can decide whatever the gently caress it wants. Trump's suit would get tossed from the first court it lands in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Can the RNC remove Trump from the ballot? I thought he was there in his own name, not because of his representation of the RNC. And could the RNC even get a replacement onto the ballots at this point? I thought the deadline had passed in all states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Ballots have been cast already. They're chained together at this point, AFAIK
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Ballots have been cast already. They're chained together at this point, AFAIK What actually chains them, though? If the RNC and victorious Trump say "we are no longer working together", wouldn't that just make for a president with a 100% hostile house and senate? I didn't think anything about his implausible but hypothesized presidency was tied legally to a relationship with the RNC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
The name on the ballot is tied to the person. The advantage the two major parties have is that it is trivially easy for them to get the name of their choice on the ballots of all 50 states plus DC. Once the ballot access deadlines have passed, the name is there and it can't be changed. Those ships sail by state but they all went several weeks ago. The only safety valve for this kind of situation, where say Trump were to withdraw, would be the electors, but then you get into messy situations with the particular states whose laws say that electoral votes are automatic and faithless electors are disregarded and assumed to have voted accordingly. Bottom line is that they can only excise him in a symbolic way and regardless it won't matter because Clinton's going to have closer to 400 than 300 EV at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Well they still technically have the option of unfaithful electors. But I'm not sure how tremendously bad the optics of Ignoring the Will of the People will look if they convince a meaningful number of electors. Though this would almost certainly make SCOTUS make a ruling on "loyalty clauses/oaths" some states have for electors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
There's no legal way to remove Trump from the ballots. Deadlines have passed and the SCOTUS would likely be an 8-0 "lol get out of here with this insanity" ruling against attempts to remove or replace Trump on ballots. The Republican Party is stuck with him and that's all there is to it. The RNC is currently in "we must save the Senate majority at all costs" mode right now, largely because of Scalia's vacancy. A little over a month from now we may very well see proceedings begin for Garland's confirmation. Unless the GOP gets so desperate they try to start* it early to help vulnerable senators being hurt by their stonewalling. * by swearing they'll get to it as soon as they return from campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick/index.html Ruh roh! quote:Of Kaepernick and others she says, she thinks their actions are "dumb and disrespectful". She's right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
actually she's wrong, and old
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
I can tolerate old people having dumb ideas sometimes, when they are otherwise awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:26
|
|
