SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›841 »

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

MrNemo posted:

I'm also curious what, if anything, is happening regarding the Nepotism laws. Like, Trump is specifically barred from appointing his daughter or son-in-law from any official or paid position and he's done just that with Jared Kushner. Is anything going to happen with that ever?

I mean who has standing? That's the problem.

Violating the emoluments clause and anti-nepotism laws is the sort of thing Congress is supposed to put its big boy pants on and do something about.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 14:30

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'm assuming if the incoming AG doesn't do anything about it (and he won't), nothing happens.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:20

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

ulmont posted:

They would know:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf

Not a single member of the SCOTUS is going to have their views on this matter swayed by that, unfortunately.

Though with any luck there are at least 5 members who think the EO is bullshit and are entirely ready to strike it down if need be.

MrNemo posted:

I'm also curious what, if anything, is happening regarding the Nepotism laws. Like, Trump is specifically barred from appointing his daughter or son-in-law from any official or paid position and he's done just that with Jared Kushner. Is anything going to happen with that ever?

No.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:30

esquilax: Jan 3, 2003

To strike down the executive order you'd pretty much have to overturn Korematsu. I didn't think there'd ever be an opportunity to do that but here we are.

They could affirm the EO though without reaffirming Korematsu - Korematsu said racial discrimination for national security purposes passes strict scrutiny.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:47

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

esquilax posted:

To strike down the executive order you'd pretty much have to overturn Korematsu. I didn't think there'd ever be an opportunity to do that but here we are.

They could affirm the EO though without reaffirming Korematsu - Korematsu said racial discrimination for national security purposes passes strict scrutiny.

Oh man I'd completely forgotten what bullshit Korematsu was. :allears:

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:49

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

esquilax posted:

To strike down the executive order you'd pretty much have to overturn Korematsu. I didn't think there'd ever be an opportunity to do that but here we are.

They could affirm the EO though without reaffirming Korematsu - Korematsu said racial discrimination for national security purposes passes strict scrutiny.

given that we live in the worst timeline if rbg passed away and was replaced before it came to the court they could expand Korematsu with a finding that religious discrimination for national security purposes also passes strict scrutiny

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:27

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

What are the legal mechanics of Trump learning from his mistakes this time around (lol) and reissuing a totally-not 2.0 revised definitely-not-another-Muslim-ban EO, assuming this gets shot down?

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:28

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

DeusExMachinima posted:

What are the legal mechanics of Trump learning from his mistakes this time around (lol) and reissuing a totally-not 2.0 revised definitely-not-another-Muslim-ban EO, assuming this gets shot down?

It would look exactly like that thing Obama did where visa issuance was halted and then restarted for everyone from certain countries to improve procedures.

Trump's problem is that he revoked visas.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:21

Play: Apr 25, 2006; Strong stroll for a mangy stray

Economist article on Neil Borusch. I think they tried a bit too hard to be "fair and balanced" as it were but a pretty decent summary of the situation.

quote:

Neil Gorsuch is a good pick for the Supreme Court

Democrats have powerful reasons to oppose him even so

| United States
Feb 4th 2017 | NEW YORK
more
ELEVEN years ago, Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump�s choice to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, sailed through the Senate by a voice vote when George W. Bush appointed him to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This time, with the ideological tilt of America�s highest court hanging in the balance and Democrats fuming over their Republican colleagues� stonewalling of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama�s choice to fill the seat, Mr Gorsuch will face a tougher crowd. In contrast to William Pryor, another judge shortlisted for the seat, who once called Roe v Wade �the worst abomination� in the history of constitutional law, Mr Gorsuch is not given to incendiary remarks. Democrats may be hard-pressed to vilify the scholarly jurist, but their sense that he has been tapped for a stolen seat is certain to cloud his confirmation hearings.

On many issues dear to conservatives Mr Gorsuch is a perfect match. He usually sides with companies, provides little relief for condemned prisoners appealing against death sentences, goes out of his way to protect institutions claiming that laws like Obamacare burden their religious liberty and rejects objections to religious displays like the Ten Commandments in public parks. Mr Gorsuch has also signalled deep scepticism of the so-called Chevron doctrine, which gives wide latitude to federal agencies. And although Mr Gorsuch has never written a legal opinion addressing Roe v Wade, it seems clear he is�personally, at least�pro-life. In his 2006 book, �The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia�, Mr Gorsuch wrote that, �all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong�.

Like every justice on the bench today, Mr Gorsuch is a product of the Ivy League, with degrees from Columbia and Harvard. Before returning to Denver, his birthplace, to begin his stint at the Tenth Circuit, Mr Gorsuch served as a clerk to two Supreme Court justices, including the key swing justice who has been on the bench since 1988: 80-year-old Anthony Kennedy. He then went to Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship, earning a doctorate in legal philosophy, and spent a decade at a Washington law firm. He also spent a year working in George W. Bush�s Justice Department.

Inkblots

Two months after Scalia�s death, Mr Gorsuch praised him as a �lion of the law� whose �great project� was to denote �the differences between judges and legislators�. Lawmakers properly consult their own moral convictions when crafting policy, he said, but judges must strive �to apply the law as it is�. They should examine only �text, structure and history�, not personal visions of how they would like the world to look. As an advocate of Scalia�s judicial philosophy of originalism�whereby judges interpret the constitution in the light of its meaning when it was adopted�Mr Gorsuch has developed a conservative paper trail as an appellate judge and won cheers from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, two stalwart organisations of American conservatism.

He also shares Scalia�s literary talents. In a speech in 2014, Mr Gorsuch framed an exploration of �law�s irony� in terms of a Dickens novel, weaving in references to Burke, Cicero, Demosthenes, Goethe, Kant and Shakespeare. But he�s hardly stuffy. Mr Gorsuch also peppered the talk with contemporary culture, evoking David Foster Wallace and joking that the �modern� rules of civil courts date back to 1938: �Maybe the only thing that really sounds new or modern after 70 years,� he said, �is Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. Some might say he looks like he�s done some experimenting too.�

Mr Gorsuch may have ample charm and talent, but Democrats have pledged to fight any nominee Mr Trump puts forward. With only a 52-to-48 edge, Republicans cannot rely on their majority to get Mr Gorsuch confirmed. Senate rules permit any member of the minority party to wage a filibuster that only a 60-vote supermajority can quell. If Democrats do this, the only path to filling the seat may be the �nuclear option��a simple majority vote to change Senate rules and abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Mr Trump has urged this, if necessary, but so far Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has been non-committal. �We�re going to get this nominee confirmed,� Mr McConnell has said. The fate of the filibuster, he told Mr Trump, is �not a presidential decision. It�s a Senate decision.�

He may have little choice. Although some think the filibuster would be better saved for the next confirmation battle, most Democrats are showing few signs they will capitulate. The day after Mr Gorsuch was nominated, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, reaffirmed that Mr Gorsuch will need 60 votes. Bipartisan support �should be essential�, he said, for Supreme Court nominations. Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, says there may be good reason for Democrats to filibuster even if this prompts Republicans to go nuclear. A strident stand, he says, would be well-deserved �payback for the obstructionism� on Mr Garland and would appease �the Democratic base�, averting a possible �Tea-Party rebellion on the left�. Would such a move exacerbate the politicisation of the judiciary? The Supreme Court is already an ideological institution suffused with partisanship, Mr Hasen observes. That ship, he says, �has sailed�.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:50

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

I wonder if that was the same staff writer of their absolutely excoriating Scalia obituary.

e:

quote:

As for America�s constitution, speaking as the court�s originalist-in-chief, all that mattered was what its words meant when it was framed. He was in love with it; he was in awe of the men who wrote it; the late 18th century was a time when genius burst forth on the eastern seaboard, as it had in Periclean Athens. But for him the founding document was not �living�, not some organism endlessly adaptable to society, as Justice William Brennan, a distressingly liberal predecessor, used to think. It couldn�t be found suddenly to contain newfangled �rights� to privacy, as in Roe. It was dead! Dead! (Or perhaps, to be more tender and precise, �enduring�.) Its business was to block change, not advance it, and if it thereby obstructed something he himself, as a very conservative fellow, disliked, so much the better. Death-penalty cases he dismissed in minutes: the penalty was clearly constitutional. Church-and-state cases took no longer: the Framers had built no wall between them, and anyway, didn�t government get its authority from God? He would go home, to a Martini and a large dinner, and sleep like a baby.

Good times.

Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Feb 6, 2017

# ? Feb 6, 2017 21:14

Play: Apr 25, 2006; Strong stroll for a mangy stray

Doc Hawkins posted:

I wonder if that was the same staff writer of their absolutely excoriating Scalia obituary.

e:

Good times.

Lovely. Some other choice bits:

quote:

IF YOU were bold enough to ask Antonin Scalia questions, you had to be precise. Otherwise the bushy black brows would furrow, the chin would crumple and the pudgy, puckish body would start to rock, eager to get at you. Wasn�t he violently opposed to Roe v Wade, the abortion ruling? �Adamantly opposed, that�s better.� Did he have any guilty pleasures? �How can it be pleasurable, if it�s guilty?� Lesser lawyers who were vague in oral argument faced a barrage of sarcasm or, if he agreed with them, constant chiding to do better. (�That�s your strong point!�) Dissenting colleagues at the Supreme Court had their opinions described as �argle-bargle�, �jiggery pokery� and �pure applesauce�.

quote:

Though he was not the only New Yorker on the bench, he was the only spoiled-rotten Italian kid brought up proud and scrapping in Queens and familiar with rude Sicilian gestures. �Come right back at you!� was his motto, robed or not.

quote:

He knew for certain, though, that the Framers were on his side; the Devil was on the other; and that heaven was his portion, for he was always right.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 22:01

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Edit: wrong thread.

B B fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Feb 6, 2017

# ? Feb 6, 2017 22:31

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Washington V Trump is livestreaming, holy dfuck this is turning into a states rights case w.r.t a liberal thrust :staredog:

# ? Feb 8, 2017 00:23

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

If you ever want to hear an attorney get just murdered by circuit judges listen to the department of justice present it's case.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 00:40

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

I had to stop listening; I started feeling bad for them.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 00:45

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Doc Hawkins posted:

I had to stop listening; I started feeling bad for them.

I'll feel bad for that attorney around the time I start feeling bad for holocaust deniers.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 00:45

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Doc Hawkins posted:

I wonder if that was the same staff writer of their absolutely excoriating Scalia obituary.

e:

Good times.

This has nothing on the Bork obituary by Jeffrey Toobin, which is a pleasure to read.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/postscript-robert-bork-1927-2012

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:01

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'll feel bad for that attorney around the time I start feeling bad for holocaust deniers.

Absolutely. Never feel sorry for an attorney. They are there of their own volition. Most of them are assholes.

This is not to say there aren't good attorneys that are worthy of sympathy, but rather that enough are awful its safe to assume that any attorney getting destroyed for an awful argument is an awful person.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:08

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Everyone in this thread has seen The Devil�s Advocate, right?

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:10

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Platystemon posted:

Everyone in this thread has seen The Devil�s Advocate, right?

All five hours of it

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:10

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Mr. Nice! posted:

Absolutely. Never feel sorry for an attorney. They are there of their own volition. Most of them are assholes.

This is not to say there aren't good attorneys that are worthy of sympathy, but rather that enough are awful its safe to assume that any attorney getting destroyed for an awful argument is an awful person.

I'd add to that the codicil "getting destroyed for an awful argument in service of an awful goal."

We went over this regarding Yates but government attorneys have a higher ethical standard. A DoJ attorney arguing in favor of this kind of government action is acting exactly contrary to the legitimate purposes and goals of the Department of Justice. He has an ethical duty to quit that he has failed by standing there and defending this Order.

Grow a pair and fall on your sword like a man.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 8, 2017

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:14

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Also he was a dumbass for waltzing into the pretty weak standing argument and not trying to slide out of it for like 15 minutes.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:17

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

lol @ those looooong silences

I get there was little time to prepare, but, like, com'on son. These were pretty obvious questions to moot.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:19

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

The defendant attorney is amazing. Were his case not so hopeless by nature of the sheer volume of evidence submitted by the State of W on the presence of animus...

The solicitor general of W is a loving dunce who needed a judge to handhold him and guide him to the strongest arguments on items not concerning animus & establishment / equal protection.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Feb 8, 2017

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:22

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I'm sorry, that was a DoJ attorney, not outside counsel?

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:26

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

"It is extraordinarily to (essentially assert animus without discovery."

Yeah, it's also extraordinary to have this much evidence without discovery.

Evidence publicly available by video, transcript, and publication to the defendant's own goddamn websites.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:33

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

I really don't know why Washington's attorney didn't argue that the lack of litigation on previous bans is not despositive to the court and shouldn't be considered, as there could be any number of reasons why litigation didn't take place that this court couldn't imagine.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:32

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Yeah like "previous bans were written in ways that allowed them to be constitutionally enforced whereas this hogwash probably couldn't pass muster as constitutional bird cage lining"

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:38

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

FAUXTON posted:

constitutional bird cage lining

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:43

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Potato Salad posted:

I'm sorry, that was a DoJ attorney, not outside counsel?

Oh, my bad, I turned on the stream halfway through. Still the same ethical burdens apply.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:44

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

�It�s ethical to defend a pedophile rapist but not a presidential order?

�Typical liberal double standard.�

# ? Feb 8, 2017 01:47

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Platystemon posted:

“It’s ethical to defend a pedophile rapist but not a presidential order?

“Typical liberal double standard.”

Ziiiiing, but the Constitution guarantees criminals a right to counsel. It does not guarantee the president a right to have unconstitutional actions defended.

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I was at work. Is there anywhere to catch a replay of Washington v. Trump?

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:05

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Dead Reckoning posted:

I was at work. Is there anywhere to catch a replay of Washington v. Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEK8FCBMkMQ

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:07

Number Ten Cocks: Feb 25, 2016; by zen death robot

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Ziiiiing, but the Constitution guarantees criminals a right to counsel. It does not guarantee the president a right to have unconstitutional actions defended.

How many Obama DOJ should have resigned rather than rack up the worst Supreme Court record in modern history?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-win-rate-trump.html?_r=0

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:21

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Number Ten Cocks posted:

How many Obama DOJ should have resigned rather than rack up the worst Supreme Court record in modern history?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-win-rate-trump.html?_r=0

I'd have to read every one of those decisions to see if any were clearly unconstitutional in the same way that this EO is. There weren't any actions by the Obama DOJ that I can think of offhand that rose to the same level as defense of this EO or John Yoo's defense of torture (for which Yoo was, justifiably, censured by the DoJ OCR; he should not have a law license).

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 8, 2017

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:33

Number Ten Cocks: Feb 25, 2016; by zen death robot

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'd have to read every one of those decisions to see if any were clearly unconstitutional in the same way that this EO is. There weren't any actions by the Obama DOJ that I can think of offhand that rose to the same level as defense of this EO or John Yoo's defense of torture (for which Yoo was, justifiably, censured by the DoJ OCR; he should not have a law license).

So this clearly unconstitutional EO is going to be 8-0 at the Supreme Court, that's your prediction?

# ? Feb 8, 2017 02:35

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound