|
Nah, the GOP motto pretty much is "Do as we say, not as we do". Most everything they call for has a * next to it that says 'only for the other guy'
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
haveblue posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Gorsuch attempted to respond on statute's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
The wapo article comparing him to, quote, a "front row law student" is dead on. Eurgh. It's like Scalia without even the underlying oily deviousness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The wapo article comparing him to, quote, a "front row law student" is dead on. Eurgh. It's like Scalia without even the underlying oily deviousness. Do you have a link to this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Clearly the GOP plans to destroy GodQueen Ginsberg by giving her a massive thrombosis due to Gorusch's idiocy.Taerkar posted:He's the "Hey guys, you ever just try READING the law?' dumbshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:Do you have a link to this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.7bfd3ac2efc3 Even Alito is like "hmmm this law is complicated." Not so if we merely read it, says Gorsuch, in a botched college try at sounding like the smart guy in the room. What's going to happen in the future if we get a majority of justices like this is that we will either get a conservative kangaroo/rubber-stamp judiciary, weakening its legitimacy, or the Democrats will use a majority to simply do end-runs around the court with legislation, weakening its legitimacy. The nation is not going to put up with a court full of robots who pretend not to interpret the law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Gorsuch sounds like someone who hasn't done the reading, and is suggesting everyone do so, as if this were a novel concept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
If the republicans succeed in filling the court with guys like this then i greatly look forward to a Derridean style breakdown on exactly why firing a gay guy doesn't actually constitute the recently passed statute saying it is illegal to mistreat someone sure to their sexual orientation as the term sexual and orientation can be read as protecting one's right to recognise the sexuality of others since orientation refers to navigating an outside environment rather than personal identification. The court is sorry for the harm such a ruling may have and recognises this was not the principle guiding that law but they're not in the business of legislating from the bench and it is a legislative fix if the wording was unclear and failed to achieve its intended outcome. Also while some might say that this is a radical departure from previous interpretation of the terminology and concepts of protected classes this court isn't in the business of considering legal Frameworks or bodies of law. This case is just about this one bill. Also this counts as precedent that gay people are icky and/or don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:If the republicans succeed in filling the court with guys like this then i greatly look forward to a Derridean style breakdown on exactly why firing a gay guy doesn't actually constitute the recently passed statute saying it is illegal to mistreat someone sure to their sexual orientation as the term sexual and orientation can be read as protecting one's right to recognise the sexuality of others since orientation refers to navigating an outside environment rather than personal identification. Also in a rare double whammy we overturn Marbury v Madison. It wasn't in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Gorsuch knows what he's doing. He loving knows. He's forcing a new "But, the statute actually" horseblinder constitutional law theory that does everything it can to avoid referring to the constitution. His hypersimplified "Golly, I can't see the constitution printed out in this statute's text" appeals to anti-government, anti-human-rights dumbasses on Uncle Facebook, Fox, and Breitbart. He's going to be paraded as a common man's hero, keeping things good 'n simple in the highest court of law. Cue #10Cocks and other posters trying to explain how wilful, poker-faced ignorance is actually good; I look forward to their thoughts on classic Libertarian pain points like privacy, seizure, or traffic law now that the common man is slated to lose its greatest personal freedoms advocate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Bet you ten bux we're going to see, "what are you talking about, its judicial overreach that has always been the problem!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Gorsuch knows what he's doing. He loving knows. It comes from the same place that the "BUT Y'ALL CAIN'T CREATE NEW RIGHTS" argument against equal protection and protected classes (be it the existence or expansion thereof) comes from. It snatches the mantle of originalism up but just uses it to prevent the expansion of various franchises and protections to groups they don't like while considering it cool and good to discriminate since that's just the law of the land a-hyuk hyuk hyuk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
He wasn't so anything new or unique. Plain meaning is by no means a new form of statutory construction. He was just trying to show off how smart he is, despite not know what he was talking about (as he only had 4 days to prep for the arguments)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Then he shouldve kept quiet, since he only had four days to get ready not laying any sick judicial burns wouldnt have meant he was bad or anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
I am looking forward to more Air Bud arguments being brought before the court. There isn't a law saying a dog can't play basketball!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I wonder if Roberts winds up turning into a swing vote just because he can't stomach handing off too many opinions to Thomas and Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.7bfd3ac2efc3 The VRA case shows that the SCOTUS can't be weakened. They took a case they had no legal right to even address, ruled against it with a majority that included a chief justice who has wanted to get rid of the VRA for decades, and the response of the Executive and Legislature was "oh, well ok then" and not "you don't have any authority over this matter per the 14th. Thanks for trying but this law is still in full force  "Obama's immediately response to the VRA decision should've been "until the 14th is overturned or Congress decides to make its own changes on this matter we're going to continue to enforce the VRA in full."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Even If he had said that, would do you think he could have done with it? The southern states would have followed the Supreme Court, and so would any federal court that would hear a lawsuit about it or any actions Obama took in regards to it
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obama's immediately response to the VRA decision should've been "until the 14th is overturned or Congress decides to make its own changes on this matter we're going to continue to enforce the VRA in full." The news media would have portrayed this as TYRANNY and Obama have been responsible for everything that happened on 11/8.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Then he shouldve kept quiet, since he only had four days to get ready not laying any sick judicial burns wouldnt have meant he was bad or anything. I wish there were cameras in the Supreme Court so we could see Thomas's reactions during this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Gorsuch knows what he's doing. He loving knows. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Gorsuch attempted to respond on statute's behalf
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
It's ok, he'll have a good few decades to hone his craft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The VRA case shows that the SCOTUS can't be weakened. They took a case they had no legal right to even address, ruled against it with a majority that included a chief justice who has wanted to get rid of the VRA for decades, and the response of the Executive and Legislature was "oh, well ok then" and not "you don't have any authority over this matter per the 14th. Thanks for trying but this law is still in full force And what happens when the states subject to preclearance say "actually, that's bullshit, the Supreme Court said the 14th doesn't apply and we're going to follow their ruling"? In this fantasy world of yours where Obama is willing to incite a Constitutional crisis, is he going to send in federal troops to police voting stations or will he simply unilaterally declare that those states' electoral votes don't count?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And what happens when the states subject to preclearance say "actually, that's bullshit, the Supreme Court said the 14th doesn't apply and we're going to follow their ruling"? In this fantasy world of yours where Obama is willing to incite a Constitutional crisis, is he going to send in federal troops to police voting stations or will he simply unilaterally declare that those states' electoral votes don't count? Rights for the rights god!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I wish there were cameras in the Supreme Court so we could see Thomas's reactions during this. Mumbling irritatedly in his sleep? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Sure, the constitution rules out the vice president presiding over a presidential impeachment, but if you just read the text, there's nothing precluding the vice president from presiding over his own impeachment. He could always recuse himself from his impeachment hearing for having drone striked that bus of LGBT youth, but we can't constitutionally mandate him to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
If you read the plain text of the constitution it doesn't even mention god. It does say welfare though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
I see Thomas was the only one right in a case about something today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If you read the plain text of the constitution it doesn't even mention god. But if you'll just consider the plain meaning of the text at the time, a contemporary dictionary gives an example of welfare as a pastor caring for the welfare of his flock. From this we can conclude that spiritual welfare was a commonly understood component and so allowing for the welfare of the people requires religious worship. Also religion clearly means Christian sects so we don't need any Non Judeo-Christian things mentioned here. It's the plain meaning, gee willickers this judging lark sure it's easy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And what happens when the states subject to preclearance say "actually, that's bullshit, the Supreme Court said the 14th doesn't apply and we're going to follow their ruling"? In this fantasy world of yours where Obama is willing to incite a Constitutional crisis, is he going to send in federal troops to police voting stations or will he simply unilaterally declare that those states' electoral votes don't count? You ask this as if the POTUS sending in the feds to enforce the law is something that'd never happened before. Instead of forcing a showdown he and Congress effectively said the SCOTUS can't be barred from anything if they don't want to be. I know that expecting Obama to stand up for something is unrealistic but he just sat there and did nothing as Roberts and co did something gutted something they have no authority over per a goddamn constitutional amendment. Oh hey and look at that, definitely-not-racist policies were immediately enacted nationwide by Republicans. gently caress Obama, he was a lovely passive president made better by the fact he came after (and before) bottom of the barrel trash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They took a case they had no legal right to even address, I am not a lawyer but to me that seems like a really strange reading of the situation. Would somebody with actual knowledge mind chiming in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
botany posted:I am not a lawyer but to me that seems like a really strange reading of the situation. Would somebody with actual knowledge mind chiming in? The Civil War amendments, 13-15, were passed in an era where the Supreme Court was not trusted to enforce civil rights because it was the same Supreme Court that had issued the Dredd Scott decision. So all of those amendments give Congress the authority to enforce them by appropriate legislation. It's up to Congress what's appropriate under the circumstances, not the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing the current circumstances and deciding the VRA is no longer appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Civil War amendments, 13-15, were passed in an era where the Supreme Court was not trusted to enforce civil rights because it was the same Supreme Court that had issued the Dredd Scott decision. So all of those amendments give Congress the authority to enforce them by appropriate legislation. It's up to Congress what's appropriate under the circumstances, not the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing the current circumstances and deciding the VRA is no longer appropriate. Did that come up during the case? I remember reading Robert's opinion and Ginsberg's dissent but as far as I can recall even the dissent took it for granted that SCOTUS was correct in taking the case. (For the record, we're talking about Shelby, right?) I followed some of the reactions to that case and this is the first time I hear that the case was inappropriate to even hear, rather than just badly decided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
To be more precise, here is the section from Ginsburg's dissent I had in mind:quote:This is not to suggest that congressional power in this area is limitless. It is this Court's responsibility to ensure that Congress has used appropriate means. The question meet for judicial review is whether the chosen means are ``adapted to carry the objects the amendments have in view.'' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). The Court's role, then, is not to substitute its judgment for that of Congress, but to determine whether the legislative record sufficed to show that ``Congress could rationally have determined that [its chosen] provisions were appropriate methods.'' City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 176-177. To me this seems pretty clear: Congress has a lot of leeway as long as they can show that the means they choose to implement are a rational way of advancing toward the stated goal. SCOTUS' responsibility is merely to check whether this rational-means test fails or not (in distinction to, say, checking whether Congress chose the wisest way to proceed). Are you disagreeing? Evil Fluffy said that SCOTUS "they had no legal right to even address" the issue, that seems wrong to me. But again, I'm just an interested foreigner, I could be totally wrong 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Is there anything to discuss on current cases? I'm concerned about this case.quote:A clear majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to rule in favor of a Missouri Lutheran church in one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
botany posted:To be more precise, here is the section from Ginsburg's dissent I had in mind: Congress can do anything that it chooses so long as there is any basis to believe that it's going to advance the goals of the 15th Anendment. The sole court role would be if, say, Congress raised the drinking age to 25 on the basis of their 15th Amendment powers or something else that had no relationship to voting whatsoever. Beyond a claim like that the Supreme Court has no authority to review if the legislation is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
botany posted:To be more precise, here is the section from Ginsburg's dissent I had in mind: Phone posting, so I'll keep this short: The VRA perscribed a formula by which districsts would be marked for a preclearence process before altering the polls. The premise of Shelby County v AG Holder 2013 was that preclearence violated the principle of federalism per the 10th Amendment. iirc, US appellate court found that Shelby County was indeed inadequately protecting the voting rights of citizens, and that nugget of truth wasn't actually the subject of debate in scotus oral arguments. Here's the problem: the majority ruled that the 10th was violated in 200x(5? 6?) by Congress when Congress extended the 1970s prescription for preclearence. Alito wrote, summarized, that "40 year old data can't be used in prejudice against the states, per the 10th." Side note, districts have successfully sued for status change, provided they aren't being racist fucks like Shelby County, a fact nobody noteworthy is even / had even debated. Its not like there is no remedy for a district seeking narrow injunction against the enforcement of the VRA. Back on topic, here's the crux of your question: cert was granted only on the narrow subject matter of whether the 10th was violated by Congress in 2006 when it used 40 year old data on who needs to submit preclearence. It is in fact a leap of faith, but considering that the scope of the US Court of Appeals caseload included broadly-undisputed evidence that Shelby County was inadequately protecting voting rights, it was highly inappropriate to cherry pick certiorari for the limited question "are unenumerated states rights adequately protected here" when the other half of the case was, "are enumerated rights of the citizens protected adequately?" The SCOTUS had no right to block the DoJ's strongest case from the outset. Cert was granted narrowly to tailor the ruling the five conservative judges could get away with. They willfully chose not to actually consider the entire case. Whether this is improper falls to your understanding or interpretation of proper jurisprudence. There isn't a black-and-white "SCOTUS broke the law  " way to interpret it, just a very.....narrow gray line. I think Ginsburg's dissent describes fairly well how cut and dry the case would have been had it been visited in whole, without the bits that actually protect people vacuumed away:quote:With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against back sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’ province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting approbation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
The 10th Amendment and federalism concerns also have literally no relevance to a constitutional amendment passed while states were under military occupation. The 15th has no "except for federalism" concerns exception. It stands for the principle of the supremacy of congress's power over civil rights compared to state sovereginity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Does this make sense? The court reviewed legislation that is expressly authoritative per the 15th. You can't just decide that you want to drastically pare down an incoming case, review legislation on the basis of an unenumerated 10th right while blindfolding yourself to the authority of the 15th amendment without drawing  from civil rights groups
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 13:50
|
|