|
haveblue posted:Missing the crucial detail of what his ringtone was. Notorious RBG
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Mulatto Butts
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Missing the crucial detail of what his ringtone was. Sonic drowning theme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Breaking the Law
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Missing the crucial detail of what his ringtone was. The part "the familiar sound of a ring chime" implies that it's the standard boring old white dude ringtone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Yes, Justice Souter was the weird Luddite who lived in some cabin in the mountains with no phone according to that book The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes, Justice Souter was the weird Luddite who lived in some cabin in the mountains with no phone according to that book The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. IIRC he also wrote like a 50 page dissent in Seminole Tribe v. Florida that I read twice and still have no idea what the point of the 11th Amendment is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Mr. Kurtz posted:IIRC he also wrote like a 50 page dissent in Seminole Tribe v. Florida that I read twice and still have no idea what the point of the 11th Amendment is supposed to be. You can't sue a state for breaking the law, according to the eleventh amendment. You can sue the officials in their official capacity, you can seek redress for unconstitutional actions via appeals courts, but you, a private citizen, can't just haul off and sue The State of Florida. The back story to the case was that the Congress passed legislation allowing tribes to sue their states to force negotiation over opening a casino on tribal lands. Basically claimed the Commerce Clause empowered Congress on the issue. The Seminoles sued Florida for this purpose, and the suit got dismissed by the appeals circuit on eleventh amendment grounds - you can't sue your state. The SCOTUS upheld the dismissal, basically saying the Eleventh holds sway and you can't sue your state. Souter spent a lot of ink saying that the Eleventh really only meant that you couldn't sue other states, and the Seminole tribe, as citizens of Florida, could sue Florida on this. The text of the eleventh certainly says "another state" which in the context of the amendment means that the Seminoles still had the right to sue Florida, but not sue, say, Georgia. Souter does not like the idea of states telling their own citizens they can't sue. Not sure if it's an ideology thing or just a "YOU FUCKERS, THE AMENDMENT SAYS SPECIFICALLY "OF ANOTHER STATE"" thing since he throws back to old English law in the later case to explain the reasoning as one of intent, but in the Seminole one he's really focused on that "another state" usage. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Do the Seminoles, as parties in that suit, exist as a tribal nation, thus a distinct state (in the weird way that native american nations are, in the law)? That'd further complicate things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do the Seminoles, as parties in that suit, exist as a tribal nation, thus a distinct state (in the weird way that native american nations are, in the law)? That'd further complicate things. My understanding is that the law is always to be interpreted to the detriment of whichever tribe or individual American Indian is suing the government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do the Seminoles, as parties in that suit, exist as a tribal nation, thus a distinct state (in the weird way that native american nations are, in the law)? That'd further complicate things. They are basically a cross between a foreign nation and a municipality, neither of which can sue states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:My understanding is that the law is always to be interpreted to the detriment of whichever tribe or individual American Indian is suing the government. I laughed and made myself feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Trump's DOJ is testing the limits of how evil they can be in the supreme court https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/857414277480710144
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The SCOTUS upheld the dismissal, basically saying the Eleventh holds sway and you can't sue your state. Souter spent a lot of ink saying that the Eleventh really only meant that you couldn't sue other states, and the Seminole tribe, as citizens of Florida, could sue Florida on this. The text of the eleventh certainly says "another state" which in the context of the amendment means that the Seminoles still had the right to sue Florida, but not sue, say, Georgia. My knee jerk reaction to this is that the 11th Amendment was likely an "oops" limitation or fix on application of the diversity statute allowing federal jurisdiction of suits under Article III, § 2. I'm sure everyone involved had thought that was only supposed to allow individuals to use federal court to sue individuals in other states, not individuals to sue another state. Lacking the diversity statute, I'm sure it never occurred to anyone at all that the federal government could authorize a citizen of a state to sue his own state government, therefore the 11th Amendment didn't cover that impossible situation. Rigel posted:Trump's DOJ is testing the limits of how evil they can be in the supreme court Absolutist statutory readings by a Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, well I never, totally unprecedented. 
Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Trump's DOJ is testing the limits of how evil they can be in the supreme court Is speeding a criminal offense in the US?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:Is speeding a criminal offense in the US? Usually there's a tier of "violations" that are lower than misdemeanors. This is what speeding 5 over counts as. 15 or more over might be a misdemeanor - it depends greatly on the state. (ps don't speed in Virginia)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
If you speed too much (in my state, it's >15 over) or in an area like a school zone, it gets upgraded to Reckless Endangerment or something like that. But that's not really the same offense as "speeding" anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
I can't believe our chief justice is a loving no good lawbreakin' criminal.... this is absurd!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Usually there's a tier of "violations" that are lower than misdemeanors. This is what speeding 5 over counts as. 15 or more over might be a misdemeanor - it depends greatly on the state. (ps don't speed in Virginia) In Georgia all traffic offenses are technically misdemeanors (except for the worst, which are felonies).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:Is speeding a criminal offense in the US?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I can't believe our chief justice is a loving no good lawbreakin' criminal.... this is absurd!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Trump's DOJ is testing the limits of how evil they can be in the supreme court So this is going to be at least a 6-3 ruling against Trump right? Both Roberts and Kennedy seem less-than-ok with the DoJ's argument. Bonus points if Gorsuch rules against Trump, though people will just say that proves Trump made a good pick. Please tell me that at some point one of the Justices brought up that Melania Trump was apparently working in the US illegally, and by the DoJ's own argument her citizenship should be revoked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Still hoping Thomas asserts that Chy Lung v Freeman was wrongly decided and border control and immigration authority rightly resides with the individual states. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Souter does not like the idea of states telling their own citizens they can't sue. Not sure if it's an ideology thing or just a "YOU FUCKERS, THE AMENDMENT SAYS SPECIFICALLY "OF ANOTHER STATE"" thing since he throws back to old English law in the later case to explain the reasoning as one of intent, but in the Seminole one he's really focused on that "another state" usage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:It seems like a reasonable interpretation of the Amendment, even without taking an hard textualism bent. Citizens of a state ostensibly have an interest in the operation of the state they live in and are directly affected by decisions of that state, but you don't want citizens of one state 100's or 1,000's of miles away tying up another state in the courts. Oh definitely. It'd be a loving madhouse if it were possible for the fuckers in the OK panhandle or Western KS/NE to sue Colorado over the demon weed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
it didnt stop OK/KS/NE from trying, tho, and if I recall correctly the decision handed back to their AGs was "lol, get hosed, idiots"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:it didnt stop OK/KS/NE from trying, tho, and if I recall correctly the decision handed back to their AGs was "lol, get hosed, idiots" That's because those were states suing states iirc
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:If you speed too much (in my state, it's >15 over) or in an area like a school zone, it gets upgraded to Reckless Endangerment or something like that. But that's not really the same offense as "speeding" anymore. Yeah, this popped up not too long ago with a pharmacy school student I was precepting. We got a 10+ page fax from the university saying her background check had flagged positive along with descriptions of the relevant state law and university policy that we didn't need to precept this student if we were uncomfortable with her criminal record. Said criminal record was a single incident of driving 15+ over the speed limit 3 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Yeah, this popped up not too long ago with a pharmacy school student I was precepting. We got a 10+ page fax from the university saying her background check had flagged positive along with descriptions of the relevant state law and university policy that we didn't need to precept this student if we were uncomfortable with her criminal record. Said criminal record was a single incident of driving 15+ over the speed limit 3 years ago. Sounds like their "background check" pulls from the same kind of place that reports traffic citations as undated "criminal" entries at the header level for a bunch of states, and you need to actually look at the data to find out what/when it was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Yeah, this popped up not too long ago with a pharmacy school student I was precepting. We got a 10+ page fax from the university saying her background check had flagged positive along with descriptions of the relevant state law and university policy that we didn't need to precept this student if we were uncomfortable with her criminal record. Said criminal record was a single incident of driving 15+ over the speed limit 3 years ago. Seems pretty sensible to reject a pharmacy student that has a problem with speed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Seems pretty sensible to reject a pharmacy student that has a problem with speed. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Yeah that one doesn't even get a gonk you rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
 "I just love beeting off"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeah that one doesn't even get a gonk you rear end in a top hat At worse it deserved a downsrim
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Seems pretty sensible to reject a pharmacy student that has a problem with speed. Lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:My knee jerk reaction to this is that the 11th Amendment was likely an "oops" limitation or fix on application of the diversity statute allowing federal jurisdiction of suits under Article III, § 2. I'm sure everyone involved had thought that was only supposed to allow individuals to use federal court to sue individuals in other states, not individuals to sue another state. The 11th Amendment (with a few exceptions) has been interpreted by SCOTUS as effectively surplusage for a long time. There was a SCOTUS case a really long time ago, Chisholm, in which the Court held that the states did not have sovereign immunity. Legislators hated that poo poo and so passed the 11th Amendment over the course of, like, a few months at most. To make a long story short, SCOTUS now says that the 11th Amendment does no work on its own; it was just meant to correct Chisholm, which itself was an incorrect statement of the law. State sovereign immunity has been around since before the Constitution was signed (according to SCOTUS, it was implicit that states would get sovereign immunity moving forward, so they didn't feel the need to add it). And state sovereign immunity applies to ALL citizens suing ANY states in either state or federal court; you just can't do it, unless the state waives its immunity. The only other exceptions I can think off off the top of my head (besides weird poo poo like naming the state official for poo poo the state did, which is okay in some circumstances) are when the federal government sues the states (Supremacy overrides here), and when a state sues another state in state court. I took a Federal Courts final last week, AMA FAUXTON posted:Souter does not like the idea of states telling their own citizens they can't sue. Not sure if it's an ideology thing or just a "YOU FUCKERS, THE AMENDMENT SAYS SPECIFICALLY "OF ANOTHER STATE"" thing since he throws back to old English law in the later case to explain the reasoning as one of intent, but in the Seminole one he's really focused on that "another state" usage. The liberal justices on the court don't like state sovereign immunity generally. They have a good point as a policy/practical matter, because as it stands now you can sue the governor of FL for poo poo he/she did as governor of FL, and even get prospective and/or retrospective relief against the state of Florida (there are some hurdles to get over though), but you can't name FL as a defendant, even to get the exact same relief, which is stupid. The textual argument is just Souter using his enemies' powers against them and showing that they're full of poo poo when they say they're textualists. disjoe fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I think you'll find justice Gorsuch fully endorses my written statement as a sensible and uncontroversial position opposing methamphetamines.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/senmikelee/status/862660636903387136
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:ps don't speed in Virginia Yeah, friend of mine was told by the judge to come back with a lawyer or he's almost certainly going to jail since it was his second 81 in a 65. On the issue at hand though, my reading of the 14th is that it says any person naturalized "is" a citizen, which seems pretty final.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
So I'm an occasional lurker on this thread but there seems to have been basically no action since the start of the year unless I missed it. Have there been no really impactful cases brought to the court just because they didn't have enough to grant cert on anything controversial/didn't want to bother with getting a bunch of "4-4, ask again later" decisions or did I miss some stuff that was important but not digestible to a layman?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:04
|
|
