|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you weren't being entirely accurate when you said that racial bias is uniquely odious. Nah, I was. I quoted SCOTUS opinions and everything. I'm saying, left to my own devices, I've give the entire strict scrutiny tier the same treatment, tracking their analysis for equal protection analysis. Dead Reckoning posted:it's ridiculous to say that you can review jury deliberations to make sure no one expressed a negative view of gay people, but not if it's alleged that one of the jurors stated his intention to flagrantly ignore the law. Then the whole secrecy provision ceases to have any meaning. I see jury secrecy like the individual mandate: sometimes producing bad results, but necessary for the system to function. I don't think that's an accurate state of the law; I think jurors who express a desire to nullify are booted all the time. And I'm really not sure how secrecy is necessary here, as compared to having a judge review items in camara.
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Nah, I was. I quoted SCOTUS opinions and everything. I'm saying, left to my own devices, I've give the entire strict scrutiny tier the same treatment, tracking their analysis for equal protection analysis. Now you're just being dishonest. The entire context of the discussion was about reviewing jury decisions over allegations of racial bias, and you answered my questions about why racial bias should be grounds for review with quotes about how racial bias is uniquely bad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
E: Double post
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Now you're just being dishonest. The entire context of the discussion was about reviewing jury decisions over allegations of racial bias, and you answered my questions about why racial bias should be grounds for review with quotes about how racial bias is uniquely bad. Now you can just go gently caress yourself. You asked two different questions ("why is racial bias uniquely bad" and "what would you, ulmont, like to see in jury inquiries"), so you should not be surprised you got two different answers.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Nah, I was. I quoted SCOTUS opinions and everything. I'm saying, left to my own devices, I've give the entire strict scrutiny tier the same treatment, tracking their analysis for equal protection analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why just strict scrutiny? If you're really buying into applying Equal Protection to jury deliberations why not also apply intermediate scrutiny and rational basis analyses to discriminations that warrant those? Could a juror who was discriminating on race ever succeed against strict scrutiny? Would it require a Korematsu style ruling? Could a dude fiercely opposed to the ownership of crocs beat even a rational basis analysis that convicting owners of crocs for unrelated crimes is a valid goal? This just looks like pasting two vaguely related things together to me. Because I don't believe that there is any legitimate concern about convicting owners of crocs for unrelated crimes, which we know is not the case for at least race and likely also (based on how we have seen race play out in the case at hand) for national origin.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Because I don't believe that there is any legitimate concern about convicting owners of crocs for unrelated crimes, which we know is not the case for at least race and likely also (based on how we have seen race play out in the case at hand) for national origin. edit: To be clear, I think what I've presented here is a wholly consistent argument, but I'm really suspicious about an argument that looks like "The kinds of biases I care about in jury deliberations exactly match the classes eligible for strict scrutiny analysis under the Equal Protection clause as applied in 2017". twodot fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Let's just add "might get dragged into court years down the line when the dude you convicted claims the jury was racist on appeal" to the list of ways jury duty can be a pain in your rear end, because the general public doesn't already actively avoid getting stuck on a jury quite enough already.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Why precisely can anonymized transcriptions of jury deliberation not become available for review by higher courts? Why are we assuming this one huge step toward holding jury deliberation to a higher standard is wrong from the outset? Slippery slope? Toward what? Identifying jurors can prove a darn difficult thing with every line spoken unattributable to even a legend of jurors. Is there literally no way this can be done without exposing jurors to outside influence more than they already are?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:Let's just add "might get dragged into court years down the line when the dude you convicted claims the jury was racist on appeal" to the list of ways jury duty can be a pain in your rear end, because the general public doesn't already actively avoid getting stuck on a jury quite enough already. "Jury duty is hard" is a poor reason to be concerned about review of deliberation. Hell, (1) dragging jurors back if something got hosed up is incentive to leave your prejudices at the door and incentive to report biases in fellow jurors before ruling and sentencing, (2) you don't necessarily need to see the offending jury again to find that they hosed up. We don't presently drag a jury back together when cases hit appellate courts.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
When the status quo does not favor openness of information, stop and consider why we prefer darkness to light.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're making an apples to oranges comparison. Bribery and bias are two distinct states of mind, one of which involves the intervention of a third party and the promise of consideration. I'm asking why one sort of bias is worse than another, and you're arguing that being able to distinguish bias from bribery means that of course we can label some kinds of bias as worse than others, while refusing to lay down any sort of rule for how that distinction should be drawn. I'm just asking for the same rigor from you that you're asking from everybody else. You're claiming your opinions are objective ones that can be easily and consistently explained and applied, so I'm just asking you to do that. Can you explain why one juror bribing another is grounds for a mistrial but racism is no big deal, without sputtering about how it's too obvious and self-evident to explain. Why is it worse if I find against you because another juror paid me to be versus because I think all black people are guilty of everything. It can't be the harm to the defendant, because the outcome for the defendant is the same regardless of whether I'm bribed or I'm racist or I vote randomly. You tried saying the bribery is unlawful, but we could write laws against racial discrimination as well (and have, in other contexts) so that can't be it. It can't be that barring racial discrimination doesn't fix every single problem with the justice system, because that reasoning applies to bribery too (and also to any problem we try to fix). "It doesn't fix everything so let's not fix anything" is a poor argument. It can't be external interference because I proposed one juror bribing another, and it's expected that jurors will try to change each other's positions so this isn't the case of some external person coming in to influence the jury. You said that receiving consideration is the part that makes it worse than racial discrimination, but can you explain why? Is it that when consideration is involved then the verdict isn't related to whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? This seems reasonable, but it also applies to race or class discrimination as well, if I convict you for being black or poor isn't that conviction also unrelated to the evidence?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
I'll go first if you like, DR. I think bribery is a greater harm than a juror just making a mistake because bribery undermines the integrity of the justice system itself. If bribing juries is permitted, then defendants aren't assured of a fair trial by an impartial judge and jury, which undercuts the whole basis of a system that assumes impartial judgment. And this same reasoning applies to racial (or class discrimination, since you brought it up). If juries are convicting people for being black or poor, then black or poor people aren't assured of a fair trial, which again undercuts the entire justice system. Human error, on the other hand, while it's undesirable, doesn't undermine the basic assumptions of our justice system. We assume that people are being judged impartially, but we don't (and can't) assume that human beings never make mistakes. We should do everything we can to assure each defendant has a fair trial with an impartial judge and jury.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Jury duty is hard" is a poor reason to be concerned about review of deliberation. But that's not how people work and we have countless studies that show this. People flat out cannot leave their biases at the door because most people are not even fully aware of what biases they even have. Just look at the studies on subconscious bias in hiring decisions. It really seems kinda silly to have trial by jury of peers and then get upset that people act like people. They aren't perfect and conscious and subconscious bias is going to inevitably play a role because we are not autistic robots that intake facts and output pure loving logic. Potato Salad posted:Why precisely can anonymized transcriptions of jury deliberation not become available for review by higher courts? Again your real gripe seems to be with trial by jury in general. The biggest problem I could foresee with what you are talking about is not the really obvious cases, like the one at the supreme court, and I think you are missing this point: it's going to be the millions in the gray area that nobody has any idea what to do about. If a person utters one thing that may be construed as indicating bias, is that enough? And has already been pointed out- singling out racism doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, so how far do we expand that list of bad things to? And what do we do about subconscious bias? And on and on and on. It really seems like pandoras box there, I would repeat that if you are worried about this sort of stuff you move away from trial by jury of peers who didn't feel like skipping jury duty. Potato Salad posted:When the status quo does not favor openness of information, stop and consider why we prefer darkness to light. OK wikileaks. But: for lots of obvious and non-obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:But that's not how people work and we have countless studies that show this. People flat out cannot leave their biases at the door because most people are not even fully aware of what biases they even have. Just look at the studies on subconscious bias in hiring decisions. There's also no perfect standard for whether someone is competent at lawyering, yet we still retry cases if the defense counsel was incompetent. Just because there might be some edge cases that could go either way doesn't mean we should just ignore obvious ones. If a defense counsel shows up drunk every day or a judge or juror says "I don't care if he did it, all black people are guilty of something" we can conclude that incompetence/racism is definitely present even if other situations aren't as clear-cut.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
ITT goons discover that the jury system is actually bad  see you next year when we collectively come to the stunning conclusion that electing judges is also bad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
At the end of the order list today, there are 8 attorneys given show cause by the SCOTUS to not be disbarred from practicing there. Any idea what they did? Here's the order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051517zor_986b.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:At the end of the order list today, there are 8 attorneys given show cause by the SCOTUS to not be disbarred from practicing there. Any idea what they did? I googled a few and it wasn't anything to do with conduct before the SC. One got disbarred for mishandling trust funds, one tried to hide a will, one got sentenced to prison, etc
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:At the end of the order list today, there are 8 attorneys given show cause by the SCOTUS to not be disbarred from practicing there. Any idea what they did? They do this a few times every term. It's housekeeping. It's very easy for a lawyer who is a member of any state bar to get on the SC bar and loads of people who will never appear before SCOTUS do it out of vanity. There are over a million lawyers in this country and some of them are poo poo heads who get disbarred, and so SCOTUS disbars them also.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
On deeper digging, Troika, I think you are right in the impression that my beef lies with trial by peers.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Content! Three opinions today: Howell v. Howell: Held: A state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse’s portion of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits. This Court’s decision in Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U. S. 581, determines the outcome here. There, the Court held that federal law completely pre-empts the States from treating waived military retirement pay as divisible community property. Lineup: BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1031_hejm.pdf Kindred Nursing Centers, L. P. v. Clark: Held: The Kentucky Supreme Court’s clear-statement rule [requiring a specific statement in a power of attorney to allow the holder to enter into a contract requiring arbitration] violates the Federal Arbitration Act by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment. Lineup: KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-32_o7jp.pdf Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Held: The filing of a proof of claim [i.e., saying you're a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding] that is obviously time barred [years past the statute of limitations] is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable debt collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Lineup: BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-348_h315.pdf ulmont fucked around with this message at 18:17 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Gonna have to read midland funding to see what i think about it, but the first one is absolutely right. VA compensation is 100% for the veteran and is not touchable by anyone or anything. It cannot be levied against, garnished, or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Gonna have to read midland funding to see what i think about it, but the first one is absolutely right. VA compensation is 100% for the veteran and is not touchable by anyone or anything. It cannot be levied against, garnished, or anything. I think Howell and Kindred Nursing Centers were both right and that Midland Funding was wrong (although Midland Funding may not matter much if bankruptcy judges start using whatever the Rule 11 equivalent is [ed: Rule 9011] for those stale claims).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
The Chief Justice felt it necessary to clarify that they only denied cert in the North Carolina voter ID law case because there was a concern over standing, not because they were affirming the lower court decision. Doesn't bode well for the Wisconsin case:quote:Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that “[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.”
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I enjoyed sotomayor's implication that someone is in ch 13 bankruptcy because they're too stupid to pay their bills or track their finances Someone remind me, what's the financial cut off for ch7/ch13
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I enjoyed sotomayor's implication that someone is in ch 13 bankruptcy because they're too stupid to pay their bills or track their finances She's rebutting the majority's claim that Ch. 13 people are more sophisticated than average. quote:The majority implies that a person who files for bankruptcy is more sophisticated than the average consumer debtor because the initiation of bankruptcy is a choice made by a debtor. Ante, at 6. But a person who has filed for bankruptcy will rarely be in such a superior position; he has, after all, just declared that he is unable to meet his financial obligations and in need of the assistance of the courts. It is odd to speculate that such a person is better situated to monitor court filings and lodge objections than an ordinary consumer. EwokEntourage posted:Someone remind me, what's the financial cut off for ch7/ch13 Unsecured debt must be less than $394,725 and secured debt less than $1,184,200. 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) (occasionally CPI adjusted). ...but the means test for Chapter 7: Test 1: Is your last six months' household income below the median for your state? If yes, you can file Chapter 7. If no, test 2. Test 2: Deduct expenses from income and see if you can pay $207.92 / month. If yes, you can't file Chapter 7. If you can pay $124.58 / month for 5 years and that would be 25% of what you owe your unsecured creditors, you can't file Chapter 7. Otherwise, you can. 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1). ulmont fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I enjoyed sotomayor's implication that someone is in ch 13 bankruptcy because they're too stupid to pay their bills or track their finances It seems more like she's saying there's no reason to assume petitioning for bankruptcy makes someone a financial expert, given the context.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
It's a dumb statement, by either side, to equate being in bankruptcy with your level of sophistication. For example, if a person can't pay their 1mil cancer bill and file for ch13, sotomayor says that rarely will that person be above average sophistication She could have just said there is no evidence that a ch13 debtor is more sophisticated than an ordinary person. The way she phrased it, "after all, he just filed for bankruptcy" gives a bad impression
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It's a dumb statement, by either side, to equate being in bankruptcy with your level of sophistication. For example, if a person can't pay their 1mil cancer bill and file for ch13, sotomayor says that rarely will that person be above average sophistication But Sotomayor's point is only that it would be wrong to presume a high level of sophistication for people who have filed for bankruptcy, not that there should be some presumption of a lack of sophistication.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
This SCOTUS is going to bide its time before they turbo-gently caress us all on voter ID. It's coming for sure, but you can believe they are waiting for the right case.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But Sotomayor's point is only that it would be wrong to presume a high level of sophistication for people who have filed for bankruptcy, not that there should be some presumption of a lack of sophistication. If a group of people are rarely above average sophistication, that implies they are usually below average. That is how averages work. Some will be above, some will be below. She never said rarely are they below average, just that rarely are they above average Feel free to disagree
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This SCOTUS is going to bide its time before they turbo-gently caress us all on voter ID. It's coming for sure, but you can believe they are waiting for the right case. I don't believe so. There's just no ID law that can pass constitutional muster.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't believe so. There's just no ID law that can pass constitutional muster. Sure there is. If it's free to get than it is not a poll tax.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't believe so. There's just no ID law that can pass constitutional muster. That presumes a Supreme Court that gives a poo poo. Pray Kennedy keeps breathing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sure there is. If it's free to get than it is not a poll tax. None of them are ever going to actually give a free ID because the whole point is to keep poor and black people from voting. Giving out free identification in an accessible fashion would be an awesome thing. Hieronymous Alloy posted:That presumes a Supreme Court that gives a poo poo. Pray Kennedy keeps breathing. Oh yeah once Trump gets two more nominees all bets are off. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
If the court loses legitimacy under a Trumpian wave of kangaroo justices, that may actually be an irrecoverable loss.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:None of them are ever going to actually give a free ID because the whole point is to keep poor and black people from voting. Giving out free identification in an accessible fashion would be an awesome thing. *Free ID available at offices open between 2-4pm on the 5th monday of the month.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:None of them are ever going to actually give a free ID because the whole point is to keep poor and black people from voting. Giving out free identification in an accessible fashion would be an awesome thing. Wisconsin has a voter ID requirement and offers a free ID for voting purposes. It doesn't seem like an especially onerous process. http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/petition-process.aspx
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:*Free ID available at offices open between 2-4pm on the 5th monday of the month. This is why it doesn't pass constitutional muster. esquilax posted:Wisconsin has a voter ID requirement and offers a free ID for voting purposes. This seems like a solid enough type of provision. Has wisconsin's law ever been challenged?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
esquilax posted:Wisconsin has a voter ID requirement and offers a free ID for voting purposes. The issue with Wisconsin is that essentially a day after the Voter ID bill was originally passed, the DOT began limiting hours at DMVs and closing DMV locations statewide. There are something like a dozen counties, at least, with DMVs that are open for like a day or two per month. That strikes me as onerous.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:47
|
|