EwokEntourage posted:Just read the first paragraph of the Gorsuch opinion. He is a terrible writer. Good god, that prose is abysmal. quote:Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit, and more besides drew Congress’s eye to the debt collection industry. From that scrutiny emerged the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a statute that authorizes private lawsuits and weighty fines designed to deter wayward collection practices. So perhaps it comes as little surprise that we now face a question about who exactly qualifies as a “debt collector” subject to the Act’s rigors. Everyone agrees that the term embraces the repo man—someone hired by a creditor to collect an outstanding debt. But what if you purchase a debt and then try to collect it for yourself— does that make you a “debt collector” too? That’s the nub of the dispute now before us. "That's the nub of the dispute before us"?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's june, it's near the end of the term. Yeah, there's only 2 weeks left before they leave in July. I was glancing through the list of cases argued long enough ago to possibly get an opinion soon. I don't remember this thread being concerned about a case and yeah there's a lot of opinions likely still coming soon, but most of them I don't care about. Only two cases are mildly interesting to me, there's the trademark case where someone is arguing whether the first amendment doesn't allow the patent office to reject racist trademarks. (The Washington Redskins are obviously very interested in this case) Aside from that there's also the cross-border shooting where someone wants to sue a border patrol agent for shooting from the USA at someone in Mexico. Scary thing about that case is the potential to basically legalize outright premeditated murder for border patrol agents as long as the victim is not a US citizen and is physically inside Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Aside from that there's also the cross-border shooting where someone wants to sue a border patrol agent for shooting from the USA at someone in Mexico. Scary thing about that case is the potential to basically legalize outright premeditated murder for border patrol agents as long as the victim is not a US citizen and is physically inside Mexico. Wait, what? I thought the case was about whether the agent could be sued civilly, not whether or not he could be held criminally liable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Good god, that prose is abysmal. that is quite frankly difficult to read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"That's the nub of the dispute before us"?!? I think Gorsuch is trying to imitate Kagan's folksy style and failing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Good god, that prose is abysmal. Awful try-hard prose aside I really hope this was a "hey you dumbasses were applying there wrong part of the definitions section of the statute" ruling. Allowing the people that purchase old debt to be exempt from the FDCPA would be a disaster, as they are by far the sketchiest and most aggressive part of the debt collection industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
You guys just need to read the plain text of the opinion and it'll be a lot easier to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's june, it's near the end of the term. Oh it is! Where did this year go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Good god, that prose is abysmal. I think this is another bad line from him: quote:Faced with so many obstacles in the text and structure of the Act, petitioners ask us to move quickly on to policy. Indeed, from the beginning that is the field on which they seem most eager to pitch battle. Shifty Pony posted:Awful try-hard prose aside I really hope this was a "hey you dumbasses were applying there wrong part of the definitions section of the statute" ruling. The 4th circuit opinion is better and more insightful. Basically, Santander does a lot of things beside just buy old debts. So they characterized them as a financing company, not just a debt buyer. In the Supreme Court opinion, they were only addressing the situation where a company collects debts for someone else. So if you have a credit card thru visa, and visa calls you bc its overdue, they're not a debt collector. If visa has a third party call you, the third party is a debt collector. In the Santander case, they're saying it's like visa calling you, bc Santander now owns the debt. They did not address how this applies to a company who's primary business is buying old debts and trying to collect on them. So a company which only buys debt and collects on them might still be a debt collector under the first definition of a debt collector, and this opinion wouldn't effect that. The fourth circuit explains it better (817 f.3d 131) EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:They did not address how this applies to a company who's primary business is buying old debts and trying to collect on them. So a company which only buys debt and collects on them might still be a debt collector under the first definition of a debt collector, and this opinion wouldn't effect that. The fourth circuit explains it better (817 f.3d 131) Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, they didn't plead that. quote:The complaint does not allege, nor do the plaintiffs argue, that´Santander’s principal business was to collect debt, alleging instead that Santander was a consumer finance company. The complaint also does not allege, nor do the plaintiffs contend, that Santander was using a name other than its own in collecting the debts. Thus, to allege that Santander was a debt collector, the complaint is left to satisfy the second definition of debt
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Yea they just have thought it was their better argument. Santander has its hands in so many different things it'd be hard to argue that their principal business is debt collection tho. It'd be much harder to argue that a company that only buys debts and collects on them isn't a debt collector, regardless if they actually own the debt, under the "uses interstate commerce for the principal purpose of collecting debts" definition
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Concurring that the plain text of the gorsuch opinion is still undecipherable gibberish with hosed up word choices. Besides? Congress's? Aw shucks, more like aw poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Concurring that the plain text of the gorsuch opinion is still undecipherable gibberish with hosed up word choices. That's a perfectly cromulent usage.  Beside is the preposition, besides is the adverb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
It's not necessary, though. I shouldn't feel like my average effortpost is more stylistically tolerable and coherent than a SCOTUS ruling.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
It's certainly him trying to make a splash on his first opinion, like his questioning in his first hearing. Trying to prove he belongs. Pretty clearly failing at it. There's the nub.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017:Besides us, there's the quickly pitched nub
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017:Besides us, there's the quickly pitched nub SCOTUS Thread 2017: The field on which they seem most eager to pitch nub the repo man pitched the nub
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:the repo man pitched the nub This is the one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Going back to April: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.36bbaf94cdf3 ...We could even then see that Gorsuch was Trump's own. quote:“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” he asked Brian H. Fletcher, the Justice Department lawyer representing the government in the civil service case Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board. “What am I missing?” "lol just read the law durr," sailing out to the right of loving Alito. Imagine Antonin Scalia without the wit. Or a boot stomping on a human face, either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
hang, one more: SCOTUS Thread 2017: Gorsuch pitches the repo man's nub
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:hang, one more: SCOTUS Thread 2017: Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just repo the plain pitch of the nub Constant competition between repo and nub can come as no surprise in our pitching world EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017: Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we just repo Gorsuch's nub? If I knew more about recurrent neural networks, I could set up a Gorsuch opinion twitter bot.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
B-b-but Gorsuch was supposed to be a brilliant legal scholar and that was why it was ok he was nominated even though he's a right-wing ogre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Antti posted:B-b-but Gorsuch was supposed to be a brilliant legal scholar and that was why it was ok he was nominated even though he's a right-wing ogre. He's a brilliant legal scholar if you're a closet anarchist who wishes to hew so closely to "plain text" that all meaning becomes lost - the meaning of the law, the meaning of the court, the meaning of the centuries of precedent that built the foundation of the interpretative high court as a governmental branch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:SCOTUS Thread 2017: Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we just repo Gorsuch's nub? Few more terrible opinions and we can probably make a Markova chain bot
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Gorsuch posted:And neither are petitioners’ policy arguments unassailable, as reasonable legislators might contend both ways on the question of how defaulted debt purchasers should be treated. Please tell me where I can find these reasonable legislators
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Gorsuch's writing isn't as plain as I would have expected. This is the good stuff though.quote:
RealityWarCriminal fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
This is where they want to pitch battle? I mean, I know what a pitched battle is but I have never heard pitch used as a verb before. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't just made an adjective into a verb himself but wouldn't the normal English be give battle? Unless of course being a brilliant legal scholar and master of language and its etymology and usage (as he must be to be able to interpret the plain meaning of a statute as it would have appeared to and 18th, 19th or 20th century legislator) perhaps here he's making a deliberate nuanced legal opinion that us low brained common law framework peons that like to know about precedent simply can't comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:This is where they want to pitch battle? I mean, I know what a pitched battle is but I have never heard pitch used as a verb before. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't just made an adjective into a verb himself but wouldn't the normal English be give battle? There would be no normal two words there; "fight their battle" would be the most natural to me, but people could disagree. "pitch" as a verb has a zillion meanings, but the meaning normally used for pitching a tent ("to erect and fix firmly in place") and the meaning normally used only for pitching a fit ("to throw [indulge in, give way to]") are the closest here for pitching battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
The most normal reason I could see for it is just that he's heard the phrase pitched battle and mangled. Which would indicate the man is not a good writer in any way shape or form. If he is equally inept at persuading fellow justices the US may have seen Scalia replaced with another Alito. While that's far worse than the actual nominee for that seat, it's still an improvement over another Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:The most normal reason I could see for it is just that he's heard the phrase pitched battle and mangled. Which would indicate the man is not a good writer in any way shape or form. If he is equally inept at persuading fellow justices the US may have seen Scalia replaced with another Alito. While that's far worse than the actual nominee for that seat, it's still an improvement over another Scalia. You don't have to get that far. The very first loving sentence of the opinion should clue you in that he's a poo poo writer. "Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit, and more besides drew Congress’s eye to the debt collection industry." Edit gently caress it's hard to make it through the first paragraph. I'm a fast reader but I just keep getting snagged up on his absolutely terrible prose. quote:Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit, and more besides drew Congress’s eye to the debt collection industry. From that scrutiny emerged the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a statute that authorizes private lawsuits and weighty fines designed to deter wayward collection practices. So perhaps it comes as little surprise that we now face a question about who exactly qualifies as a “debt collector” subject to the Act’s rigors. Everyone agrees that the term embraces the repo man—someone hired by a creditor to collect an outstanding debt. But what if you purchase a debt and then try to collect it for yourself - does that make you a “debt collector” too? That’s the nub of the dispute now before us. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
A pitched battle is one where they pitched their tents before fighting for a long and besieged fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Gorush is a hack
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
And now you know ... the rest of the story
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/875734751474327553 This is going to become a first amendment case, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/875734751474327553 Can you imagine standing before the Supreme Court of the United States, and arguing yeah it should totally be cool to encourage people to commit suicide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/875734751474327553 Probably not. It's already been to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on related matters. quote:17 The speech at issue in this case is not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because the Commonwealth has a compelling interest in deterring speech that has a direct, causal link to a specific victim's suicide. See Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. 188, 197 n.12 (2005) (content-based restrictions on expressive conduct must satisfy "strict scrutiny" standard, meaning government must "demonstrate that the restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end" [citation omitted]); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants rear end'n, 564 U.S. 786, 799 (2011); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 (1997) (State "has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life" [citation omitted]). See also State v. Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13, 23 (Minn. 2014) (affirming in part constitutionality of statute prohibiting "assist[ing]" suicide as against First Amendment challenge).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
^^^^^ ahh thanks. Rygar201 posted:Can you imagine standing before the Supreme Court of the United States, and arguing yeah it should totally be cool to encourage people to commit suicide? So you're saying no one will be willing to argue it? I don't believe this should be protected speech, I just don't know if this type of scenario has been litigated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I don't believe this should be protected speech, I just don't know if this type of scenario has been litigated. It's been litigated by this defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:34
|
|