|
Discendo Vox posted:I've come around to the perspective that Scalia remains much worse than Gorsuch, simply because Gorsuch is so openly incompetent and unlikeable that his effect will be more limited. Scalia was thought to have been such a complete rear end in a top hat that he pushed O'Connor significantly to the left. I dunno if he can match that.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Scalia was also personable enough that he and ginsburg were best friends. No one likes gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Scalia was also personable enough that he and ginsburg were best friends. No one likes gorsuch. Breyer went out of his way to (subtly) mock Gorsuch during the Oil States argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/937699324800262144 Can anyone explain what this ruling actually means? I can’t tell if the Texas court ruled that Houston cannot provide benefits to same sex spouses, or if it just isn’t constitutionally required to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
My reading is the latter; more specifically that Houston can grant them all the rights and benefits it wants to, but the state is under no obligation to uphold them, which is the issue at hand; Houston wanted to provide same sex partners of state employees the same rights as hetero couples, and the state refused to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/937699324800262144 Neither. It ruled that a particular remand order sending the case back to the trial court was badly worded, and then sent it back to the trial court to decide whether Houston was constitutionally required to do so in light of Obergefell. Now, it did so in a way that said that Obergefell hadn’t decided the issue (which is true in only the most technical sense), but it didn’t actually rule on the question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Neither. It ruled that a particular remand order sending the case back to the trial court was badly worded, and then sent it back to the trial court to decide whether Houston was constitutionally required to do so in light of Obergefell. And that Obergefell statement really should be read as a "please please handle this case in the most airtight manner possible and blame the SCOTUS so we don't get primaried" plea from the Texas Supreme Court judges to the lower court. I seem to recall it initially looked like they were going to let the dismissal stand but the fundies got really worked up over the "technically it didn't say exactly X" thing while murmuring that they might have to find judges that understand that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
I’m seeing a report that Kennedy appears sympathetic to the bakery in that case heard this morning? This case should be clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m seeing a report that Kennedy appears sympathetic to the bakery in that case heard this morning? This case should be clear cut. Milsner from ThinkProgress said the pro equality side gave a poor showing at oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
That would be pretty terrible and would gently caress up public accommodations statutes big time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Milsner from ThinkProgress said the pro equality side gave a poor showing at oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
This thread has talked a lot about preserving the respectability and sacred aura of the Supreme Court. If the court legalizes clear-cut discrimination, it doesn't matter what else they do, that's done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This thread has talked a lot about preserving the respectability and sacred aura of the Supreme Court. If the court legalizes clear-cut discrimination, it doesn't matter what else they do, that's done. This is a bad take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This thread has talked a lot about preserving the respectability and sacred aura of the Supreme Court. If the court legalizes clear-cut discrimination, it doesn't matter what else they do, that's done. So... Since 1944 then, if not well before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This thread has talked a lot about preserving the respectability and sacred aura of the Supreme Court. If the court legalizes clear-cut discrimination, it doesn't matter what else they do, that's done. You're right, I sure hope Justice Taney does the right thing in that whole Dred Scott affair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Armack posted:You're right, I sure hope Justice Taney does the right thing in that whole Dred Scott affair. Oh is that the same Taney who just had his statue knocked down? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So... Since 1944 then, if not well before? 1857 at least. Probably 1787 tho, the US
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This is a bad take. If you don't think religious discrimination based on race is going to end up in the courts if the bakery wins this lawsuit you have an unacceptably positive view of the right wing in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
I mean, it's totally obvious that the Supreme Court, like the presidency, has never been an unmitigated ally to minorities, but this ain't exactly 1830 either. Nobody sat down and shut the gently caress up after corporations were declared people, and that's really nothing next to "actually gays don't have rights after all!" Besides, as a bonus, if corporations are people, that means they can be killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m seeing a report that Kennedy appears sympathetic to the bakery in that case heard this morning? This case should be clear cut. I'm guessing the distinction that would be made is celebration of a particular event vs general status of the person. That is, you could have decision be that a bakery can't discriminate against 2 guys holding hands walking into the shop and wanting a donut, but can refuse to make a cake for their wedding. Tangentially, the custom-making of the thing is also being pointed to as a distinction. This would probably be what is making people most afraid: Kennedy posted:"Tolerance is essential in a free society," he told the lawyer, "and tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs." If Kennedy views this as a balance between religious practice/ free speech and sex discrimination he'll most likely come down on the side of the bakers and write the majority with a narrow ruling that allows for religious exemption in very specific cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I mean, it's totally obvious that the Supreme Court, like the presidency, has never been an unmitigated ally to minorities, but this ain't exactly 1830 either. Nobody sat down and shut the gently caress up after corporations were declared people, and that's really nothing next to "actually gays don't have rights after all!" Like do you even have a loving clue what personhood means in a court of law? I'll take a wild stab and say no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If you don't think religious discrimination based on race is going to end up in the courts if the bakery wins this lawsuit you have an unacceptably positive view of the right wing in the US. It’s going to end up in courts but it’s not going to go very far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like do you even have a loving clue what personhood means in a court of law? I'll take a wild stab and say no. Originally it was a legal fiction that meant the corporation can be named as a defendant rather than requiring plaintiffs to sue officers in their official capacity and prove that they deliberately ordered the actions that led to the suit or else the plaintiffs have to sue some low-level grunt who doesn't have the money to pay out. Now it's used by analogy to award corporations more rights than people including absurd ones like the right to Also apparently legal fictions can somehow have religious beliefs and get the right to religious accommodations if those beliefs are shared by 5 old dudes on the Supreme Court, otherwise no VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
tsa posted:This would probably be what is making people most afraid:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was reading the SCOTUSBlog coverage, and I feel like this might be a different case if one of the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission hadn't written a statement barely this side of, "religion is a cancer."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was reading the SCOTUSBlog coverage, and I feel like this might be a different case if one of the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission hadn't written a statement barely this side of, "religion is a cancer." Eh that's not an accurate description at all, they may not have been PC enough in their wording for the fragile snowflakes out there, but the point the CCRC dude made was "religious beliefs have been used to justify unjust discrimination in the past, therefore 'it is my religious belief' alone isn't enough to require accommodation and you have to look at what the results would be (in this case legalized discrimination)" and not "religion is a cancer that must be burned with radiation and cut out of society". Also it was just one member of the CCRC, the statement wasn't endorsed by the rest of the commission, it didn't factor into the other members' decision, etc but whatever that's just boring facts. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I mean, it's totally obvious that the Supreme Court, like the presidency, has never been an unmitigated ally to minorities, but this ain't exactly 1830 either. Nobody sat down and shut the gently caress up after corporations were declared people, and that's really nothing next to "actually gays don't have rights after all!" Corporate personhood exists so you can do business with a corporation as a single entity, instead of having to sign thousands of contracts with the many, many people who work there (and likewise, so it can be taxed as a single entity). It doesn't mean a corporation is literally a person, which you would know if you spent about 30 seconds googling about it instead of raging against the machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
there are certain ways in which extending constitutional rights to the corporate entity is the simplest way of protecting the rights of the actual holders of the rights, the owners of the company. for example, giving the company rights against arbitrary seizure of property protects the owners of the company whose property is indirectly being seized. while people who rant against corporate personhood generally aren't aware of the legal differences between that (the corporation is a person for the purposes of constitutional rights) and the actual meaning of corporate personhood but its important to not just get dragged into arguments over legal terminology that said, the supreme court frequently loses track of that distinction, and the distinction that you do not have an unfettered right to conduct your affairs through a corporation rather than individually. that a for-profit corporation does not have religious beliefs and you do not have a right to conduct for-profit activities through a corporate entity while also claiming religious exemptions is the paradigmatic example of this, because the conservatives are insane. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:while people who rant against corporate personhood generally aren't aware of the legal differences between that (the corporation is a person for the purposes of constitutional rights) and the actual meaning of corporate personhood but its important to not just get dragged into arguments over legal terminology Also refusing to capitalize your posts while simultaneously using double spaces to separate your sentences is very dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:We're in the Debate & Discussion forum in the thread specifically about the Supreme Court of the United States of America, so the legal terminology of corporate personhood seems highly relevant.  getting upset about double spaces. EW is right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:We're in the Debate & Discussion forum in the thread specifically about the Supreme Court of the United States of America, so the legal terminology of corporate personhood seems highly relevant. double spaces is correct in that i am much more likely to have someone senior to me consider one space wrong than i am to have someone senior to me consider two spaces wrong, and since ultimately it conveys no grammatical meaning and following one rule or the other serves only to avoid jarring the reader with something that appears to be a typo it is much more important to follow the common practice than to follow what someone outside my profession considers correct also if you can't distinguish between terms used in their legal meaning vs. their colloquial meaning and avoid getting tripped up in meaningless debates over the difference you are either a bad lawyer or angling for a supreme court seat from a republican president or both
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
I was basically making a joke with regards to "killing corporations"; I forgot for a moment that the SCOTUS thread is the residence in D&D for under-employed lawyers who can't wait to let you know as much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:double spaces is correct in that i am much more likely to have someone senior to me consider one space wrong than i am to have someone senior to me consider two spaces wrong, and since ultimately it conveys no grammatical meaning and following one rule or the other serves only to avoid jarring the reader with something that appears to be a typo it is much more important to follow the common practice than to follow what someone outside my profession considers correct quote:also if you can't distinguish between terms used in their legal meaning vs. their colloquial meaning and avoid getting tripped up in meaningless debates over the difference you are either a bad lawyer or angling for a supreme court seat from a republican president or both dont even fink about it posted:Nobody sat down and shut the gently caress up after corporations were declared people
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is very clearly using a legal meaning. This is not a person talking about the day Michael Scott walked out of his office and shouted "corporations are people". Yeah but when people use it now, especially in relation to the Supreme Court, they are referring to the new legal meaning, the meaning people have a problem with, not the old legal meaning, which people generally did not. Context actually matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is it much more likely for someone senior to you consider capitalizing words wrong? I don't generally care about grammar, but you're optimizing in a really stupid fashion. using two spaces is habit, one i am unlikely to change between posting on the internet and writing irl things, while I may get lazy or inconsistent with capitalization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:using two spaces is habit, one i am unlikely to change between posting on the internet and writing irl things, while I may get lazy or inconsistent with capitalization. Same. Only time i'm single space is on my phone, and when i'm phone posting i'll rarely capitalize because 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but when people use it now, especially in relation to the Supreme Court, they are referring to the new legal meaning, the meaning people have a problem with, not the old legal meaning, which people generally did not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
I always use two spaces because writing and typing instructors at various levels of my education have drilled it into me and I won't change no matter how many times goony D&Ders tell me that it's "wrong" now because people don't use type writers anymore. So stop doing that you fucks. That said I single space when writing posts from my iPad (like this one) because if you make two spaces on an iPad you get a period and one space and that's very handy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
There is no new legal meaning to corporate personhood. There's the same meaning there always has been, and the one dumb people have in their heads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
ugh its Troika posted:and the one dumb people have in their heads. This wouldn't be a problem if 5 of those people weren't Supreme Court justices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 05:18
|
|