|
VitalSigns posted:lol that an automobile exception to fundamental constitutional rights exists in the first place The automobile exception is because its on a public roadway, no? Hence why it isn't applicable here.
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:what about the 2nd amendment he literally wrote a concurrence to mcdonald v city of chicago saying "you guys are right that the 2nd applies to states, but not under due process incorporation"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The automobile exception is because its on a public roadway, no? Hence why it isn't applicable here. How is that distinct from, say, walking on a public sidewalk?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The automobile exception is because its on a public roadway, no? Hence why it isn't applicable here. The first reason for the exception was because of the flight risk. The second reason was because of the pervasive and ongoing regulation of vehicles on public roadways. Mr. Nice! posted:he literally wrote a concurrence to mcdonald v city of chicago saying "you guys are right that the 2nd applies to states, but not under due process incorporation" Privileges and Immunities!?!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas hates due process incorporation. He may agree federal rights apply to states, but he'll dig until he finds a way to do it while decrying due process as some boogeyman.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
I actually agree that substantive due process is kind of a nutty concept that should instead be mostly resolved through interpreting the privileges and immunities clause, though there is the quirk that the P&I clause only applies to citizens. It's one of those things where it so obviously should be the law but I don't think it actually is the law. It's just that the Supreme Court quickly neutered that clause and nobody felt like overturning it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The first reason for the exception was because of the flight risk. The second reason was because of the pervasive and ongoing regulation of vehicles on public roadways. Gotta love it when a guy on the highest court in the country spends time to bitch about abortion and gay rights in a gun decision case. Thomas cannot sign onto any decision that would provide any ideological support for Roe v Wade. quote:Using the latter approach, the Court has determined that the Due Process Clause applies rights against the States that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all, even without seriously arguing that the Clause was originally understood to protect such rights. See, e.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); Lawrence, supra. At least he's a better writer than Gorsuch so it isn't too bad to read through his opinions. They start out reasonable like "yeah, it makes sense that would support this right without any "due process"" work and then he goes all off the rails on abortion and gay rights.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Thomas is probably correct re: privileges and immunities being the proper method for incorporation instead of due process, but that decision was made so long ago and there is so much built on it, that its too late to reverse it, and we pretty much get the same result anyway, so why bother. Except Thomas literally doesn't believe in stare decisis and he gives no fucks about overturning landmark 100-year decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Thomas is probably correct re: privileges and immunities being the proper method for incorporation instead of due process, but that decision was made so long ago and there is so much built on it, that its too late to reverse it, and we pretty much get the same result anyway, so why bother. Except Thomas literally doesn't believe in stare decisis and he gives no fucks about overturning landmark 100-year decisions. He's all about reversing roe, lawrence, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Zoran posted:How is that distinct from, say, walking on a public sidewalk? My understanding is that it only applies to obvious violations. A cop can't (in theory) stop you just to search your vehicle because you're on an open road, there needs to be a reason for them to stop you first. Same with walking on a sidewalk; they need a reason to stop you before they can search your pockets. In reality, a bored cop can come up with any number of bullshit excuses, as demonstrated most publicly by NYCPD.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
So what's up with the Hays case? "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." I though SCOTUS could take up any case for any reason, or no reason if they wanted?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Thomas is probably correct re: privileges and immunities being the proper method for incorporation instead of due process, but that decision was made so long ago and there is so much built on it, that its too late to reverse it, and we pretty much get the same result anyway, so why bother. Except Thomas literally doesn't believe in stare decisis and he gives no fucks about overturning landmark 100-year decisions. I'm still praying that his response to the Muslim ban thing is that actually Chy Lung v Freeman in 1876 was wrongly decided because immigration authority belongs to the states, not the federal government not least because it means the Muslim ban would likely be stone dead
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:He's all about reversing roe, lawrence, etc. Clarence Thomas is the justice LEAST likely to make decisions based on ideology rather than his crazy rear end judicial philosophy you're mistaking the symptoms ("states should be able to ban abortion") with the disease ("states should be able to do pretty much everything they want, including banning abortion or interracial marriage")
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Jesus, Sam. Could you be just a little less fascist? Alito's most reliable characteristic before the SC was being so in favor of increased police and prosecutorial power that it made police and prosecutors a little queasy.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
I don't know what document Samuel "I am the Law" Alito is reading from.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:So what's up with the Hays case? "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." They changed their mind about taking it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:he literally wrote a concurrence to mcdonald v city of chicago saying "you guys are right that the 2nd applies to states, but not under due process incorporation" I think this kind of misses the point. He was arguing for privileges and immunities incorporation, which is my most accounts a stronger hook to enforces federal rights against the states. In this case, he wasn't arguing that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to states, just that the federal courts couldn't impose the exclusionary rule on the states as the remedy. Collins presumably could have sued under 42 USC 1983 from prison. That case would have been dismissed on qualified immunity grounds because searches of vehicles in curtilage wasn't a "well established" violation, but that's presumably a feature not a bug.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I think this kind of misses the point. He was arguing for privileges and immunities incorporation, which is my most accounts a stronger hook to enforces federal rights against the states. In this case, he wasn't arguing that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to states, just that the federal courts couldn't impose the exclusionary rule on the states as the remedy. Collins presumably could have sued under 42 USC 1983 from prison. That case would have been dismissed on qualified immunity grounds because searches of vehicles in curtilage wasn't a "well established" violation, but that's presumably a feature not a bug. He argues for priv & immunities incorporation or some other justification in every concurrence with an opinion that uses due process he signs. It's because he wants to overturn basically all due process jurisprudence and hints heavily at it in every concurrence while he bitches about roe v wade and lawrence v texas. He isn't very subtle about it. For example, he spends the majority of his concurrence in mcdonald discussing things that have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the case at hand.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That case would have been dismissed on qualified immunity grounds because searches of vehicles in curtilage wasn't a "well established" violation, but that's presumably a feature not a bug. On that note, has SCOTUS/any other court described how any violation can be "well established" when any not yet well established violation will simply be dismissed due to qualified immunity, or are we stuck with the current list of violations for all eternity?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
scaevola posted:On that note, has SCOTUS/any other court described how any violation can be "well established" when any not yet well established violation will simply be dismissed due to qualified immunity, or are we stuck with the current list of violations for all eternity? A dismissal due to qualified immunity can still clarify the violation, I believe.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
scaevola posted:On that note, has SCOTUS/any other court described how any violation can be "well established" when any not yet well established violation will simply be dismissed due to qualified immunity, or are we stuck with the current list of violations for all eternity? For a while a court had to decide - after kicking something out on qualified immunity grounds - if the act in question was in fact unconstitutional. Relatively recently the Supreme Court said “nah, it’s ok, you can kick without deciding if the act was constitutional nor not.” The flaw in this approach has been widely noted, and occasionally lower courts will still clarify constitutionality just to avoid the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Google petition for en banc rehearing:quote:Based on my professional judgment, I believe the panel decisions are contrary to at least the following decisions: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994); Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985); Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally divided court, 516 U.S. 233 (1996); Sega Enters. v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992). Also, the last 3 weeks of June are going to be a SCOTUS shitshow. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1002219359820025856
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Google petition for en banc rehearing: And the extra fun part is the will he or won't he speculating about Kennedy retiring once the term is over!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Google petition for en banc rehearing: Last year there were 23 full opinions and 5 per curiam decisions in June, with only Monday as opinion days the first two weeks. So I guess it's somewhat comparable, even though it feels like all the blockbusters are waiting this year. (I guess they always are.)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:And the extra fun part is the will he or won't he speculating about Kennedy retiring once the term is over! I honestly think if Kennedy retires it'll be the end of the Republic.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Google petition for en banc rehearing: Google v Oracle is still happening? Just gently caress off already, both of them Ugh
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:I honestly think if Kennedy retires it'll be the end of the Republic. If Kennedy retires we're getting another Gorsuch, or worse, and you can say goodbye to Woe v. Wade within 1-2 years tops as well as SSM and a whole lot of other things that those regressive fuckstains have wanted to get rid of for a long time but couldn't solely due to Kennedy not being pure evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If Kennedy retires we're getting another Gorsuch, or worse, and you can say goodbye to Woe v. Wade within 1-2 years tops as well as SSM and a whole lot of other things that those regressive fuckstains have wanted to get rid of for a long time but couldn't solely due to Kennedy not being pure evil. my last ditch hope would be Trump loving it up and/or appointing his almost worryingly decent sister
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2018: Woe vs. Wade
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
I hope to hell that the Democrats take the Senate in November, because I really fear we're going to lose Kennedy and Bader-Ginsburg before 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:I hope to hell that the Democrats take the Senate in November, because I really fear we're going to lose Kennedy and Bader-Ginsburg before 2020. Ginsberg seems fine despite the constant fear everyone has of her unexpected death due to age. Scalia did to, but there's really nothing to be gained stressing oneself on that question. Kennedy is way more of a worry because the decision to leave would be his choice, so we're left constantly questioning what might be influencing that choice at any given moment, especially when we're just months away from a midterm election that could at least theoretically stop the court-packing machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
SSM has reached more than 66% support in America. The Democrat strategists would be overjoyed if the SC made it politically relevant again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:SSM has reached more than 66% support in America. The Democrat strategists would be overjoyed if the SC made it politically relevant again. Not that it'll matter when they refuse to do anything about future Justice William Pryor declaring gays illegal and school prayer mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Ginsberg seems fine despite the constant fear everyone has of her unexpected death due to age. Scalia did to, but there's really nothing to be gained stressing oneself on that question. Kennedy is way more of a worry because the decision to leave would be his choice, so we're left constantly questioning what might be influencing that choice at any given moment, especially when we're just months away from a midterm election that could at least theoretically stop the court-packing machine. Yeah the issue is after Kennedy there are no conservative justices likely to die/resign (because Thomas was a baby when he was appointed he's the same age as Alito).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Ulmont hasn't rolled through yet with his wonderful summaries, but a handful of decisions dropped today including the colorado baker penned by kennedy in a 7-2 that baking a wedding cake is a specific artistic expression and he cannot be forced to create one for a gay wedding if he has a religious objection to it. edit wrong lineup Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Ulmont hasn't rolled through yet with his wonderful summaries, but a handful of decisions dropped today including the colorado baker penned by kennedy in a 5-4 that baking a wedding cake is a specific artistic expression and he cannot be forced to create one for a gay wedding if he has a religious objection to it. Goddamnit. I got through the bankruptcy and (one of the) sentencing ones and was ready to post, but didn't realize there were still two more to go. EDIT: gently caress, that's a lineup. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ulmont fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Ulmont hasn't rolled through yet with his wonderful summaries, but a handful of decisions dropped today including the colorado baker penned by kennedy in a 5-4 that baking a wedding cake is a specific artistic expression and he cannot be forced to create one for a gay wedding if he has a religious objection to it. 7-2 because the colorado comission were a bunch of meanies. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Ulmont hasn't rolled through yet with his wonderful summaries, but a handful of decisions dropped today including the colorado baker penned by kennedy in a 5-4 that baking a wedding cake is a specific artistic expression and he cannot be forced to create one for a gay wedding if he has a religious objection to it. It was 7-2, not 5-4. quote:KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, e. fb
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Ulmont hasn't rolled through yet with his wonderful summaries, but a handful of decisions dropped today including the colorado baker penned by kennedy in a 5-4 that baking a wedding cake is a specific artistic expression and he cannot be forced to create one for a gay wedding if he has a religious objection to it. the decision is a punt: the court ruled that it was mean to call the baker a worthless bigot masquerading his bigotry as religion, although that was factually correct, and said you can't do that. but kennedy specifically refused to endorse the broader principle sought (or reject it) that the baker had a right to refuse to bake the cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
My gut reaction is this extremely stupid and the Supreme Court is a clown show. I look forward to dedicated analysis as to why or why not that is the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:51
|
|
