|
Jimbozig posted:Wait what? The lower court ruled against the florist. The ruling in Masterpiece affirms that was the right call unless there was anti-religious animus. Do the justices think there was anti-religious animus in the flower case or do they not even read the rulings they sign onto? They clearly don't want to make a ruling on the merits, and will use any excuse available to put it off.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
it's really depressing knowing we're all smarter than the president and at least one supreme court justice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Wait what? The lower court ruled against the florist. The ruling in Masterpiece affirms that was the right call unless there was anti-religious animus. Do the justices think there was anti-religious animus in the flower case or do they not even read the rulings they sign onto? The court conservatives have zero interest in extending protections to LGBT folks but Roberts at least really doesn't want the court to appear partisan, so they keep finding procedural tricks to punt the cases. Masterpiece Cakeshop just nitpicked the fact that the lower courts were apparently too mean to the baker and so their rulings were vacated on procedural grounds. Likewise here instead of actually answering the question at hand (can you refuse service to somebody based on their sexual orientation on religious grounds?) they just told the lower courts to try again by using Masterpiece as guidance. As far as I can tell the current response to that is "Uh but Masterpiece didn't really offer any guidance, what the hell are the lower courts supposed to do????" Ditto for gerrymandering, except they had to tip their hand a bit in the Texas ruling. I half expect Trump vs Hawaii to be either an incredibly narrow ruling or a full on punt of the issue too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Reminder that Masterpiece isn't the court extending protection to LGBT people, the state of Colorado did that by statute so it's a done deal. The court is obviously reluctant to straight up overturn civil rights legislation but they appear to be signaling that they'll use every lame excuse in the book to block enforcement of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
It’s good to know that when Kennedy has to choose between religion and gay rights he’s going to just punt in the dumbest way
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's really depressing knowing we're all smarter than the president and at least one supreme court justice. Two, unless Thomas quit today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reminder that Masterpiece isn't the court extending protection to LGBT people, the state of Colorado did that by statute so it's a done deal. You mean the exact thing they did with Shelby County, using some of the biggest bullshit hand-waving excuses since Bush v. Gore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Masterpiece Cakeshop just nitpicked the fact that the lower courts were apparently too mean to the baker and so their rulings were vacated on procedural grounds. Also, the case was reversed, agreeing with the baker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Two, unless Thomas quit today. Thomas is an intelligent man who happens to be from a parallel universe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You mean the exact thing they did with Shelby County, using some of the biggest bullshit hand-waving excuses since Bush v. Gore? Yeah that was pretty much the same deal. Obviously they didn't want to rule "congress can't protect people's right to vote" so they just came up with some bullshit "well this specific way congress is doing it is mean to bigots so you need to find a different way". Effectively blocking enforcement of the VRA by invalidating the pre-clearance formula, but not overturning the entire law. Although my point was: Masterpiece isn't a case where people are asking the Roberts court to come up with entirely new protected classes. The government of Colorado did that by statute, LGBT Coloradans already have that right, and the court is pulling some conservative judicial activism to keep the law from being enforced on anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's really depressing knowing we're all smarter than the president and at least one supreme court justice. Intelligence ranking time! In all honesty I think Roberts and Kagan are probably the smartest. Roberts is apparently great on wrangling personalities. I think Kagan probably has the purest intellectual power. Ginsburg, Breyer, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Thomas follow. That's not in any particular order. They're all perfectly within the band of acceptable intelligence of having to deal with Important Legal Topics. Like, this is your smart kid at law school territory--really good, but not superhuman. Kennedy and Alito. Ahem. After my scientific analysis, I see that you are throwing shade at Kennedy and Alito. This is acceptable. OH WAIT LET'S DO WRITING STYLES Kagan (especially after she got the new-justice jitters out of her system) Roberts, Thomas Gorsuch (especially after he got the new-justice jitters out of his system), Sotomayor Alito, Ginsburg (seriously, world, she is not a good writer) Breyer, Kennedy Fight me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Intelligence ranking time! Gorsuch's writing is really bad; he tries way too hard to sound informal. Kennedy's writing is also bad, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Thomas is an intelligent man who happens to be from a parallel universe. One where principles still matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
The principle of cashing your wife's wingnut welfare checks, maybe. E: Or sexually harassing women. Or sleeping on the job. He's reprehensible by every metric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
All time probably Hugo Black is the best. Edit: I made a fantasy Supreme Court when I was doing bar prep but it was a long time ago and I forget the lineup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Good decisions just released. E: Travel ban stands, some abortion thingy. Syzygy Stardust fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:Good decisions just released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They are going whole hog this term Upholding the constitution is their job every term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Justice Kennedy- A Colorado commission was mean to the bigots, therefore the bigots win Also Kennedy- Blatant anti-Muslim comments from the Trump Administration? Nothing to see here, move along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
in essence, kennedy just ruled that a stray comment that, if you squinted really hard, could be misinterpreted as animus against conservative christians is enough to overturn civil rights litigation, but the court can't look past the pretextually neutral explanation that follows years of overt animus that is explicitly connected to the pretextually neutral explanation roberts did take the opportunity to overrule korematsu though so there's that
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
#packthecourt
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Justice Kennedy- A Colorado commission was mean to the bigots, therefore the bigots win It’s almost like the constitution simultaneously protects the religious beliefs of citizens and empowers the president (within the bounds of enabling legislation) to protect those citizens despite the religious beliefs of their potential enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
axeil posted:#packthecourt Agreed, Trump and Mconnell should add a few with a quickness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
axeil posted:#packthecourt
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:Good decisions just released. ban yourself you dumb piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:It’s almost like the constitution simultaneously protects the religious beliefs of citizens and empowers the president (within the bounds of enabling legislation) to protect those citizens despite the religious beliefs of their potential enemies. remember when you were a massive racist in this thread and also others good times 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
the racist is blatantly trolling, just put him on ignore
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
I’d love to understand how making a non-medical clinic tell people it’s not a medical clinic is a First Amendment violation. Would the court hold that a non-lawyer that presented themselves as a lawyer had constitutional protection?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/team_mitch/status/1011615705568071681?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:roberts did take the opportunity to overrule korematsu though so there's that quote:Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting). I realize Korematsu is special but has the court ever done a "by the way..." like this before? It reminds me of the Futurama "double whammy decision" joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
out
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:I’d love to understand how making a non-medical clinic tell people it’s not a medical clinic is a First Amendment violation. Would the court hold that a non-lawyer that presented themselves as a lawyer had constitutional protection? If he had a sincerely held belief that god declared him a lawyer, who are we do deny him his religious liberty????
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:I’d love to understand how making a non-medical clinic tell people it’s not a medical clinic is a First Amendment violation. Would the court hold that a non-lawyer that presented themselves as a lawyer had constitutional protection? in literally any other context except another case where conservatives want the result for some ideological reason it's a 9-0 decision the other way
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
if they're gonna be a shithead can they at least be consistent. they can't say the commission used animus in its decision to strike it down and then not use the same reasoning with trump.
Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
It'll last until someone opens an ED clinic for aging men that ambush preaches the value of staying flaccid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1011619641167433728
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:I’d love to understand how making a non-medical clinic tell people it’s not a medical clinic is a First Amendment violation. Would the court hold that a non-lawyer that presented themselves as a lawyer had constitutional protection? That should depend on if it's an individual vs it being professional speech. But with this court, who knows. See the difference between stolen valor laws being unconstitutional but laws banning doctors from asking if their suicidal patient has guns being ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
thomas is a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
I'm sure the conservative justices will stick by the same logic when abortion clinics in conservative states sue over being forced by state laws to notify potential patients of alternatives to abo-ahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:if they're gonna be a shithead can they at least be consistent. they can't say the omission used animus in its decision to strike it down and then not use the same reasoning with trump. Was Obama (or FDR...) not allowed to refuse visas from countries he bombed, because that demonstrated animus? The abortion thing looks a bit dumb, but Trump v. Hawaii should have been 9-0 and it’s a disgrace that any judge ever ruled against the travel ban.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:44
|
|