|
Devor posted:Is it possible for California to pass a law establishing an express private cause of action against unlicensed pregnancy centers? It seems inherently unfair to the women looking for assistance with an abortion could be deceived in this manner. This thing sure does seem to flirt with con-as-free-speech, doesn't it?
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:This thing sure does seem to flirt with con-as-free-speech, doesn't it? I think more Free-Speech-As-Fraud Do we let people hold themselves out to be Dentists too, only to preach the benefits of letting your teeth rot to serve Baphomet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Armack posted:I'm wondering how the court will manage to exempt police unions in Janus. Any thoughts? Maybe they won't. Wasn't there like one day where police unions weren't exempt from the Wisconsin anti union stuff and for some mysterious reason on only that day the state police let the protesters into the capitol building?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
quote:The text says nothing about religion...Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. lol at a chief justice using the same terrible arguments right wing media did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:So we're pretty much 100% confirmed that Janus vs. AFSCME is going to be a 5-4 conservative slam dunk with the widest possible ruling to gently caress over public unions forever, right? Except police unions for ~~~reasons~~~
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
jfc a lot of poo poo coming down today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So the SCOTUS has been successfully hijacked by right wing assholes, right? And the best option the left has is got add a bunch of left wing justices once we’re in power? The best option would have been for Obama not to roll over when he had the one chance to do the recess appointment which would have forced Congress to effectively do a no confidence vote of the appointment a year later. Considering McConnell's entire strategy was to not have a vote on Garland because it wasn't a sure thing, that's kind of a big deal. evilweasel posted:yeah but democrats aren't getting 67 votes in the senate anytime soon, let alone a comfortable buffer to lose a vote or two to decorum and norms The justification for the ruling on Shelby vs Holder was reasonable. The fact that it also stopped all enforcement until Congress makes a move is lovely and gives justification impeachment for everyone in Congress that failed to immediately offer up a fix, but not the judges who ruled on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Taken from the California thread: The real cause of alarm here are those last few sentences, to wit "religious conviction is a constitutional basis for descrimination"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
nessin posted:The justification for the ruling on Shelby vs Holder was reasonable. The fact that it also stopped all enforcement until Congress makes a move is lovely and gives justification impeachment for everyone in Congress that failed to immediately offer up a fix, but not the judges who ruled on it. The Civil War Amendments specifically gave Congress the power to enforce them because the Supreme Court could not be trusted. Worse, the Civil War Amendments were passed, you know, after the Civil War and passed while the South was still under military occupation and so acting as if Congress's power in this area is limited by ~state dignity~ is so stupid that it defies description. There was no justification whatsoever for Shelby v. Holder and not only was it a wrong decision, it was an intentionally lawless decision. And Shelby v. Holder was decided while Republicans controlled the House and everyone knew they would not pass a new VRA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
My properly-ordained and registered religion's dogma includes the dehumanization of Republicans, please do the needful, thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Civil War Amendments specifically gave Congress the power to enforce them because the Supreme Court could not be trusted. Worse, the Civil War Amendments were passed, you know, after the Civil War and passed while the South was still under military occupation and so acting as if Congress's power in this area is limited by ~state dignity~ is so stupid that it defies description. There was no justification whatsoever for Shelby v. Holder and not only was it a wrong decision, it was an intentionally lawless decision. So you're saying the voting population of America in 2013 is identical to America in 1975 and that no court should ever make a decision where Congress is not expected to address the ruling via any sort of legislation. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
nessin posted:So you're saying the voting population of America in 2013 is identical to America in 1975 and that no court should ever make a decision where Congress is not expected to address the ruling via any sort of legislation. Got it. justice gorusch, get off the internet
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
nessin posted:The best option would have been for Obama not to roll over when he had the one chance to do the recess appointment which would have forced Congress to effectively do a no confidence vote of the appointment a year later. Considering McConnell's entire strategy was to not have a vote on Garland because it wasn't a sure thing, that's kind of a big deal. The main justification given was that Roberts felt the provisions Congress came up with were too out of date and that congress should reconsider. There are two problems with this justification. 1) The 15th amendment specifically says it is up to Congress to craft the legislation to enforce it 2) Congress had recently reauthorized the provisions and formula. There's no reason to suggest that a formula should itself go out of date and states can change to meet the requirements of it. So what is the logic to suggest the formula is "out of date" when Congress already went over it an reauthorized it? It is more hilarious because part of the logic Roberts used is basically "racism is over", which is loving laughable. Especially since we have seen voter rights erode heavily since the decision. Yeah, ultimately we can blame Congressional inaction for further problems; but Shelby County v Holder is one of those few decisions where I can say they got it completely wrong. Not so surprising though given that Roberts waited his whole career for the opportunity to gut the VRA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
nessin posted:So you're saying the voting population of America in 2013 is identical to America in 1975 and that no court should ever make a decision where Congress is not expected to address the ruling via any sort of legislation. Got it. Does anyone have the ironicat gif that just keeps growing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So now that korematsu is gone (rip) what should be my new favorite "holy lol this is still good law 50+ years later" case Are the Insular Cases still uncorrected?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Are the Insular Cases still uncorrected? Yep. Samoans are still "Non-citizen US Nationals" because of those cases
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
nessin posted:So you're saying the voting population of America in 2013 is identical to America in 1975 and that no court should ever make a decision where Congress is not expected to address the ruling via any sort of legislation. Got it. Congress addressed it in 2004 or whenever under Bush and deliberately reauthorized that formula after weeks of hearings and reams of testimony that yes the South is still racist af. This congressional determination was unambiguously shown to be incredibly obviously undeniably correct in the wake of Shelby County, as all those states started disenfranchising voters in less time than it takes to cook some proper Southern grits. E: Also what evilweasel said about the fact that the Reconstruction Amendments were passed to give congress the power to enforce black civil rights in states under military occupation which were forced to ratify those amendments at gunpoint, so it is absolutely ludicrous to rule that the framers of those amendments intended some kind of exception to civil rights to preserve states' honor against egregious (and completely true) insults over how loving racist they are. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Buck v. Bell. Skinner v. Oklahoma avoided overturning it by finding other (rather contrived) issues with a particular sterilization law. Hell yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Gorsuch lol they aren't doing poo poo. not that the democratic party doesn't suck poo poo, but heitkamp, manchin and donnelly is hardly what I'd call "democrats crossing the aisle" edit: also, it turns out joe manchin saved claire mccaskill's life a couple days ago by giving her the heimlich maneuver, breaking her rib in the process. that's not really relevant to anything, I just think it's a nice poetic addition to the story of the democrats in 2018. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/1011763541425221632 lmao this is one of the harshest things I've ever heard samuel say and it's 100% correct
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
ekeog posted:https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/1011763541425221632 He's faculty at harvard? He looks like he's about 16 years old
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
ekeog posted:https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/1011763541425221632 quote:Supreme Court lawyer; law professor; extremist centrist. Former Acting Solicitor General of United States. All views mine, no one else's. quote:extremist centrist. No kidding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:He's faculty at harvard? He looks like he's about 16 years old i looked and apparently he graduated undergrad in 05 which makes him significantly older than i thought. but also your career moves pretty quickly when you clerk for kozinski then scalia
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
ekeog posted:but also your career moves pretty quickly when you clerk for kozinski Though the direction it moves kinda depends on your gender.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Though the direction it moves kinda depends on your gender. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
ekeog posted:https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/1011763541425221632 It's a supreme court decision, like it or not it is the law of the land. And that should be changed. But if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, it is constitutional. It shouldn't be, I believe the decision is incorrect, but that still doesn't change that fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 03:54
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's a supreme court decision, like it or not it is the law of the land. Just like Dredd Scott Edit: It's perfectly fine to call it a garbage opinion issued by garbage human beings, celebrated only by other garbage-monsters Devor fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Are there any prior rulings on states refusing to implement citizen initiative laws that are against federal law? Specifically wondering if the Oklahoma state government has any way to fight against the just passed medical cannabis state question through the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Are there any prior rulings on states refusing to implement citizen initiative laws that are against federal law? given that the republican platform is the current incarnation of the constitution, I'm going to say yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Devor posted:Just like Dredd Scott Yes, Dredd Scott was constitutional until the 14th amendment. I'm not saying you can't? I'm just defending the statement, it's pretty loving scathing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's a supreme court decision, like it or not it is the law of the land. That's a pretty silly conceptualization of "constitutional", especially when the interpretations carry such massive internal inconsistencies. Supreme Court decisions are by nature arbitrary, so there is actual objective ground on which to call a decision "wrong". Insisting that "constitutional" refer only to mutable vagaries of court interpretation loses a lot it's impact. Most people understand that there are two competing meanings of "constitutional", but both have real meaning (and are useful rhetorical tools for reproaching SCOTUS when they are clearly out of line). Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Rose is right, imo. Normally what would happen next is that Congress would move to fix whatever the issue is (in this case legislating specific rules for what is considered national security w/r/t the INA) but lol at that happening with this legislature. E: this wasn't a constitutional issue though, since the government's argument was based on the INA, as was the wording of the majority opinion. Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:E: this wasn't a constitutional issue though, since the government's argument was based on the INA, as was the wording of the majority opinion. one of the core claims from the challengers was that Trump had violated the establishment clause, and Roberts' majority says in response that they aren't going to "probe the sincerity of the state justifications" for the travel ban because they are facially neutral and relate to an area of national security the president has broad authority over. so yeah it's a constitutional issue, they just adamantly refuse to reach it on the somewhat-terrifying grounds that Trump's third travel ban had some rational basis and wasn't blatantly anti-Muslim by the text alone if you exclude everything he said
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Roberts' recent ruling made it clear that the Supreme Court can make decisions that are unconstitutional, when he said Korematsu was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional when it was decided, it remained unconstitutional for 70 years, and it remains unconstitutional now that it's been formally repealed. The fact that it was the law of the land for a long time and the Supreme Court said it was allowed doesn't change the fact that it was and remains absurd to say that it actually aligned with the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's a supreme court decision, like it or not it is the law of the land. in the strictest sense yes but the supreme court can still be wrong (heller, citizens united, hobby lobby, shelby, etc are all based on nonsensical ideological arguments).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Yes, Dredd Scott was constitutional until the 14th amendment. I disagree that saluting the court and wiping away a proud tear in your eye as the court denies a group of people rights, is a particularly healthy thing to do. The Northern Reaction to Dredd Scott was pretty scathing, and I would be happy to see more scathing responses. This quote wouldn't be so out of place today quote:The first to publically react to the Dred Scott decision were Northerners, who wasted no time in reviling the decision in their newspapers. To Northerners, this decision was like a declaration of war on all of the ideals and freedoms awarded them by their states and territories, which stood opposed to the institution of slavery. Most articles published in Northern periodicals were in opposition to the decision, stating that it was the result of a slave power conspiracy that the Supreme Court belonged to, the other members of this conspiracy being President Buchanan and prominent Democratic politicians. The author of one Northern article even declared that since the Court's decision was the result of political corruption, it should be "regarded, throughout the Free States and wherever the pulse of Liberty beats, only as the votes of five slaveholders and two doughfaces upon a question where their opinion was not asked, and where their votes would not count."[21]
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I'm pretty sure Roberts' recent ruling made it clear that the Supreme Court can make decisions that are unconstitutional, when he said Korematsu was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional when it was decided, it remained unconstitutional for 70 years, and it remains unconstitutional now that it's been formally repealed. The fact that it was the law of the land for a long time and the Supreme Court said it was allowed doesn't change the fact that it was and remains absurd to say that it actually aligned with the constitution. Get off the Internet, Justice Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
We have 15 or so minutes left before Alito murders organized labor
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We have 15 or so minutes left before Alito murders organized labor Not all of it, just those parts engaged in a conspiracy against the public. Private unions who still have bankruptcy and motivated management to keep them in check will be fine. But gently caress Alito if fire/police unions avoid the axe, they’re the worst. E: https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1011972884569427969?s=21 Looks universally applicable. Syzygy Stardust fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Don't rub yourself raw with your hate fantasy. Or better yet, do.FlamingLiberal posted:We have 15 or so minutes left before Alito murders organized labor I predict some disappointment on the right as Alito stops just short of declaring being in a union a crime deserving execution. Except for cops of course. Blue Lives Matter
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:03
|
|