|
So why are they saving all of the high profile cases until the last minute?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So why are they saving all of the high profile cases until the last minute? They do that every year. I think it’s because the losing sides keep lobbying for changes and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Glad to know that loving over prisoners still has bipartisan support
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The court is supposed to rule on the text of the law. The text is very clear in this case. Very clearly intended to violate prisoner’s right to due process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
ulmont posted:They do that every year. I think it’s because the losing sides keep lobbying for changes and the like. Being a professional SCOTUS tea leaf reader must be miserable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The court is supposed to rule on the text of the law. The text is very clear in this case. Doesn't stop them when they care enough. See: Trump v Hawaii
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Very clearly intended to violate prisoner’s right to due process. Yes but the issue was whether something counted as a "strike" or not, not the constitutionality of the only "you get 3 free lawsuits" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Yes but the issue was whether something counted as a "strike" or not, not the constitutionality of the only "you get 3 free lawsuits" thing. The constitutionality of the law being applied should always be at issue and I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS can make it the issue by 5 votes whenever they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Yes but the issue was whether something counted as a "strike" or not, not the constitutionality of the only "you get 3 free lawsuits" thing. Holding that “without prejudice” dismissals count against the limit seems like it would very much affect the calculus, though. I assume some decision has upheld the law? It’s just such obvious discrimination built into our system where we repeatedly pretend that monetary barriers are somehow non-restrictive enough to avoid violating constitutional rights while simultaneously employing them with the intention of restricting access for those who can’t afford the fees. See: bail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
An Appeals Court threw out a bunch of qualified immunity claims today: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182142.P.pdf There's also a slew of qualified immunity cases pending before Supreme Court. There's a plausible chance that a lot of the police violence we're seeing right now might actually result in (civil) punishments for the officers involved. Judging from what they're doing on video, the police don't yet believe that's a real risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 10:09
|
|
|
What are the biggest decisions we can expect a 5v4 permanent conservatism forever and ever outcome on in the near future that we should prepare our buttholes for? Trump v. Vance / Deutsche Bank AG? California v. Texas? That fukken Louisiana abortion poo poo? edit - besides like every now decision I guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
The currently pending decisions on whether LGBTQIA+ people can be fired for being queer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What are the biggest decisions we can expect a 5v4 permanent conservatism forever and ever outcome on in the near future that we should prepare our buttholes for? It's just all of them that are left and have been argued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pending_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Oh man. California v Texas is 100% gonna be a 5-4 conservatives ruling that the ACA is completely dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
OniPanda posted:Oh man. California v Texas is 100% gonna be a 5-4 conservatives ruling that the ACA is completely dead. I have no idea what Roberts' calculus was on his prior ACA decisions but I think he knows "let's strike down the ACA and cause tens of millions to lose insurance during the onset of a potential depression and during a pandemic" might not mesh with his long term conservative theocracy goals given how angry people already are. I fully expect the conservatives to be ok with firing people for being queer, or not straight (and white) though, and that every QI case is going to have some hand-wringing about how sure, it's not in the Constitution but look at these riots and the cops are just trying to keep society intact. The SCOTUS will almost certainly rule 5-4 against anything that helps gut the EC (Colorado Department of State v. Baca) since any move towards a popular vote for POTUS is the death of the GOP without a political realignment in the US. I'll be shocked if the SCOTUS doesn't side with Trump in all of his personal info and subpoena lawsuits like Mazzars because lol gently caress precedent and accountability (when it's a Republican).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
WTF? If Thomas and Sotomayor want to revisit the issue, how can there not be a majority to at least hear a case on it? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-cases-over-qualified-immunity.html quote:Supreme Court declines to hear cases over legal doctrine shielding police from lawsuits
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Also shocked and happy they didn't take this case. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1272529562547691522
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:WTF? If Thomas and Sotomayor want to revisit the issue, how can there not be a majority to at least hear a case on it? Maybe they don't want to wade into it while Congress is actively discussing laws about it. It's not like the police are going to stop creating new cases they could take up later. You know, after dozens more people have been killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
I guess Kennedy got Gorsuch's assurance he'd vote his way on this issue. Really surprised. https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1272530127856046082
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Held: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. Gorsuch writing. 6/3
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Held: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. Gorsuch writing. 6/3 Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
The court's opinion is about 30 pages for the 3 combined cases. Alito disented for like 50 and then added a 50 page appendix of who knows what lmao. And there's a ~30 page dissent from justice beers as well. e: the appendixes are a bunch of dictionary definitions, a long list of statutes that "prohibit sex discrimination", and a bunch of military enlistment forms. idk what all that has to do with anything ee: OMG this platitude at the end of kavanaugh's dissent: "Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement" Meatbag Esq. fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Alito disented for like 50 and then added a 50 page appendix of who knows what lmao. According to a scotusblog commenter, it's 50 pages of uncompressed scans, which is probably why the servers are melting
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:The court's opinion is about 30 pages for the 3 combined cases. Alito disented for like 50 and then added a 50 page appendix of who knows what lmao. And there's a ~30 page dissent from justice beers as well. That would explain why it's such a large .pdf file.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I guess Kennedy got Gorsuch's assurance he'd vote his way on this issue. Really surprised. Gorsuch didn’t replace Kennedy. He just isn’t the doctrinaire conservative you think he is and never has been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
What were Gorsuch’s and Roberts saying about this case during arguments? Did it look like they would rule against it or were there clues in what they were saying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Kavanaugh’s dissent is dumb. He thinks this is Congress’ responsibility and that is why he is voting no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Gorsuch didn’t replace Kennedy. He just isn’t the doctrinaire conservative you think he is and never has been.  I think people can be forgiven for expecting Justice Plain Language to opine differently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kavanaugh’s dissent is dumb. He thinks this is Congress’ responsibility and that is why he is voting no. Very strange how the plain text of the law isn't good enough when it doesn't align with reactionary ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
So Gorsuch actually is Justice Plain Language instead of one that just uses it to tie into knots for his own opinions like Scalia? Gorsuch arrives at the conclusion he does because if two employees both have relationships with men and one is fired for it because they're also a man and one is not fired because they're a woman thats deciding based on sex to fire an employee. Thats... refreshingly simple for a conservative justice? hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So Gorsuch actually is Justice Plain Language instead of one that just uses it to tie into knots for his own opinions like Scalia? "Says here sex and not gender" would be what's expected. That said, yeah it's a refreshing if oblique way of approaching the issue! FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kavanaugh’s dissent is dumb. He thinks this is Congress’ responsibility and that is why he is voting no. It's dumb and lovely in a cowardly way, but it's very telling that even he feels the need to put a note in about congratulating LGBT people on the outcome to avoid looking like he was on the wrong side of history
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
After seeing conservatives use strict textualism as window dressing for their awful opinions for so long it is hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it's used against them for a change, by a vat-grown Federalist Society judge no less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
How on earth do we square Roberts joining the liberals in Bostock with his extremely lovely dissent in Obergefell? I thought Roberts hated LGBT+ people? From his Obergefell dissent: "...the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Because the text of Title VII is very clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Armack posted:How on earth do we square Roberts joining the liberals in Bostock with his extremely lovely dissent in Obergefell? I thought Roberts hated LGBT+ people? From his Obergefell dissent: "...the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?" Roberts is, at his core, a coward afraid of his legacy being bad. Also Title VII is honestly pretty obvious, even if congress didn't initially intend it it very clearly should apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Armack posted:How on earth do we square Roberts joining the liberals in Bostock with his extremely lovely dissent in Obergefell? I thought Roberts hated LGBT+ people? From his Obergefell dissent: "...the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?" Judges have much more freedom to impose their will on issues of Constitutional interpretation than they do on issues of statutory interpretation. This is why we want a Congress that actually does its job. No, I wouldn't hold my breath either. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia posted:During the course of the proceedings in these long running disputes, both Mr. Zarda and Ms. Stephens have passed away
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
on the one hand at-will employment means you don't have to say you're firing someone because they're trans on the other hand  https://twitter.com/ALABSeries/status/1272543664884142083
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
I wonder if they got Gorsuch on board with the decision, and once Roberts saw the liberal wing was going to win anyway, he decided to join the majority to give cover to his neutral court myth he wants to perpetuate? No use burning his neutrality cred on something that's already lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Not mad posted:The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “up date” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society. Totally not mad posted:The arrogance of this argument is breathtaking. As I will show, there is not a shred of evidence that any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Title VII was enacted. So which is it Sammy boy? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:48
|
|
