|
Potato Salad posted:It's sometimes hard to remember that, in the Third Reich, the Holocaust was fastidiously legal. Uh actually I don't think it was? There's a few threads on /r/askhistorians that dispute this heavily.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Uh actually I don't think it was? There's a few threads on /r/askhistorians that dispute this heavily. They bought every Jew a one-way train ticket to Poland, after negotiating prices with the Reichsbahn, with lots of squabbling about costs. Can't go on train without a ticket!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 07:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Uh actually I don't think it was? There's a few threads on /r/askhistorians that dispute this heavily. The existence and scope of an explicit extermination campaign however was unofficial, covert, and censored in the media. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jun 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
I think there's also some confusion between the actual, 'we are going to do X and anyone who says different can go join the gays and commies' and the bureaucratic state that worked as well as it could to ensure they did X in a way that kept everything nice and legal. Throw a few antisemites/random fascist cause enthusiasts who wanted to ensure there were laws to enforce their hatreds and that whole mishmash suddenly looks something like people who are fastidiously legal. Rather than fascists who don't care and a lot of officials who thought they could do horrific things if they had a legal cover. One of the most controversial aspects of the Nuremberg trials was the argument that just because your national legal system said something was ok didn't mean it was morally horrific and you shouldn't hang for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
Only one opinion today. Disgorgement of profits is authorized in some SEC actions, which makes basic common sense. 8-1 sotomayor writing with thomas dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Only one opinion today. Disgorgement of profits is authorized in some SEC actions, which makes basic common sense. 8-1 sotomayor writing with thomas dissenting. Hunh I wonder why he dissented quote:The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended in 2005, allows the SEC to request “equitable relief ” in federal district court against those who violate federal securities laws. §78u(d)(5). According to our usual interpretive convention, “equitable relief ” refers to forms of equitable relief available in the English Court of Chancery at the time of the founding. Because disgorgement is a creation of the 20th century, it is not properly characterized as “equitable relief,” and, hence, the District Court was not authorized to award it under §78u(d)(5) 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented SEC awarding shareholders the right of prima noctae and damages payable sheep
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented Yup, that's Thomas all right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented fool of sound posted:Yup, that's Thomas all right.  This is a particularly good one. Thanks VS, I probably wouldn't have looked into this because (as pointed out) this is a no-brainer decision that no laypeople especially care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
It's wild that the dumbest justice ever and the weirdest justice ever are serving on the same court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Thomas has gotta hold a record for concurring opinions on either side of the opinion or dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Jesus Christ Surely he'll be quoting Roman statutes next
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Yup, that's Thomas all right. Thomas's dissents in 8-1s are always amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Question - are these Reader's Digest versions too long (should I try to condense the arguments yet more), or is this about right to give a sense of the arguments that are in play? Opinion! LIU ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Holding / Majority Opinion (Sotomayor): In administrative proceedings [for securities fraud], the [Securities and Exchange Commission, or “SEC”] can seek limited civil penalties and “disgorgement.”... See, e.g., §78u(d)(5) (“In any action or proceeding brought or instituted by the Commission under any provision of the securities laws, . . . any Federal court may grant . . . any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors”)...Congress did not define what falls under the umbrella of “equitable relief.” Thus, courts have had to consider which remedies the SEC may impose as part of its §78u(d)(5) powers. … Liu sent a private offering memorandum to prospective investors, pledging that the bulk of any contributions would go toward the construction costs of a cancer-treatment center. The memorandum specified that only amounts collected from a small administrative fee would fund “‘legal, accounting and administration expenses.’” An SEC investigation revealed, however, that Liu spent nearly $20 million of investor money on ostensible marketing expenses and salaries, an amount far more than what the offering memorandum permitted and far in excess of the administrative fees collected. The investigation also revealed that Liu diverted a sizable portion of those funds to personal accounts and to a company under Wang’s [his wife’s] control. Only a fraction of the funds were put toward a lease, property improvements, and a proton-therapy machine for cancer treatment. The SEC brought a civil action against petitioners, alleging that they violated the terms of the offering documents by misappropriating millions of dollars. The District Court found for the SEC, granting an injunction barring petitioners from participating in the EB–5 Program and imposing a civil penalty at the highest tier authorized. It also ordered disgorgement equal to the full amount petitioners had raised from investors, less the $234,899 that remained in the corporate accounts for the project. Petitioners objected that the disgorgement award failed to account for their business expenses. … We granted certiorari to determine whether §78u(d)(5) authorizes the SEC to seek disgorgement beyond a defendant’s net profits from wrongdoing. … Equity courts have routinely deprived wrongdoers of their net profits from unlawful activity, even though that remedy may have gone by different names. … While equity courts did not limit profits remedies to particular types of cases, they did circumscribe the award in multiple ways to avoid transforming it into a penalty outside their equitable powers. For one, the profits remedy often imposed a constructive trust on wrongful gains for wronged victims. ... Equity courts also generally awarded profits-based remedies against individuals or partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing, not against multiple wrongdoers under a joint-and-several liability theory. … Finally, courts limited awards to the net profits from wrongdoing, that is, “the gain made upon any business or investment, when both the receipts and payments are taken into the account.”...The Court has carved out an exception when the “entire profit of a business or undertaking” results from the wrongful activity. … By incorporating these longstanding equitable principles into §78u(d)(5), Congress prohibited the SEC from seeking an equitable remedy in excess of a defendant’s net profits from wrongdoing. To be sure, the SEC originally endeavored to conform its disgorgement remedy to the commonlaw limitations in §78u(d)(5). Over the years, however, courts have occasionally awarded disgorgement in three main ways that test the bounds of equity practice: by ordering the proceeds of fraud to be deposited in Treasury funds instead of disbursing them to victims, imposing joint-andseveral disgorgement liability, and declining to deduct even legitimate expenses from the receipts of fraud. The SEC’s disgorgement remedy in such incarnations is in considerable tension with equity practices. … Applying the principles discussed above to the facts of this case, petitioners briefly argue that their disgorgement award is unlawful because it crosses the bounds of traditional equity practice in three ways: It fails to return funds to victims, it imposes joint-and-several liability, and it declines to deduct business expenses from the award. Because the parties focused on the broad question whether any form of disgorgement may be ordered and did not fully brief these narrower questions, we do not decide them here. … For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [I.e., reducing the amount for business expenses, seeing if Wang’s liability is appropriate, etc.] Lineup: Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Dissent by Thomas. Dissent (Thomas): The Court correctly declines to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the District Court’s disgorgement order, but I disagree with the Court’s decision to vacate and remand for the lower courts to “limi[t]” the disgorgement award. Disgorgement can never be awarded under 15 U. S. C. §78u(d)(5). That statute authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek only “equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors,” and disgorgement is not a traditional equitable remedy. Thus, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended in 2005, allows the SEC to request “equitable relief ” in federal district court against those who violate federal securities laws. According to our usual interpretive convention, “equitable relief ” refers to forms of equitable relief available in the English Court of Chancery at the time of the founding. Because disgorgement is a creation of the 20th century, it is not properly characterized as “equitable relief,” and, hence, the District Court was not authorized to award it under §78u(d)(5). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
The busiest people in the supreme court have got to be the clerks for Justice Thomas. They don't get to just sign onto many opinions, they always have to write really weird concurrences and dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thomas's dissents in 8-1s are always amazing. "The Code of Hammurabi, both establishing original precedent for the criminal nature of homicide and established before the ratification of the Constitution, does not apply to modern law. In the case Trump v Street Vendor Guild of New York City involving the wrongful categorization of the death of a street vendor on 5th Avenue as murder..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:So do Thomas' clerks help him write these or do they just fill the man's bong and periodically check up on him? I'm sure the finest law schools of America are churning out plenty of FedSoc acolytes who actually agree with Thomas' insane legal philosophy, so presumably they're helping write the opinions with gusto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
I know a lawyer friend who used to work for Thomas. Like apparently he doesn't realize/see himself as black and that a half a century ago he wouldn't have been able to marry his wife. He's apparently literally brainwashed himself into thinking that he is anything but a stooge for rich whites because he sees himself as one now? I got the impression that my friend thinks his brain is literal mush from their time with him. I guess he'll live for a very long time without spending a lot calories up top. jeeves fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The busiest people in the supreme court have got to be the clerks for Justice Thomas. They don't get to just sign onto many opinions, they always have to write really weird concurrences and dissents. And you can't just poo poo something out about applesauce like Scalia's clerks did either, you have to dig up a copy of "𝔜e Olde Baron Lord High Chancery Judge Chesterton Titmoore Fippleworth's Legal Treatyse Upon Chickenfucking and Hating Welshies, Annals of the Kyngdomme of Englandde Vol XII" and then decode the best schoolboy Latin of some wig-wearing foof who's the product of ten generations of aristocrats marrying their own nieces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I know a lawyer friend who used to work for Thomas. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Thomas said cross burning could be unilaterally held unconstitutional bc it was terrorism and that you could ban sons of confederacy license plates bc they were racist, on the opposite side of his white conservative associates Dude is very conservative and originalist, but i don’t buy he doesn’t recognize that he is black or that he’s brainwashed
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Question - are these Reader's Digest versions too long (should I try to condense the arguments yet more), or is this about right to give a sense of the arguments that are in play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Yeah Thomas is way more kooky than to be so easily explained off as an Uncle Thomas. Sometimes he's a little wild even by mainstream conservative political movement standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Thomas mostly just rejects the idea of laws being shaped over time by interpretation and precedent. Which is, you know, insane when you're a supreme court judge who explicitly does those things. Textualism except also ruling don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Thomas mostly just rejects the idea of laws being shaped over time by interpretation and precedent. Which is, you know, insane when you're a supreme court judge who explicitly does those things. If you read Thomas' opinion on that SEC case it lays out pretty much his entire judicial philosophy. Disgorgement is a made-up concept by twentieth century judges and therefore obviously a bullshit illegitimate powergrab, unlike these other made-up concepts by sixteenth century judges those are fine apply them forever. I don't really know why he believes this but if I had to guess it would be some theory about government deriving from the consent of the governed, the American people consented to be bound by pre-1780s English legal precedent when they ratified the constitution (let's just ignore that the constitution doesn't actually, ya know, say that, and let's ignore all the people who didn't get a vote like women, slaves, native Americans, poor people), but nobody consented to any judicial precedent after that so only the people's representatives in Congress can change or add to old-rear end precedents by passing statutes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
It’s a historical distinction between legal and equitable remedies stemming from when we had two literally separate court systems. The distinction comes up all loving over the place (because civil actions don’t have a jury trial right unless they’re actions at law - no jury for equitable actions) so his dissent wouldn’t be insane - a statute authorizing equitable remedies shouldn’t be read to authorize legal remedies. The statute doesn’t say “the SEC may order disgorgement”, it says all equitable remedies, so the question of whether it’s an equitable remedy is important. And the way we figure out if something is legal or equitable starts with looking at how courts at ratification would have conceived the action, or most closely analogized it. And Thomas’s problem is that the courts at ratification would have seen disgorgement as effectively an accounting for profits action, which is a core form of equitable action. So he chooses to ignore the “or analogized it” portion of that test to complain about how disgorgement isn’t the same as accounting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Question - are these Reader's Digest versions too long (should I try to condense the arguments yet more), or is this about right to give a sense of the arguments that are in play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 07:16
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I know a lawyer friend who used to work for Thomas. My understanding is that this is the opposite of what he believes. Corey Robin has a relatively new book out on Clarence Thomas that I've been meaning to read, but in it Robin asserts that Thomas was really active in Black Nationalists movements as a young man, and as a judge "Thomas assumes that racism and white supremacy is ineradicable in America. It’s a permanent feature of the American condition... For Thomas, it means that there’s an assumption among white liberals that the job of the American ruling class through the state is to improve the lot of African Americans and to use the state to rectify these past injustices. And Thomas just doesn’t believe that it’s impossible to remedy these injustices, he also believes that the acts of paternalism end up perpetuating the injustices". interview link. Robin isn't any more of an authority on Thomas than any other writer, and doesn't have any privileged information, so take this all with a grain of salt, but Thomas' views are pretty complicated and idiosyncratic - this account from your friend diminishes them quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It’s a historical distinction between legal and equitable remedies stemming from when we had two literally separate court systems. Tennessee still does, along with Delaware and Mississippi (as of 2009-ish when I was in law school)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
The idea that liberalism fosters dependence of black people is just a bog standard claim and you have to be an idiot to fall for it. That interview reminds me of the TERF/SWERF to conservative pipeline, where really what is revealed is that the person was kind of a brutal person all along, and they need the oppression to be true to give their view any meaning Perhaps analogously Thomas wants black people to suffer and die, he needs it to keep his dizzying moral high ground.
Sax Solo fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:40
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Tennessee still does, along with Delaware and Mississippi (as of 2009-ish when I was in law school) Georgia also sort of does - if you want an equitable remedy then you have to go to superior court, but if you want a legal remedy you can sue for any amount in state court. Disgorgement is very much a legal remedy in Georgia as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Thomas mostly just rejects the idea of laws being shaped over time by interpretation and precedent. Which is, you know, insane when you're a supreme court judge who explicitly does those things. Time to find a true originalist. Code of Ur-Nammu or get out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 13:42
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Tennessee still does, along with Delaware and Mississippi (as of 2009-ish when I was in law school) Confirmed MS still does, and for VA and a lot of other states merging law and equity is hardly ancient history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
It went from Thomas “has weird opinion about disgorgement and the development of common law” to “he’s a self hating black man who wants blacks people to suffer”
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It’s a historical distinction between legal and equitable remedies stemming from when we had two literally separate court systems. The distinction comes up all loving over the place (because civil actions don’t have a jury trial right unless they’re actions at law - no jury for equitable actions) so his dissent wouldn’t be insane - a statute authorizing equitable remedies shouldn’t be read to authorize legal remedies. The statute doesn’t say “the SEC may order disgorgement”, it says all equitable remedies, so the question of whether it’s an equitable remedy is important. Can you explain why he believes only judicial precedent that existed when the constitution was ratified counts? that's what I always find baffling, that it's not like he's opposed to all judicial precedent and believes courts should apply the precise wording of the statute without regard for how previous cases have construed the wording, he cites judicial precedent from 1670 or whatever, he just seems to believe that there was a cutoff at some point (1776? 1787? 1861? 1900?) and no more precedents after that are allowed
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Thomas lied about his sister being a welfare leech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can you explain why he believes only judicial precedent that existed when the constitution was ratified counts? Thomas believes that the Constitution, at the time of its ratification, embodied a particular public view of what it meant. And so, to figure out what a constitutional provision means, you should always look at the historical “original” understanding of the ratifiers. So ratification fixes the meaning of the constitution at that time, and later precedents that are inconsistent with that original meaning are just wrong and should be corrected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thank you for this post. When the constitution was ratified the United States courts adapted then extant British common law. Thomas doesn't believe that common law from anything beyond that point should be adopted. Rather any changes to the common law must be done via the legislature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 18:04
|
|