|
FAUXTON posted:I'm more mad about "the right to exclude" That’s really just a legalese thing - fundamentally property is defined as a set of rights but the core right is the right to tell someone else they can’t use it. Kaiser Aetna has a typical statement on this: “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property—the right to exclude others.” Gorsuch is a property rights fundamentalist so it’s unsurprising he’d use that as a hypo.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:51, same procedure Republicans used to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch I feel like I was exceedingly clear: Raenir Salazar posted:And no, "by abolishing the filibuster!" isn't a credible option. Nuclear option to change the rules to allow reauthorization via simple majority isn't on the table than abolishing the filibuster is because they are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Look, justices, if you’re going to make arguments via absurdity, I suggest actually making them absurd. I'd kinda respect the current court more if they stopped trying to justify their rulings with arguments. Just rule by fiat, it's what you're doing anyway. Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel like I was exceedingly clear: Then we agree: it's a good thing the Democrats aren't doing anything about it because that's too risky and are instead following the very wise strategic electoral strategery strategy of letting Republicans suppress the Democratic vote everywhere they can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then we agree: it's a good thing the Democrats aren't doing anything about it because that's too risky and are instead following the very wise strategic electoral strategery strategy of letting Republicans suppress the Democratic vote everywhere they can. The solution isn't to play calvinball, but to encourage people to vote in larger majorities with clear mandates; and not just changing the rules when they lose; but I suspect this isn't actually in the scope of the SCOTUS thread; since it isn't actually discussing any kind of law, ruling, or legal analysis and probably should be in USPol or any of the other threads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The solution isn't to play calvinball, but to encourage people to vote in larger majorities with clear mandates; and not just changing the rules when they lose; but I suspect this isn't actually in the scope of the SCOTUS thread; since it isn't actually discussing any kind of law, ruling, or legal analysis and probably should be in USPol or any of the other threads. Try the electoralism thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Hey so if the court can force that one guy to be prescribed horse paste why cant i force them to prescribe me heroin
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
E: ok
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
only John Roberts gets the benefit of doubt when it comes to preserving the appearance of legitimacy I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Hey so if the court can force that one guy to be prescribed horse paste why cant i force them to prescribe me heroin You can force them to fill a prescription not to write a prescription. See if America's Front Line Doctors will write you a heroin script or if they only do dewormers VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Hey so if the court can force that one guy to be prescribed horse paste why cant i force them to prescribe me heroin My assumption is that there would need to be some kind of fig leaf in which there is an illness you're suffering that (a) only heroine is available in sufficient quantities (b) shows evidence that it can help in treatment in some sort of potentially life saving way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:My assumption is that there would need to be some kind of fig leaf in which there is an illness you're suffering that (a) only heroine is available in sufficient quantities (b) shows evidence that it can help in treatment in some sort of potentially life saving way. Ivermectin fails that tho, so i think vital signs is right, i just need a doctor to write a script for it It is a shame idk any doctors whod do that for me, alas
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
The fig leaf presumably is that there were "studies" somewhere that said it was effective to treat covid; and they also presumably found studies that casted enough doubt or sufficiently muddied the waters about the vaccine? That would be how it succeeds but heroine doesn't; I don't think a doctor wrote a prescription for worm deworming either. e: apparently a doctor did write a prescription, well then. What remains is there is a presumed difference between the legitimacy of a medical drug for horses and a recreational one for humans. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:only John Roberts gets the benefit of doubt when it comes to preserving the appearance of legitimacy I guess It's truly insane just how well John Roberts polls. It's probably because 90% of the country gives zero fucks about the SCOTUS and they see "chief justice" and figure he's fine, but goddamn he's probably the most nakedly political justice on the court. Sure, Alito and Thomas are worse people but they give zero fucks about trying to play themselves off as legitimate jurists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd kinda respect the current court more if they stopped trying to justify their rulings with arguments. Just rule by fiat, it's what you're doing anyway. Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining. The increasing "shadow docket" is pretty much them doing this imo. Don't bother hearing or writing actual arguments, don't bother signing your name to it, just rule the way you want in the middle of the night and drag the rest of the country along with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The increasing "shadow docket" is pretty much them doing this imo. Don't bother hearing or writing actual arguments, don't bother signing your name to it, just rule the way you want in the middle of the night and drag the rest of the country along with you. "Since these are unsigned we have no way to confirm the validity of the order, therefore until we have signed rulings from members of the court we will continue as-is."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Since these are unsigned we have no way to confirm the validity of the order, therefore until we have signed rulings from members of the court we will continue as-is."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Appealing up to the supreme court to force hospitals to write prescriptions for Bofa
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Since these are unsigned we have no way to confirm the validity of the order, therefore until we have signed rulings from members of the court we will continue as-is." They’re issued per curiam (“by the court”) and come by the same mechanism as any other court opinion. You might as well argue “well how do we know John Roberts really wrote the opinion so we’re going to ignore it.” poo poo you’d have better luck arguing the President’s independent obligation to faithfully execute the law overrides SCOTUS, at least there’s a basis for that argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They’re issued per curiam (“by the court”) and come by the same mechanism as any other court opinion. You might as well argue “well how do we know John Roberts really wrote the opinion so we’re going to ignore it.” That's basically it. If the court can't be bothered to put their names and reasons to their decisions the executive can't be bothered to heed said ruling(s). If Roberts and co want to continue playing at being the ultimate authority of all things then they need to at least show their work, or lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Words are just symbols with no objective meaning, all meaning is created in the mind of the observer so to me this court order means only full communism is constitutional and I am using executive orders to carry out the court's will without delay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Roe will effectively be dead at midnight unless SCOTUS acts to block this very awful Texas abortion bill https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1432760389293518849?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Who would be saying this? Apparently "constitutional sheriffs" are a thing now, so apparently whomever declares themselves to be the local county warlord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:only John Roberts gets the benefit of doubt when it comes to preserving the appearance of legitimacy I guess https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1433034261381197830?s=20 Raenir Salazar posted:because its three co-equal branches of government It's not co-equal when the court can overturn legislation that was overwhelmingly passed without even making a constitutional argument. It's not just that Shelby County was a bad decision it's that it was a bad decision without even a hint of legitimate reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
So we can agree that Roe is officially dead now? The Court let a very very bad law in Texas stand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
I think we can go farther and put a stake through the heart of the concept of equal justice under the law. The private bounty system this law enacts is insane. Might as well just replace the court system with letters of marque.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think we can go farther and put a stake through the heart of the concept of equal justice under the law. The private bounty system this law enacts is insane. Might as well just replace the court system with letters of marque. But we're generally about to enter an era where states get to do what they want with (at a minimum) abortion, and almost certainly other things. So where you live and who is running your state government is going to lead to radically different outcomes, even more than now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So we can agree that Roe is officially dead now? The Court let a very very bad law in Texas stand. They haven't officially let it stand yet. They just let it go into effect. When they dismiss the entire suit and order the district court to dismiss it for lack of standing, then they will have let the very bad law stand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah...that's a whole separate issue I mean, in a sense sure, but in a sense it's the same issue. The current Supreme Court hasn't just overturned Roe; they've done so in a way that makes it very clear that our entire legal system is just Open Season for Fuckery now, and pretty much any crazy rear end thing any right wing legislature leans over and shits out against a wall will be allowed to stick. The next logical step will probably be allowing private bounties for suspected "voter fraud," so that anyone black or brown who tries to vote can get slapped with a million private lawsuits they'll have no means to defend against. Alternatively, watch how this unfolds: https://twitter.com/BryanFBoroughs/status/1433003460174176256?s=20 https://twitter.com/ACLU_SC/status/1432301261332824067?s=20 Think the federal courts are gonna overturn South Carolina's ban on mask mandates, just because of some piddling bullshit about "kids with disabilities" or a "mountain of child corpses" ? gently caress no. See, the legislature that passed this law was dominated by white males wearing flag pins, so the Constitution says what they say goes. Maybe we'll get a law establishing bounties for any business caught requiring a mask to enter. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, in a sense sure, but in a sense it's the same issue. The current Supreme Court hasn't just overturned Roe; they've done so in a way that makes it very clear that our entire legal system is just Open Season for Fuckery now, and pretty much any crazy rear end thing any right wing legislature leans over and shits out against a wall will be allowed to stick. I mean, they haven't overturned Roe yet. They have another case lined up from MS they'll used to gut what is currently left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I mean, they haven't overturned Roe yet. They have another case lined up from MS they'll used to gut what is currently left. Sure, but they've already knocked down nine pins. That's just picking up the spare. The real story is they did it by shouting out "hey, everybody on our team, walk down to the pins and kick them over" and then doing exactly that. Roe is the small story here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
The other thing about them not providing an injunction to stop the law going into effect is that even if they later do issue a ruling saying it goes too far, the effect of ending abortion in Texas will already be more or less accomplished. This is the kind of thing Roberts is good at. The Texas law goes into effect now and all abortion providers will have to shut down. If a year from now or two years from now or three years from now SCOTUS finally takes up the case and says "oh my, oh dear, this law does indeed go too far!" then Roberts gets to save his credibility with the people who give him positive approval ratings because they incorrectly think he's a reasonable moderate, but all the abortion clinics in Texas are already closed and you can bet a lot of them won't be able to reopen even if the law is eventually struck down. And then this: Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but they've already knocked down nine pins. That's just picking up the spare. The real story is they did it by shouting out "hey, everybody on our team, walk down to the pins and kick them over" and then doing exactly that. Roe is the small story here. comes into play as well, because by not stopping the law from going into effect they clearly communicate that it's open season for other states to try their own wacky stunts that will have drastic long-lasting effects even if SCOTUS eventually walks them back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Don't worry I'm sure this naked politicking by the conservative judiciary will cause the Democrats to actually get off of their asses and assert their authority as a co-equal branch. What's that? Democrats routinely have a higher approval of the SCOTUS than Republicans because they're happy with the occasional fig leaf while the Republicans won't settle for anything less than the entire tree and the country will continue its rightward death march? No, that can't be right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They haven't officially let it stand yet. They just let it go into effect. When they dismiss the entire suit and order the district court to dismiss it for lack of standing, then they will have let the very bad law stand. I read this thread as a layman. A decision overturning Roe by the SC wouldn't make abortion illegal right but throw it back to the states, right? Would this kind of inaction and then ignoring circuit court splits have the same general effect?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:I read this thread as a layman. A decision overturning Roe by the SC wouldn't make abortion illegal right but throw it back to the states, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:I read this thread as a layman. A decision overturning Roe by the SC wouldn't make abortion illegal right but throw it back to the states, right? Would this kind of inaction and then ignoring circuit court splits have the same general effect? They could issue a ruling that outlaws abortion partially/entirely if they felt like it. IE: "Roe was wrong and abortion is murder" as a ruling ends the right to abortion nationwide and in all cases. They and the GOP knows there will be zero meaningful resistance to any such ruling if they choose to make it as well and that law enforcement will happily enforce this against abortion providers, or sit back and let right wing mob violence against providers go unobstructed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So we can agree that Roe is officially dead now? The Court let a very very bad law in Texas stand. They can't really act until there is someone using this law to act against. The courts could act very quickly as soon as a clinic gets sued, but before that, the state isn't actually doing anything, so there's no government official to enjoin against enforcing the law. Before, when abortions were criminal, a clinic could ask the courts to instruct the government officials in charge of bringing criminal charges that they can't actually do that. In this case, there's no one to instruct, except maybe every private citizen in the entire state of Texas who may be dreaming of collecting a bounty. Well, the supreme court could act I guess because they can do whatever the hell they want, but it would be a massive change in their procedure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Why would they not be able to act when the state is outlawing abortions at 6 weeks? Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, the supreme court could act I guess because they can do whatever the hell they want, but it would be a massive change in their procedure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is it? How would it be different than them revoking the eviction moratorium, for example? Was there an active court case for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:27
|
|