|
So what does tea reading about 'states can't sue for indirect damages' foretell for student debt relief? Can the courts rule 'no you can't forgive debt'?
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
killer_robot posted:So what does tea reading about 'states can't sue for indirect damages' foretell for student debt relief? Can the courts rule 'no you can't forgive debt'? The modern Court can and will torture logical reasoning to get the result they want. I've given up the fiction they taught us in lawschool about the SCOTUS living by stare decisis and their decisions just be minor tweaks to new fact patterns that can be distinguished from previous holdings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 14:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The modern Court can and will torture logical reasoning to get the result they want. I've given up the fiction they taught us in lawschool about the SCOTUS living by stare decisis and their decisions just be minor tweaks to new fact patterns that can be distinguished from previous holdings. One thing that isn't talked about is that congress is letting the Court get away with this. This judicial calvinball could be put to a stop rapidly if Congress were capable of either passing new laws to explicitly repeal the judicial fiats the Court is enacting, or capable of appointing more members to the Court and thus putting the Calvinball members into the minority. But Congress isn't capable of doing either due to gridlock and Republicans, so the Court is unchecked with no effective limits on its power beyond public shaming. And so we are where we are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
Name Change posted:
the people who are asking to stop looking probably know one of their idiot friends messed up and could open them up to SOMETHING whether its criminal or civil or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:the people who are asking to stop looking probably know one of their idiot friends messed up and could open them up to SOMETHING whether its criminal or civil or whatever. There is video evidence of thomas or alito taking a sack of cash from one of their billionaire "buddies" on one of those outings, you know the one thing they said is actual evidence of bribery that actually counts for certain. I mean that would be the one thing I could see actually causing changes to happen if that exists and comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:So what does tea reading about 'states can't sue for indirect damages' foretell for student debt relief? Can the courts rule 'no you can't forgive debt'? It means that when abortion is outlawed at the federal level states can’t sue. Same for any “fugitive” act laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
Oh. Even better >_<
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:So what does tea reading about 'states can't sue for indirect damages' foretell for student debt relief? Can the courts rule 'no you can't forgive debt'? The courts can rule whatever they want. However, this is likely a signal to the states that the courts aren't necessarily going to play along with them making up the thinnest possible pretenses to drag half of federal law into the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1145/269676/20230623120226789_Sosa%20Amicus%20in%20Support%20of%20Petitioner%20FINAL.pdfquote:BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE DAVID SOSA, DAVID SOSA, DAVID SOSA, DAVID SOSA, & THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER DAVID SOSA
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
I've had clients arrested for sharing the same name and similar date of birth by local police in Georgia. The entire 11th circuit being ok with taking multiple days to confirm the actual presence of the subject of a warrant is hosed up. I hope David Sosa gets his petition granted so that David Sosa, David Sosa, David Sosa and David Sosa (and ~915 other David Sosas) can go to Disney without fear. With this court, they'll probably apply the 11th's decision to every circuit though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I've had clients arrested for sharing the same name and similar date of birth by local police in Georgia. The entire 11th circuit being ok with taking multiple days to confirm the actual presence of the subject of a warrant is hosed up. I hope David Sosa gets his petition granted so that David Sosa, David Sosa, David Sosa and David Sosa (and ~915 other David Sosas) can go to Disney without fear. Are there really so many David Sosa's in America? I realize there are more than 330 million Americans, but even so, there being 919 David Sosa's doesn't sound right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 10:06
|
|
|
Yep. You would be amazed. I used to work for the U.S. Passport Agency with the Dept of State. We had to ID people with the same name and birthday all the time by ging down to place of birth or even deeper. Less common names are more common than one would think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
Hell, when I was still managing bars, we'd run into this all the time. We'd scan a card to get a name for the tab, 90% of cards would default to Lastname/Firstname. It was exceedingly common to see things like Smith/John, but at least once a month we'd have 2 folks in with the same exact name and have to figure out another way to differentiate between their tabs. Rarely a problem that couldn't be dealt with, but the funniest was when it was 2 Russian last names that went over the character limit, apparently 2 brothers, who both started tabs and rang up an absolutely ridiculous number of drinks. Luckily they were cool once we explained that we had no good way to differentiate and didn't realize until it was too late, so we just merged and split in 50%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Saying someone is “one in a million” means there are like at least over three hundred others like them in the US and ~8000 in the world. There are a lot of humans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Are there really so many David Sosa's in America? The brief calls out that there are over 17,000 John Roberts in the US. There are a lot of people in the US and the scale can really gently caress up perceptions. See also just how "unique" fingerprinting is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Yep. You would be amazed. I used to work for the U.S. Passport Agency with the Dept of State. We had to ID people with the same name and birthday all the time by ging down to place of birth or even deeper. Less common names are more common than one would think. And of course for extra fun, databases sometimes have typos and mistakes and variations in spelling, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if someplace official had my patronymic listed as a middle-name (which I don't do, but who knows what I had in my papers when immigrating a pre-teen?), for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:And of course for extra fun, databases sometimes have typos and mistakes and variations in spelling, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if someplace official had my patronymic listed as a middle-name (which I don't do, but who knows what I had in my papers when immigrating a pre-teen?), for example. I believe the no-fly list in the US has also had a ton of issues with people being denied flights due to sharing a name with someone on the list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
My buddy from college Osama Bin Laden really got hosed by that other Osama Bin Laden. Thanks, Osama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I believe the no-fly list in the US has also had a ton of issues with people being denied flights due to sharing a name with someone on the list. One of those people was a certain T Kennedy. Turns out names don't even need to completely match.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I believe the no-fly list in the US has also had a ton of issues with people being denied flights due to sharing a name with someone on the list. Khalid El-Masri was kidnapped, tortured, and imprisoned for four months by the CIA because he shared a name with an al qaeda member
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Court declines to intervene in the challenge for skirt mandate in an NC charte school. Surprising but very nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1673696004179197953?t=D0xdEGO8GFabnH8WVx0xqw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
moore v harper dropped, and well, i'll just let amy howe from scotusblog sum it up:quote:In this major election case, a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts – barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature. In April, the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new 5-2 Republican majority, reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it lacked the power to review the challenges to the map. The court first holds that it has the power to review the case despite the subsequent NC Supreme Court decision. The court next holds that the elections clause "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review." "The reasoning we unanimously embraced in Smiley [v. Holm] commands our continued respect," Roberts writes. "A state legislature may not 'create congressional districts independently of' requirements imposed 'by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws.'" The court says at the end that when they are interpreting state law, "state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon" the legislature's role under the elections clause. But the Supreme Court is not deciding whether that happened in this case. 6-3, roberts, sotomayor, kagan, kavanaugh, barrett, jackson vs thomas, alito, and gorsuch against. basically sounds like a "knock this poo poo off you idiots" ruling, tbh. ends any thread of that independent state legislature poo poo, at least Craig K fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Piell posted:https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1673696004179197953?t=D0xdEGO8GFabnH8WVx0xqw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
6-3, but thomas's dissent was "why is this even here it's moot as hell", so 7-2 against ISL theory, i guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
That's a shockingly good ruling. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Trump's theories on how he could overturn an election have all pretty much been swatted down in the courts right with this one? This would have theoretically allowed a state legislature to ignore the state constitution on how to apportion electors and let them override the will of the people. With this ruling they can't do that either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
So we're likely to get the student loan rulings on Thursday then? I'm guessing it'll probably be the last thing they announce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:So we're likely to get the student loan rulings on Thursday then? I'm guessing it'll probably be the last thing they announce. https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1673698336728129537
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:So we're likely to get the student loan rulings on Thursday then? I'm guessing it'll probably be the last thing they announce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
Craig K posted:6-3, but thomas's dissent was "why is this even here it's moot as hell", so 7-2 against ISL theory, i guess This is an odd summary which makes it sound like Thomas wrote a separate dissent only about mootness. There’s only one dissenting opinion in this case, by Thomas, and it has three parts: first he says the case is moot, then he agrees with the ISL theory, then he casts doubt on whether the federal courts can review state election law at all. Gorsuch joins that in full; Alito only joins the first part. So yeah, it’s 7-2 against the ISL, but of all people it’s Alito joining the majority on the merits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
So since the USSC said that courts do have the right to review congressional maps (among other things), how long until the NCSC reviews the matter of controversy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So since the USSC said that courts do have the right to review congressional maps (among other things), how long until the NCSC reviews the matter of controversy? Never - the case is in fact moot. However the problem there is that if the Supreme Court always had to dismiss a case when the current specific controversy becomes moot they wouldn’t actually decide anything so they often just gloss over that sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:This is an odd summary which makes it sound like Thomas wrote a separate dissent only about mootness. apologies i misread, you've got it
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Never - the case is in fact moot. However the problem there is that if the Supreme Court always had to dismiss a case when the current specific controversy becomes moot they wouldn’t actually decide anything so they often just gloss over that sometimes. Well, the case was made moot because the NCSC said "Oh, we don't actually have the right to review this stuff." The USSC said "Yeah actually, you do have the right, don't listen to those legislators talking out their asses."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Counterman v Colorado is a cyberstalking case where Counterman made hundreds of burner Facebook accounts to harass a local woman. His messages were very stalker-y, and some of them imagined harm to her, but the closest they got to being direct threats seems to have been saying “Die.” Colorado criminalizes “[r]epeatedly… mak[ing] any form of communication with another person… in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress”; the question is whether this is constitutional under the first amendment. Everyone accepts that there’s an exception to the freedom of speech for “true threats”, but what is the mens rea standard for threatening speech? There are four options: there could be no requirement of mens rea, as Colorado argues, and it should be sufficient to prove that a reasonable person would find the speech threatening; or there could be a requirement of recklessness, a conscious disregard for the risk of harm; or there could be a requirement of knowledge of almost certain harm; or there could be a requirement of purpose, a conscious intent to cause harm. Previous rulings about other exceptions have required mens rea, but the standard differs: incitement requires intent, but defamation requires only recklessness. The majority (Kagan, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson) argues that mens rea is necessary to avoid chilling speech, but that recklessness is a sufficient standard for most of these first amendment exceptions, and incitement is specifically an exception because of its natural proximity to political speech. Sotomayor and Gorsuch would not reach this question because Counterman’s behavior should not be understood as pure speech and so should have a lower standard; they are also concerned about setting the mens rea as low as recklessness, and Sotomayor (alone) goes so far as to argue intent is the right standard. Barrett and Thomas would not require mens rea at all, and Thomas writes separately to complain about NYT v Sullivan.
rjmccall fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jun 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:This is an odd summary which makes it sound like Thomas wrote a separate dissent only about mootness. Just as Roberts is a (not really) loser for the conservative court getting all the power but losing its prestige, so too is a Thomas a (not really) loser for no longer being able to make a mark with his insane 8-1 dissents lambasting the court for not going far enough to repeal civil rights or recognize the rights of vice principals to cavity search schoolgirls etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, the case was made moot because the NCSC said "Oh, we don't actually have the right to review this stuff." The USSC said "Yeah actually, you do have the right, don't listen to those legislators talking out their asses." I thought that was a second case but I guess technically not because the NCSC just went back and undid their previous decision? The shenanigans with this case are very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They’re going to drop affirmative action and/or student loans on their way out of town
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, they like to do that. They're already on their billionaire friends planes to a tropical island before the opinions are public so they're nowhere near the fallout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 17:27
|
|