|
joeburz posted:actually she's wrong, and old This is correct.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
I hope that if Garland gets confirmed by a lame duck Congress after a full year of falsely calling Obama a lame duck president that people note the irony. Ah, who am I kidding
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Will hipsters laser their RBG tats over this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
newtestleper posted:Will hipsters laser their RBG tats over this? You just get a kneeling Kaepernick tat on the other arm. Sucks if you're not a Niner fan, but hey, that's life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Also, sucks if you are a niner fan, but that's more a general thing and not just a tattoo thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Also, sucks if you are a niner fan, but that's more a general thing and not just a tattoo thing. Damnit beaten to it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Pretty interesting case is being argued today, concerning whether a "no impeachment" rule violates the Sixth Amendment. The rule basically says that you can't have a juror testify about deliberations, which has the effect of precluding using post-verdict evidence of racial bias to challenge the Sixth Amendment sufficiency of the verdict because you can't use that evidence to say that the jury was biased in its deliberations. The question is whether that rule, in this particular case, violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury. Both sides have really compelling reasons why they should prevail, in my opinion, so I think the argument should be a good one. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pena-rodriguez-v-colorado/
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
joeburz posted:actually she's wrong, and old
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
it's funny how this thread is almost three years old and still has Scalia in the op
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's funny how this thread is almost three years old and still has Scalia in the op Being reminded that he died is one of the few pure things left in my life
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's funny how this thread is almost three years old and still has Scalia in the op That which is dead can never die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's funny how this thread is almost three years old and still has Scalia in the op We're still waiting on the senate to vote on a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's funny how this thread is almost three years old and still has Scalia in the op I see you haven't heard about this holiday season's big family comedy Ghost Justice
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I see you haven't heard about this holiday season's big family comedy Ghost Justice I heard it was pure applesauce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
We don't need any of this jiggery pokery from activist OPs. The SCOTUS Thread is not a living document, it is stone dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Is this something to be worried about? Federal court grants President power to remove CFPB director without cause
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is this something to be worried about? Sounds better than declaring the entire agency unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is this something to be worried about? His argument is based off of a Scalia dissent and is probably in conflict with actual SCOTUS jurisprudence, so it wouldn't shock me if the ruling is overturned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Is that ruling essentially "I think this person has to much power and the POTUS/Congress shouldn't have been allowed to appoint a single leader instead of a panel" or did I misread it? Because I'm not seeing the actual basis for why a position created through a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is just suddenly "too strong" in a way that would require it to be reshuffled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Pretty interesting case is being argued today, concerning whether a "no impeachment" rule violates the Sixth Amendment. The rule basically says that you can't have a juror testify about deliberations, which has the effect of precluding using post-verdict evidence of racial bias to challenge the Sixth Amendment sufficiency of the verdict because you can't use that evidence to say that the jury was biased in its deliberations. The question is whether that rule, in this particular case, violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury. Both sides have really compelling reasons why they should prevail, in my opinion, so I think the argument should be a good one. We really ought to get rid of jury trials imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Is that ruling essentially "I think this person has to much power and the POTUS/Congress shouldn't have been allowed to appoint a single leader instead of a panel" or did I misread it? Because I'm not seeing the actual basis for why a position created through a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is just suddenly "too strong" in a way that would require it to be reshuffled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judicial_decisions
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Pretty interesting case is being argued today, concerning whether a "no impeachment" rule violates the Sixth Amendment. The rule basically says that you can't have a juror testify about deliberations, which has the effect of precluding using post-verdict evidence of racial bias to challenge the Sixth Amendment sufficiency of the verdict because you can't use that evidence to say that the jury was biased in its deliberations. The question is whether that rule, in this particular case, violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury. Both sides have really compelling reasons why they should prevail, in my opinion, so I think the argument should be a good one. Mark Joseph Stern at Slate has a nice write-up of the proceedings in this case: The Supreme Court Debates Juror Bias Samuel Alito is a shitheel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:We really ought to get rid of jury trials imo Can't defendants waive their right to a jury trial and opt for a bench trial?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Can't defendants waive their right to a jury trial and opt for a bench trial? Not without consent from the plaintiff/prosecution. (Possibly state court trials have different rules but the above is true for federal trials.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Is this where we post hot takes about how bad juries are and do you want your future decided by people that can't get out of jury duty / I for one actually believe in juries and believe it is an important fundamental right
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
I'm not really impressed with Kagan's “[it's] just a different kind of harm” reasoning when the question came up of why someone should be able to pierce the secrecy surrounding jury proceedings over accusations of racial bias, but not other kinds of bias or misconduct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
What is the reasoning for jury deliberations being secret forever, by the way? The reasons I can think off dont seem to warrant needing that level, at most ten or twenty years under seal. And to this layman doesnt obviously flow from other legal principles/documents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not without consent from the plaintiff/prosecution. That's kind of odd. What's the rationale? The Sixth is a defendant protection, it seems a lot to offer to subject waving it consent from opposing counsel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not without consent from the plaintiff/prosecution. In Louisiana, the defendant cannot waive their right to a jury trial in a capital case. In a non-capital case, the defendant can unilaterally waive their right to a jury trial up until 45 days before trial; within 45 days of trial, a waiver requires the DA's consent. In Georgia waiving the right to a jury trial requires the prosecution's consent in all cases. Rygar201 posted:That's kind of odd. What's the rationale? The Sixth is a defendant protection, it seems a lot to offer to subject waving it consent from opposing counsel. The theory is that the defendant has the right to a jury trial, which may be waived, but does not have the right to a bench trial. "There is a difference in a defendant waiving a right he possesses, and in demanding a privilege for which there is no right provided."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
If Garland (or someone else in the new year) gets confirmed, what are some things the lawyers itt think liberal advocacy groups might try to get in front of a new court?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If Garland (or someone else in the new year) gets confirmed, what are some things the lawyers itt think liberal advocacy groups might try to get in front of a new court? US v. Texas (immigration / DACA) is the biggest I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Everything that got remanded this year has a shot. Any hot button issues that were remanded, like the aforementioned immigration case, will be. I think spokeo or one of its offspring will be back eventually for more guidance on when statutory violations constitute concrete injuries. Lots of defense attorneys out there making spokeo arguments. Transgender will be there, but that should take some time to develop a test case
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If Garland (or someone else in the new year) gets confirmed, what are some things the lawyers itt think liberal advocacy groups might try to get in front of a new court? Immigration, religious exemption for corporations (Hobby Lobby), Gerrymandering if the current cases somehow collapse, the death penalty, Citizens United, and maybe something to get LGBT ruled as a protected class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Gerrymandering for sure. Obama announced that he's going to make that his post-presidential goal. With the census being in 2020 expect them to try and make moves on that ASAP
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
SCOTUS took no action on a transgender bathroom case, what was the lower court ruling on that one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Immigration, religious exemption for corporations (Hobby Lobby), Gerrymandering if the current cases somehow collapse, the death penalty, Citizens United, and maybe something to get LGBT ruled as a protected class? Would Garland help with capital punishment? Isn't he a tough-on-crime jurist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS took no action on a transgender bathroom case, what was the lower court ruling on that one? The circuit court ruling overturned the district court in favor of the transgender student. I'm not sure if the trial court has taken the appropriate action as of yet, but the circuit court remanded the title IX stuff back down for reconsideration with a different standard. What will likely happen is GG will win at the trial level now and the school board policy wil be overturned. This will be appealed again but seems to be heavily in favor of the trans student. Edit: I'm reading through the circuit decision and they're saying that the January 15 letter from the DoE regarding title IX and transgender bathroom usage is a valid agency determination and should be provided deference. This letter states that schools are supposed to allow students to use facilities that match their gender identity. The trial court originally disregarded this letter and the amicus from the Feds that supported it. This means in the 4th circuit gender identity not sex alone is the determining factor. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
botany posted:Would Garland help with capital punishment? Isn't he a tough-on-crime jurist? The big difference is that you have to follow precedent when you are a a judge for the circuit court. His personal opinions could be different and as a supreme court judge he can set the precedent rather than follow it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The circuit court ruling overturned the district court in favor of the transgender student. I'm not sure if the trial court has taken the appropriate action as of yet, but the circuit court remanded the title IX stuff back down for reconsideration with a different standard. What will likely happen is GG will win at the trial level now and the school board policy wil be overturned. This will be appealed again but seems to be heavily in favor of the trans student.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:08
|
|