|
Javid posted:Poor writing aside, that Gorsuch/RBG concurrence is objectively correct. Disability rejections like that are bullshit. Yup. Experts should be required to provide the evidence to support their statements when requested. It doesn’t mean they have to provide it in advance, but it’s ridiculous that an expert could be allowed to bullshit away any proof of their claims.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That Berryhill opinion is really interesting. I *think* I agree with the majority. The problem in informal administrative hearings is that you generally have a lot less time to gather evidence and many fewer tools with which to do so. The rule seems unfair but there are going to be a lot of instances where plaintiffs and individuals can only assemble so much evidence by the hearing date and you don't want people to be kicked out of the hearing automatically just because they could only get nine of their ten ducks in a row in time. If an expert doesn't have the tenth duck, they shouldn't be testifying that there are ten ducks. The case was about an expert who claimed to have evidence of something and refused to show it; that's just crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Also, they absolutely expect you, the disability applicant, to have a lifetime of medical records on hand, or acquire them at your own expense, so lol that expecting their expert witness to back up their claims with proof (that they do not dispute they already possess) is somehow a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If an expert doesn't have the tenth duck, they shouldn't be testifying that there are ten ducks. The case was about an expert who claimed to have evidence of something and refused to show it; that's just crap. I think it's a closer call than you'd think because it's in the context of an administrative hearing, where the rules of evidence don't apply with anything like the same kind of stricture as they do in real court. (The most amazing thing to me about this case is that an admin law hearing case got all the way to the Supreme Court somehow). Such hearings are supposed to be fairly quick and dirty, and usually that actually helps plaintiffs more (who are often likely to be appearing pro se).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Yeah but if the plaintiff shows up like "yeah I totally have parkinson's but the proof is confidential" the case will get immediately dumpstered, all we're expecting here is for the same rules to go both ways
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
quote:That much is sufficient to decide this case. Biestek petitioned us only to adopt the categorical rule we have now rejected. He did not ask us to decide whether, in the absence of that rule, substantial evidence supported the ALJ in denying him benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment. It is so ordered. This seems pretty narrow?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
If that gentlemen is really just objecting to the methodology of his execution have a guard walk over and put a bullet in his brain. Voila, issue solved. Why the gently caress does it take a supreme Court decision to figure this out? Oh, right. It was filed less than 2 weeks before his already delayed execution. Put him down on schedule by whatever means he chooses and move on. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Iirc nitrogen asphyxiation is quick and painless, so obviously it's very important that the state not use it ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If that gentlemen is really just objecting to the methodology of his execution have a guard walk over and put a bullet in his brain. Voila, issue solved. Why the gently caress does it take a supreme Court decision to figure this out? Oh, right. It was filed less than 2 weeks before his already delayed execution. Put him down on schedule by whatever means he chooses and move on. Kavanaugh posted:[A]n inmate who contends that a particular method of execution is very likely to cause him severe pain should ordinarily be able to plead some alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. At oral argument in this Court, the State suggested that the firing squad would be such an available alternative, if adequately pleaded. Tr. of Oral Arg. 63–64 (“He can plead firing squad. . . . Of course, if he had . . . pleaded firing squad, it’s possible that Missouri could have executed him by firing squad”). JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has likewise explained that the firing squad is an alternative method of execution that generally causes an immediate and certain death, with close to zero risk of a botched execution. I do not here prejudge the question whether the firing squad, or any other alternative method of execution, would be a feasible and readily implemented alternative for every State. Rather, I simply emphasize the Court’s statement that “we see little likelihood that an inmate facing a serious risk of pain will be unable to identify an available alternative.” And the delay, of course, is the end discussion of both the majority and the principal dissent. Javid posted:Iirc nitrogen asphyxiation is quick and painless, so obviously it's very important that the state not use it ever Now authorized by Alabama, potentially Mississippi (if injection unavailable), Missouri, and Oklahoma, although it hasn't been used yet. ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If that gentlemen is really just objecting to the methodology of his execution have a guard walk over and put a bullet in his brain. Voila, issue solved. Why the gently caress does it take a supreme Court decision to figure this out? Oh, right. It was filed less than 2 weeks before his already delayed execution. Put him down on schedule by whatever means he chooses and move on. https://twitter.com/PatriotHole/status/969236434195394560 Edit: Maybe that's too low content/acerbic, but the point is generally to say 
Name Change fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That Berryhill opinion is really interesting. I *think* I agree with the majority. The problem in informal administrative hearings is that you generally have a lot less time to gather evidence and many fewer tools with which to do so. The rule seems unfair but there are going to be a lot of instances where plaintiffs and individuals can only assemble so much evidence by the hearing date and you don't want people to be kicked out of the hearing automatically just because they could only get nine of their ten ducks in a row in time. I have been in the position of reviewing ALJ decisions in social security matters. You should know that it is not at all surprising if the record reflects that an ALJ hearing occurred like, two or more years following the initial application for benefits and often more than six months following the request for the ALJ hearing (which only happens after an application has been rejected twice by Social Security Administration employees). If evidence is missing from the record, it’s usually because the claimant’s lawyer was a stupid idiot (and most of the lawyers doing these do appear to be such). The real problem here is that ALJs routinely get these VEs who just come and testify that there were jobs exist in in the national economy the claimant could do and don’t really explain. And as the opinion points out, that’s usually fine. I’m surprised the petitioner’s lawyer here has challenged the VE at all, that usually doesn’t happen. That said, the real problem with this process has nothing to do with the VEs at all: it is that the ALJs are overworked and often produce opinions that are under-explained and conclusory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
"As originally understood, the eighth amendment tolerated methods of execution, like hanging, that involved a significant risk of pain, while forbidding as cruel only those methods that intensified the death sentence by 'superadding' terror, pain or disgrace." -Man interpreting a document that also originally enabled chattel slavery
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"As originally understood, the eighth amendment tolerated methods of execution, like hanging, that involved a significant risk of pain, while forbidding as cruel only those methods that intensified the death sentence by 'superadding' terror, pain or disgrace." That was overturned via amendment. No such thing was done for the death penalty...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That was overturned via amendment. No such thing was done for the death penalty... "Except as punishment for crime..." edit: To be less snarky. It's a poor example not because it was dealt with(it wasn't, lololol). It's a bad example because the death penalty could totally be outlawed under cruel and unusual punishment due to the modern application of it and methods for it. Slavery is still enshrined in the constitution. It's a comparison between a thing that explicitly forbids something and a thing that explicitly endorses something. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
The fifth mentions capital punishment quote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Like I get that dude worded it in a bad way but why not just shoot people, I'd rather have that done to me then having to wait for an injection. What about being shot is cruel or inhumane compared to an injection you have to wait for, leaving aside that the whole concept of a death penalty is cruel and inhumane
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Like I get that dude worded it in a bad way but why not just shoot people, I'd rather have that done to me then having to wait for an injection. What about being shot is cruel or inhumane compared to an injection you have to wait for, leaving aside that the whole concept of a death penalty is cruel and inhumane Look at this. Look at this post. Gaze upon its majesty and wonder what kind of idiot must have posted it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Like I get that dude worded it in a bad way but why not just shoot people, I'd rather have that done to me then having to wait for an injection. What about being shot is cruel or inhumane compared to an injection you have to wait for, leaving aside that the whole concept of a death penalty is cruel and inhumane It looks and sounds messy and uncivilized. That may seem like a weird thing to focus on, but that's been basically the driving force between our movement from execution method to execution method: a quest for a way to kill people that seems more clean, professional, and detached (at least in the imagination of voters).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It looks and sounds messy and uncivilized. That may seem like a weird thing to focus on, but that's been basically the driving force between our movement from execution method to execution method: a quest for a way to kill people that seems more clean, professional, and detached (at least in the imagination of voters). But the method of execution must still be personally painful for the condemned; this is why nitrogen asphyxiation must not be used
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Above all, they want it to look like a medical procedure; to steal the legitimacy of medicine to shroud the violence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:25
|
|
Devor posted:But the method of execution must still be personally painful for the condemned; this is why nitrogen asphyxiation must not be used I've generally been suspicious of messages advocating nitrogen execution because all references to it seem to come from a small pool of associated sources, all conservative. Let me guess, Portillo?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
In "huh, thats cool and nice, but probably irrelevant" news, a 3rd federal judge has blocked Trump from adding a citizenship question to the census. This is likely irrelevant because the SCOTUS is going to hear the case this term, and they won't have a problem with reversing 3 judges all at once instead of 2 if they rule that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've generally been suspicious of messages advocating nitrogen execution because all references to it seem to come from a small pool of associated sources, all conservative. Let me guess, Portillo? It very likely is painless, unfortunately. The reason why suffocation is usually painful is because of the buildup of CO2 itself in your blood, which leads slowly to pain and panic. You won't get that by breathing in 100% nitrogen. Everything apparently feels normal for a bit and then you suddenly pass out, based on anecdotes from people who breathed in various dangerous pure inert gasses and were somehow saved from death. On the bright side, it still wouldn't be easy (probably) to get it approved by courts, because they are are not doctors or scientists and they are going to want a mountain of evidence specifically on death by nitrogen, and there's not a lot of scholarship on this specific topic. (There's not much of a point to proving that nitrogen asphyxiation is not painful assuming such a study could even be ethically done at all, and those who might wonder would probably pause before studying it, because the consequences of that study would be obvious, and most academics are probably against enabling the death penalty in any way)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
If as a society we're gonna kill people we may as well do it with painless inert gas, why is any of that "unfortunate"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Javid posted:If as a society we're gonna kill people we may as well do it with painless inert gas, why is any of that "unfortunate"? i suspect he means it would make it easier to argue in favor of the death penalty existing
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i suspect he means it would make it easier to argue in favor of the death penalty existing Yeah, if the SCOTUS blesses nitrogen gas, then that probably firmly puts an end to the best legal argument against capital punishment for a long time. Which, sure if its inevitable anyway then we may as well use an easy painless method, but the "this is too hard, too expensive, takes too long, lets just abolish the death penalty" argument has historically worked in many states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've generally been suspicious of messages advocating nitrogen execution because all references to it seem to come from a small pool of associated sources, all conservative. I've nitrogen recommended as a suicide method in odd corners of the Internet before, for the reasons Rigel notes below. Rigel posted:On the bright side, it still wouldn't be easy (probably) to get it approved by courts, because they are are not doctors or scientists and they are going to want a mountain of evidence specifically on death by nitrogen, and there's not a lot of scholarship on this specific topic. As the Bucklew opinion notes (page 22 n.1), there are 3 different states that have authorized nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution by law: Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Like I get that dude worded it in a bad way but why not just shoot people, I'd rather have that done to me then having to wait for an injection. What about being shot is cruel or inhumane compared to an injection you have to wait for, leaving aside that the whole concept of a death penalty is cruel and inhumane A shooting death isn't garanteed to be quick and painless. The real problem, of course, is that it's hard on the executioners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It looks and sounds messy and uncivilized. That may seem like a weird thing to focus on, but that's been basically the driving force between our movement from execution method to execution method: a quest for a way to kill people that seems more clean, professional, and detached (at least in the imagination of voters). Sounds a lot like we care more about the comfort of the executioner then the person being killed, which lol of course why would I think differently
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yeah, if the SCOTUS blesses nitrogen gas, then that probably firmly puts an end to the best legal argument against capital punishment for a long time. Which, sure if its inevitable anyway then we may as well use an easy painless method, but the "this is too hard, too expensive, takes too long, lets just abolish the death penalty" argument has historically worked in many states. Best legal argument, yeah. In practice though death penalty proponents will rarely go for it because the point of the death penalty is punitive vengeance and nitrogen hypoxia doesn't satisfy that bloodlust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Sounds a lot like we care more about the comfort of the executioner then the person being killed, which lol of course why would I think differently Well, we also care a lot more about the sensitivities of the voters who hear about executions, see fictionalized versions on TV, and so on. When a bunch of botched executions start getting mass press coverage, usually with gruesomely detailed descriptions by reporters, public opinion of the death penalty itself starts to drop. In response, death penalty advocates start searching for a new method that will seem more humane in the imaginations of voters. Whether it's actually humane is besides the point, as most people don't personally witnessed executions anyway; what's important is that it can be portrayed as humane in a believable fashion. After all, the goal isn't really to find a humane method, it's to convince voters and courts that it's possible to execute people humanely so that the death penalty itself doesn't get banned. For example, hanging fell out of fashion after a number of botched hangings - which tend to be very macabre affairs, since screwing up a hanging means the person either slowly chokes to death over several minutes or is instantly decapitated. With Americans increasingly feeling that those brutal or bloody executions had no place in a civilized country, states started searching for a new execution method that would be more reliable and humane. They couldn't really come up with one, so the electric chair was invented to fit the bill. It wasn't really any better, but in the minds of voters who never saw it in action, it seemed far more clinical and reliable, so it lasted for a few decades before reports of messy botched executions became common enough for the public to start viewing it as barbaric. Then it fell into decline, and was replaced by lethal injection - which has excelled at its purpose of making execution seem humane, since the inclusion of a paralytic in the three-drug protocol ensures that any indication of the patient's pain is suppressed and means that even failed executions are far less showy and dramatic affairs than the spectacular failures you could get with the electric chair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Above all, they want it to look like a medical procedure; to steal the legitimacy of medicine to shroud the violence. Have other civilizations tried to conceal death within the legitimacy of medicine 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 11:15
|
|
|
Not a supreme court case, but a good read for those interested in Gitmo litigation. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/9CE6ACFD2F534EA5852583DE004E14D3/$file/18-1279-1783057.pdf The United States doesn't look good, and a capital case is going to take an additional couple of years, minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Not a supreme court case, but a good read for those interested in Gitmo litigation. here's vladeck's take, i think he's done more writing about Al-Nashiri from the legal end than anyone else https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1118209978005778432 them vacating over three years of judgments is nuts. also, lol: quote:Although a principle so basic to our system of laws should go without saying, we nonetheless feel compelled to restate it plainly here: criminal justice is a shared responsibility. Yet in this case, save for Al-Nashiri’s defense counsel, all elements of the military commission system—from the prosecution team to the Justice Department to the CMCR to the judge himself—failed to live up to that responsibility
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
eke out posted:here's vladeck's take, i think he's done more writing about Al-Nashiri from the legal end than anyone else If you have an interest, it's worth looking at some of this Judge's on the record statements from the trial transcripts. He had never been a defense counsel (unusual for a JAG O-6 who is a judge) and his fundamental misunderstanding of and hostility to the defense function is abundantly clear. The facts, examined by a truly unbiased court (the CMCR is terrible), are really, really damning for the Judge and the prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:If you have an interest, it's worth looking at some of this Judge's on the record statements from the trial transcripts. He had never been a defense counsel (unusual for a JAG O-6 who is a judge) and his fundamental misunderstanding of and hostility to the defense function is abundantly clear. This is all why Spath is going to be an outstanding immigration judge, as far as this administration is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
eke out posted:This is all why Spath is going to be an outstanding immigration judge, as far as this administration is concerned. Oh, he's perfect for this administration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1120320308953714688
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Buckle up
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
5-4 decision on "well it doesn't SAAAYYYY gender"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:54
|
|
