|
A coworker of mine just remarked that Franchise Tax Board is very alarming, because it shows a clear willingness by the 5 Justice conservative majority to sweep aside decades long precedent without an especially compelling reason.
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:A coworker of mine just remarked that Franchise Tax Board is very alarming, because it shows a clear willingness by the 5 Justice conservative majority to sweep aside decades long precedent without an especially compelling reason. Did your coworker recently awaken from a magically induced slumber of some kind?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:A coworker of mine just remarked that Franchise Tax Board is very alarming, because it shows a clear willingness by the 5 Justice conservative majority to sweep aside decades long precedent without an especially compelling reason. OTOH, gently caress Gil Hyatt.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:A coworker of mine just remarked that Franchise Tax Board is very alarming, because it shows a clear willingness by the 5 Justice conservative majority to sweep aside decades long precedent without an especially compelling reason. Breyer said as much in his dissent. ulmont posted:It is one thing to overrule a case when it "def[ies] practical workability," when "related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine," or when "facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification." It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question. The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall even though it is a well-reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it. Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next [spoiler: Breyer means Roe]. I respectfully dissent.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm immediately suspicious of what this is supposed to be cited by in the future because of a distrust of the Heritage/Federalist Society justices, but as far as I know, Facebook doesn't have an app store. Amazon does but I don't think you could make the same argument against them as you could against Apple or even Google. Nobody has an app store on iOS because Apple literally doesn't allow it like Google does on Android. If consoles were 100% digital sales and you could only get games through the console maker's store, no codes from Gamestop, Amazon...etc, they'd be in just as much of a need of an antitrust smackdown. Will anyone actually want to make their own app stores? Maybe, maybe not, but the option should exist.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Nobody has an app store on iOS because Apple literally doesn't allow it like Google does on Android. If consoles were 100% digital sales and you could only get games through the console maker's store, no codes from Gamestop, Amazon...etc, they'd be in just as much of a need of an antitrust smackdown. I meant for their respective products, not a secondary app store on iOS, as I immediately suspected this was part of a broader move towards, I dunno, jailing Zuckerberg because Diamond and Silk aren't satisfactorily famous. FB/Google/Amazon don't have the monopolistic walled garden Apple does. Luckily they never really get into blurring prominence into monopoly and instead just faff around talking about the relevance of the brick case.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
John Paul Stevens reflects on District of Columbia v. Heller for The Atlantic, calls it the "worst decision of [his] tenure".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Stickman posted:John Paul Stevens reflects on District of Columbia v. Heller for The Atlantic, calls it the "worst decision of [his] tenure".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
It's also the case where, by design, neither the defendant nor his lawyer appeared in court.Stickman posted:John Paul Stevens reflects on District of Columbia v. Heller for The Atlantic, calls it the "worst decision of [his] tenure".  at the motivated reasoning on display here. If Stevens was being consistent, he should have written that the court should not have taken Heller because Heller was not part of a militia or taking part in militia activity. (Which, contrary to what Stevens writes, was not the holding of Miller: it held that a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon for militia use, and therefore outside the scope of the 2nd, therefore the National Firearms Act was constitutional.) But he doesn't, because Stevens cares in this case about the negative effects of allowing people to exercise a constitutional right:quote:And even if there were some merit to the legal arguments advanced in the Heller case, all could foresee the negative consequences of the decision, which should have provided my colleagues with the justification needed to apply stare decisis to Miller. This is incredibly funny: quote:Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; Philadelphia prohibited firing a gun or setting off fireworks without a governor’s special license; and New York banned the firing of guns for three days surrounding New Year’s Day... Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia announced in Heller on June 26, 2008. The whole article is motivated reasoning to reach the conclusion that the government can ban guns, because that's what he wants: quote:I have written in other contexts that an amendment to the Constitution to overrule Heller is desperately needed to prevent tragedies such as the massacre of 20 grammar-school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, from ever happening again. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Will anyone actually want to make their own app stores? Maybe, maybe not, but the option should exist. I'd expect an alternative Apple app market to show up, and then blow up internationally almost immediately. BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm no legal scholar but Miller just never makes sense to me. The court made a decision that actual arms used by the Army and various state Guard units are not useful for "the militia" whatever that may be. Miller does not say that. Miller says: quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Heller, on the other hand, says: quote:We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Miller does not say that. Miller says: quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, Assuming of course that the militia's purpose is armed conflict of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What other evidence of a thing having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" could be better than the thing's actual widespread use in armed conflict by both military and civilian authorities? The "actual widespread use" was apparently not so actual or widespread that anybody, you know, mentioned any evidence to the court? EDIT: the Winchester Trench Gun came with 20-36 inch barrels. ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
What's the over/under on the Alabama bullshit going exactly as the Republicans plan (i.e.: jerking off to) now that Trump/Turtle got to seat 2 justices and a ton of lower circuit judges?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's the over/under on the Alabama bullshit going exactly as the Republicans plan (i.e.: jerking off to) now that Trump/Turtle got to seat 2 justices and a ton of lower circuit judges? Five
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The "actual widespread use" was apparently not so actual or widespread that anybody, you know, mentioned any evidence to the court? jeeves posted:What's the over/under on the Alabama bullshit going exactly as the Republicans plan (i.e.: jerking off to) now that Trump/Turtle got to seat 2 justices and a ton of lower circuit judges?  , so even if he's in the bag on overturning abortion, he'd much rather do it by ruling each individual restriction constitutional than knocking down Roe in a fell swoop.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:Five You mean 4.5 I assume?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Roberts is Alabama just removed that option, he can't uphold their law without knocking down Roe E: Okay I guess he could do the Roberts thing and just write "this law is consistent with Roe v Wade, don't ask me any more questions okay"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
I think he'll knock down Alabama & Co for being a bridge too far, (same as the Court did to Texas and Louisiana when they tried similar stunts) but if they can present any set of restrictions on abortion that can pass rational basis, he would be happy to let them slide. He's OK with salami-slicing away individual rights he doesn't like, even if he isn't willing to nullify them outright.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Evidence was most likely not introduced because because neither the defendant nor his attorney appeared in court. That evidence should have been introduced in connection with the demurrer at the trial court level, well before the Supreme Court level.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's the over/under on the Alabama bullshit going exactly as the Republicans plan (i.e.: jerking off to) now that Trump/Turtle got to seat 2 justices and a ton of lower circuit judges? 5 guillotines to 4 headsman's axes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Alabama just removed that option, he can't uphold their law without knocking down Roe i wonder if the Eleventh Circuit is insane enough to uphold it and thereby force Roberts to actually do something. i bet they don't and the real question becomes whether he has the influence to stop one of the other four from voting to grant cert. the Fifth basically just pretended Whole Woman's Health doesn't apply to them last year but, as bad as they are, i'm not sure if the Eleventh is quite crazy enough to do the same about Roe
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The "actual widespread use" was apparently not so actual or widespread that anybody, you know, mentioned any evidence to the court?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
The Alabama law is so straight-up bonkers that even Pat Robertson thinks it’s a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:The Alabama law is so straight-up bonkers that even Pat Robertson thinks it’s a bridge too far. It was passed for no purpose other than to float as a test case for the Supreme Court and for electoral street cred. It's not intended as an actual law.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Arms the law would define as short-barreled rifles or shotguns were in common use both before and after 1939 by military and police forces across the US and the globe. The Thompson gun being the most notorious example. The Thompson gun, for all its other qualities, is not a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length', which was the firearm at issue in Miller.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It was passed for no purpose other than to float as a test case for the Supreme Court and for electoral street cred. It's not intended as an actual law. You’re right that it’s a test case, but the people who passed it would absolutely love it to be law...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The Thompson gun, for all its other qualities, is not a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length', which was the firearm at issue in Miller. Short barreled shotguns were in common police and military use in 1939. As were short rifles, and stocked pistols. Similar arms were in common use in both military and civilian contexts at every time between the invention of firearms and 1939. Similar arms continue to be in use by police and military forces. Miller is a dumb decision. The court knew what it wanted, and worked backwards to get the desired result. Edit: And then did it again in Heller to reach the total opposite conclusion, and claimed that the two cases did not contradict each other. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 01:25 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It was passed for no purpose other than to float as a test case for the Supreme Court and for electoral street cred. It's not intended as an actual law. It’s actually really bad as a test case because of how much it overreaches. It’s just for anti-abortion street cred.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
I wonder if they're just trying to tee up a motherfucker of a circuit split so that the Supreme Court has to take it asap
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Much as I hate roe as a stupid ruling based purely on judicial activision that needs to be replaced by an actual amendment, I don't think even this court will overrule it based on this Alabama law. This Alabama poo poo is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Much as I hate roe as a stupid ruling based purely on judicial activision that needs to be replaced by an actual amendment, I don't think even this court will overrule it based on this Alabama law. This Alabama poo poo is just stupid. Literally This Week From The Supreme Court posted:With the historical record and precedent against him, Hyatt defends Hall on the basis of stare decisis. But stare decisis is “‘not an inexorable command,’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 (2009), and we have held that it is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Is Manning’s deal that she’ll testify in the assange trial but she won’t testify in a closed grand jury proceeding?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Is Manning’s deal that she’ll testify in the assange trial but she won’t testify in a closed grand jury proceeding? i don't think she's said she'd testify in a trial? as far as I remember, her public statements have all been that she won't testify in any grand jury re: assange, regardless of what it's about
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
I really thought I posted that in the current disaster that is USPOL I thought she was just unwilling to testify to a closed grand jury. Didn’t know it was actually just in general EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 03:36 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I thought she was just unwilling to testify to a closed grand jury. Didn’t know it was actually just in general https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724133556/chelsea-manning-sent-back-to-jail-for-refusing-to-testify-before-grand-jury posted:"I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury," Manning insisted. "So it doesn't matter what it is or what the case is, I'm just not going to comply or cooperate."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
She'd already testified years ago in her own trial about her involvement with Assange and Wikileaks; the whole point of her refusing to testify is making a stand, because the US is trying to go after Assange again. Regardless of how you view Assange and Wikileaks, if Assange gets jailed for revealing secrets it would set a really dangerous precedent, since it could be used to hit journalists and media who reveal something (anything) the government wants to keep under wraps, as well as the whistleblowers who leak the info.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Mikl posted:She'd already testified years ago in her own trial about her involvement with Assange and Wikileaks; the whole point of her refusing to testify is making a stand, because the US is trying to go after Assange again. Wasn't a major distinction with Assange the allegation that he (or Wikileaks) facilitated the taking of the documents, rather than just being a recipient after the fact?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
I believe that's the only charge bring brought against him, basically he was sent part of a password to access classified documents and then got the rest sent and Wikileaks accessed documents directly via that account. IIRC that's being charged as hacking but they aren't charging with anything related to dissemination of the classified information. This is based off what I remember from an OA episode a month ago so might be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
I really hope the Apple thing goes somewhere. Among other things, they have been using their monopoly to attempt to force everyone on the Internet to use H.264/H.265, because they get paid when people use them. They’re in the position where they can strongarm Web developers, because Safari is the only browser you can use; everything else on IOS is just a reskin of Safari. Sure, you can install apps outside the store - if you’re lucky enough to have access to a Mac with Xcode. Otherwise, I guess you’d better start reverse engineering their libraries, because there’s no other way to develop for IOS than through Xcode.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 12:06
|
|
