|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:If a law on the books says it’s illegal to, say, possess more than 6oz of weed, and they pass a law making it illegal to possess more than a pound of weed, that doesn’t mean it’s now legal to possess 6oz. In other words, the new law wasn’t saying you had a right to abortion till 15 weeks, it was just banning them after. That would depend on the intent of the law though right, if the legislature passed the law because they wanted to raise the limit, surely the new law would take precedence even if they didn't explicitly repeal the old one, that would be a much more reasonable interpretation than assuming they passed a pointless law just for the fun of making a pound of weed double illegal. But I guess this is a slightly weird case, because it's more like, a law made all weed illegal, then SCOTUS said you have to allow some weed, so they said "okay but only up to a pound then", then SCOTUS said "ok we changed our minds ban it all if you want", so it's a little murkier whether the intent was to set a new limit at 15 weeks, or just set a limit wherever they could while intending to keep it banned if they could. Still though it seems weird to me. The legislature debated and chose 15 weeks, they could have said 14 ot 13, that was the last decision on the matter, does it make sense for the court to disregard that
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There isn't really a thre The 15 week ban was written by the Republican legislature while Roe was still in effect and was specifically crafted so that it allowed more draconian abortion bans to take precedent over it: its a pro-life backstop in case the 1864 law is declared unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: Precedence has nothing to do with it. If Arizona law says both "it's illegal to perform an abortion after the 15-week mark" and "it's illegal to perform an abortion", well, there isn't actually any direct contradiction there. Both of those things can be true without any issues. It doesn't make a whole ton of sense for both of those things to be in the law, sure. But the legislature knew drat well that the old law was still on the books, yet didn't repeal it when they passed the new one. Although the law was originally passed in the Civil War era, the legislature had explicitly reaffirmed it as recently as the 1970s. If it was a mistake, it's up to the legislature to fix it. Absent any immediate pressing reason to do so, courts are going to naturally be reluctant to use "clearly the legislature couldn't have been stupid enough to do this on purpose" as the sole reason to overturn a law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:The 15 week ban was written by the Republican legislature while Roe was still in effect and was specifically crafted so that it allowed more draconian abortion bans to take precedent over it Ah okay I see thank you Main Paineframe posted:
Well, that sucks. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
The 15 week law also outrighted stated it was not repealing the 1864 law. It was the legislature's direct intent for the older law to be valid and enforceable. The 15 week law was more to be a moderate sounding thing to run on while the actual policy was always meant to be the outright ban. "Oops it's the courts fault not ours, teehee" was the point so they can either get the policy they actually want (banned abortion) or run while sounding moderate by repealing the 1864 version if it created a massive blowback
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That would depend on the intent of the law though right, if the legislature passed the law because they wanted to raise the limit, surely the new law would take precedence even if they didn't explicitly repeal the old one, that would be a much more reasonable interpretation than assuming they passed a pointless law just for the fun of making a pound of weed double illegal. No, you would need to explicitly repeal the old law or at least have verbiage in the new law that says "Public law number 14.2.3 is hereby amended to remove the phrase 'six weeks' from subsection B and replace it with the phrase 'fifteen weeks'. All other articles and provisions of public law number 14.2.3 shall remain in force."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
Cimber posted:No, you would need to explicitly repeal the old law or at least have verbiage in the new law that says "Public law number 14.2.3 is hereby amended to remove the phrase 'six weeks' from subsection B and replace it with the phrase 'fifteen weeks'. All other articles and provisions of public law number 14.2.3 shall remain in force." Eh that's the most bulletproof way to do it but it's not required by anything. Legislation that contradicts previous legislation does get passed sometimes and when that conflict happens the most recent law takes effect. Courts generally rule on the intent of the law when there's some ambiguity in the wording like that. Like in the weed example, if the legislature said they wanted to raise the limit to a pound, and made speeches about how their new law would do that, and celebrated its passage by going out and buying a pound of weed apiece and smoking it at their official "A Pound Of Weed Is Legal Now" party, a judge would probably not make a the-card-says-moops style ruling that the law does nothing because everyone forgot to explicitly say the old limit is repealed so they must have secretly wanted to leave the limit as-is. Well unless that judge's name is Neil Gorsuch. But in this case, since people are pointing out that the legislature obviously intended to leave the total ban in place, it's pretty open and shut yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh that's the most bulletproof way to do it but it's not required by anything. Legislation that contradicts previous legislation does get passed sometimes and when that conflict happens the most recent law takes effect. Courts generally rule on the intent of the law when there's some ambiguity in the wording like that. Except, ya know,
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
the dissenting arizona supreme court justices laid out why its a bad decision. the law in question specifically says that you should be looking at other laws *only* if the law is ambiguous, and the law is not ambiguous. its very clear. the majority pretty much smashed their heads with bats until they were incapable of understanding plain text and used that as justification to outlaw abortion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
I mean, it's a bad decision because it leads to a bad result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:the dissenting arizona supreme court justices laid out why its a bad decision. the law in question specifically says that you should be looking at other laws *only* if the law is ambiguous, and the law is not ambiguous. its very clear. the majority pretty much smashed their heads with bats until they were incapable of understanding plain text and used that as justification to outlaw abortion. Interesting, did they show that the legislature didn't intend to leave the ban in effect, or did they say that shouldn't matter. I guess I should read it myself at this point
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
It’s also a bad decision because the Arizona constitution has an explicit right to privacy clause, so it would be extremely easy for them to supersede any terrible state law (Alaska SC did this).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It’s also a bad decision because the Arizona constitution has an explicit right to privacy clause, so it would be extremely easy for them to supersede any terrible state law (Alaska SC did this). The Arizona Supreme Court explicitly did not rule on whether or not this law was constitutional, as that question wasn't before them at this time. The court case was only on about whether or not it was overridden by the newer law. The Arizona Supreme Court did put a stay on this ruling, to allow people to file cases challenging the law's constitutionality before it goes into effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
If they thought that they were allowing implementation of an unconstitutional (and obviously damaging) law, would they not have stayed enforcement for longer than two weeks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If they thought that they were allowing implementation of an unconstitutional (and obviously damaging) law, would they not have stayed enforcement for longer than two weeks? Not particularly, no. The two-week stay is just to give the lower courts time to see and address whatever further legal action is going to happen from here. One of those legal actions is almost certainly going to be a request to the lower court for a stay that lasts until the other legal actions get worked out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. How does this remotely make sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. The BLM organizer has not been held responsible yet. They have been accused of being responsible, but have not actually been held responsible. It's up to the lower courts to decide whether there was actually any illegal conduct on the part of the BLM organizer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. That's the 'fun' thing, a SCOTUS decision doesn't have to make sense. The political will to ignore rulings that are nakedly political with no basis in reality is non-existent among politicians who are left of a Hitler-Reagan-Thatcher chimera. So right now no matter how bad the rulings are their legitimacy and weight are never called into question in a meaningful sense. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. from that article: quote:Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, also dissented from the denial of review in the case of Dillion Compton, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a prison guard. As his case came to the court, it centered on the prosecutors’ use of 13 of their 15 strikes to remove women from the initial jury pool, leaving the jury with four women and eight men. Prosecutors explained that they struck women based on their hesitations about imposing the death penalty. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Sotomayor suggested, used the wrong analysis: It should have conducted a side-by-side analysis of individual female jurors who were struck against male jurors who were allowed to serve, rather than looking at women as a group. prosecutors just removing women from the jury because you can't trust women, they won't kill people
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
SCOTUS doesn’t like district courts issuing injunctions against authoritarian conservative laws that cause immediate direct harm, but congratulations to the two anonymous transgender teens in Idaho who won’t be forcibly detransitioned while the courts take their sweet time. Also wtf Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 03:12
|
|
|
Stickman posted:SCOTUS doesn’t like district courts issuing injunctions against authoritarian conservative laws that cause immediate direct harm, but congratulations to the two anonymous transgender teens in Idaho who won’t be forcibly detransitioned while the courts take their sweet time. Also wtf Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 03:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Did Gorsuch get similarly upset about that Chud judge that decided to do a nationwide injunction against a drug that has been on the market for 20 years? Yes, in fact. While that case has not issued a final ruling yet, during oral arguments in that case, Gorsuch made many of the same arguments and complaints that he did in this ruling. He's been a longtime critic of universal injunctions, and has complained about them in a number of cases in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
clarence thomas was absent from oral arguments today without explanation dont see why any of us had to know this, could a replaced his rear end with a tussauds wax dummy and we would been none the wiser
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 05:13
|
|
|
Sometimes you just want to sleep in your own bed/yacht.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sometimes you just want to sleep in your own bed/yacht. A friend of mine is an attorney, and he actually had to speak in front of the USSC a few months ago on a routine matter. (Asking the court to admit another attorney to the court). He said that Thomas was asleep during all this and had to get woken up by a clerk to vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 12:51
|
|
|
Cimber posted:A friend of mine is an attorney, and he actually had to speak in front of the USSC a few months ago on a routine matter. (Asking the court to admit another attorney to the court). He said that Thomas was asleep during all this and had to get woken up by a clerk to vote. Having been in the courtroom for admission days, I also was asleep for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 13:04
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:clarence thomas was absent from oral arguments today without explanation They want to get our hopes up that Thomas is dying/dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They want to get our hopes up that Thomas is dying/dead. If a Supreme Court Justice can fulfill their "Good Behavior" requirement while completely asleep during courtroom discussions, they can do it while being dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If a Supreme Court Justice can fulfill their "Good Behavior" requirement while completely asleep during courtroom discussions, they can do it while being dead. I continue to be disappointeed with RBG's family for not going full Weekend at Bernie's when she died. Or do a burial in secret and just outright lie about her being alive but closed away recuperating and that she'll totally be back on the bench soon, then announce her death after Biden got sworn in. Though if she wasn't a selfish rear end in a top hat it wouldn't have mattered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I continue to be disappointeed with RBG's family for not going full Weekend at Bernie's when she died. Or do a burial in secret and just outright lie about her being alive but closed away recuperating and that she'll totally be back on the bench soon, then announce her death after Biden got sworn in. Supreme Court ends with 8 marionettes and a confused Gorsuch wondering why no one returns his calls anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Supreme Court ends with 8 marionettes and a confused Gorsuch wondering why no one returns his calls anymore. The ideal conservative court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 11:00
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:The ideal conservative court. 9 Alitos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 13:55
|
|
|
I want to bring attention to an interesting exchange with ACB in oral arguments for Grants Pass, a suit involving an Oregon town that's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij_a-uq5bXg Edit: I'm having a ton of trouble parsing the AG's (I think that's an Oregon AG) argument. Is she saying that the place for determining constitutionality is.....due process? I pick up the "the 8th doesn't originally intend to cover homelessness" bit but I fail to see how she's saying anything other than "this is complex, let criminal courts determine whether the bar for due process has been met / whether this law infringes on due process, on an individual basis" If that's what's being argued then, like, uhhh that's not how this works. That's not at all how this works. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I want to bring attention to an interesting exchange with ACB in oral arguments for Grants Pass, a suit involving an Oregon town that's I think they’re trying to say that they would need to rule on an actual application of the law to determine if it’s cruel and unusual instead of hypotheticals?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think they’re trying to say that they would need to rule on an actual application of the law to determine if it’s cruel and unusual instead of hypotheticals? Yes that's it exactly. The 8th Amendment can only really say that a prescribed punishment is generally unconstitutional (in other words, no mater who is convicted), or is specifically unconstitutional ("as applied" - this is generally what people are arguing about specific means of carrying out a death sentence). Here, the city is providing fines or jail time. Those are NEVER going to be found generally unconstitutional, so the question is whether they are specifically unconstitutional. But in order for that to be true, the plaintiffs need to be able to point to something factual about how the law is actually enforced. In this case, the plaintiffs came in with an allegation that the law was passed and applied in order to target homeless people, but that's only an allegation at this point. There's been no fact-finding or statistics in the record about who the actual defendants have been. So if the outcome of the Supreme Court argument is punting back to the district court for further fact-finding, that's why. They probably wouldn't be foreclosing on the possibility of ever ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:22
|
|
