SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

It's nice to clear out all the cruft every once in a while, and the new year is a convenient time to do that.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2016 21:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 21:01

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Confounding Factor posted:

My hot take: We shouldn't let nine robed aristocrats decide which laws are valid and which laws aren't.

On average, it's probably better than the alternative.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2017 19:56

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

evilweasel posted:

This article makes the case that Kagan has carefully structured that NC decision to be a huge weapon against southern gerrymanders:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92675

I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but that seems like reaching. Kagan is saying "if you used race as the main criterion, your district is subject to strict scrutiny, period." You can't say (after no one buys your 'minority majority district' excuse) "we were doing an allowed partisan gerrymander and just happened to use race to disenfranchise Democrats." Nothing in this decision says that you are no longer allowed to disenfranchise African-Americans as a side effect of disenfranchising Democrats. The only interesting bit of the decision is Kagan declaring that Cromartie II's alternate map requirement only holds when no one is stupid enough to talk about race all over the place in the legislative record.

# ¿ May 22, 2017 18:29

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

I'm not much of a court watcher, but is this an unusual number of Thomas-written decisions?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2017 17:07

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

ulmont posted:

A question about the voter purge bit - Why does anyone care about the theoretical right of people to (a) not vote and (b) stay on the rolls?

If you aren't voting...you aren't voting?

Voting can be a pain in the butt. Maybe someone doesn't bother taking time off of work to vote in midterms or local elections because they live in a highly partisan district where their individual vote is unlikely to make a difference, but their vote could matter in a presidential election because they live in a swing state so they usually make the effort every four years. Well, if they missed the postcard and then something unexpectedly comes up on election day in one presidential year, then they're purged before the next one with the only additional notice being "sorry, you can't vote today, you're not registered."

Jethro fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 12, 2018

# ¿ Jun 12, 2018 16:29

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Devor posted:

You know Alito's argument is well-founded when he goes STRAIGHT to parsing adverbs and nouns.

Beep boop, the amendment accidentally splits an infinitive so we no longer have a constitution

ulmont posted:

tri-tri-tri-triple post!

Breyer's response is similarly parsing the adverbs and nouns - check out his steak example.

When the lower court's decisions involve a lot of word parsing, the decision probably needs to have some too as a response.

On its face, to me at least, the decision looks like a correct interpretation of a bad law.

Or rather, I think the majority has a correct interpretation of a law which they should have then declared invalid, and I don't think Breyer's attempt to say "we have to interpret the law like I say or else it's unconstitutional" is particularly convincing. I am especially unconvinced by Breyer's "if Congress didn't think 'when' meant immediately, why did they give the AG at the time discretion to delay implementation by 1-2 years?" Congress did think "when" meant immediately, but they didn't think they needed to add in a "here's how to interpret 'when' if the officials in question don't enforce the rules as we wrote them" section.

I think indefinite detention without possibility of a bail hearing is unconstitutional, period. Even if it's for a deportable alien who was released three seconds ago for the crime of ultra murder (which is a very serious crime despite the fact that somehow the sentence isn't life), a bail hearing should happen (which, in such a case, should consist of the government saying "gently caress off with your bail request" and the immigration "judge" saying "sounds good.").

Additionally, maybe some sort of "statute of limitations" for immigration actions needs to exist, and maybe it can be "due process"ed into existence, but Breyer playing around with the definitions of when and describes isn't it.

Granted, the majority claimed that the people facing deportation didn't actually raise any constitutional claims (except those needed for the "don't pick the unconstitutional interpretation if you don't have to" doctrine), but since when has the court let that stop them? Their bit about "someone else can challenge the constitutionality of the law as applied" rings pretty hollow. Heck, I bet they put that in there just because they want to have someone challenge that so they can shut that down in a separate case.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2019 21:04

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Sometimes I like to dream that in 2020, the Democrats keep the House, regain the Senate and White House, and follow the lead of AOC et al and start fixing poo poo.

As such, how would you all fix the FAA? I don't think it needs to be totally thrown out. I see some good aspects to it, at least in the abstract. Certainly binding arbitration between giant corporations makes a ton of sense. Likewise, I shouldn't have to sue my phone company when I discover they've been charging me an extra $2.50 in tax for the past year. On the other hand, if I have a dispute with my employer, having them be the one who pays for and chooses the arbitrator (with the implied threat that if said arbitrator rules against them they'll get no more business) seems ripe for conflict of interest. Having no way to create a class arbitration or class-action lawsuit when an issue affects a class of consumers or employees is obviously bullshit. Being poo poo out of luck when a click-to-accept contract gives you an arbitrator who makes a clear error of fact is ridiculous.

So, here's what I'd fix:

Binding/Final: If arbitration is non-binding, then it's nothing but an extra step on the way to a trial. So unless we've decided to scrap all arbitration, the courts need to accept and enforce the results of arbitration at least most of the time. But arbitrators can gently caress up, so at the very least there needs to be a way for courts to step in and say "no, the arbitrator hosed up". Like maybe a judge must rule in favor of the winner of arbitration in summary judgement unless the loser can point to a clear error of fact or law.
Class Status: When a class clearly exists, there needs to be a way to generate a class action of some sort. It's absolute bullshit that apparently a company can say "sorry, but you all individually 'waived' your right to sue, so now that we've hurt all of you in the same way, you all have to notice individually, request arbitration individually, and hope your arbitrator doesn't gently caress up even when 2000 other people did the same thing and won (with arbitrators we don't use any more because they had the temerity to say our clear error meant we had to pay other people money)."
Choice of Arbitrator: When large corporation A says in their standard consumer agreement contract "we choose the arbitrator," that gives arbitrators a financial conflict because they don't want to rule against A Corp. too often (or ever) for fear of losing business. The nice thing about courts is they are at least nominally disinterested. Some arbitration agreements are structured in a way that the arbitrator can't be disinterested. Can a third-party who has the power to assign "qualified" arbitrators be created (without also setting themselves up as gatekeepers that lower the supply of arbitrators so as to raise the price and make arbitration no cheaper or faster than standard court action)?
Power Differential: Most of the above is really only a problem when the arbitration "agreement" is between a huge company and an individual comsumer or employee who has little choice but to accept the terms dictated by the Goliath in the relationship. No one cares when Shitbirds Consolidated gets screwed by a stupid arbitrator in their action against Assholes Inc., so maybe we only need to apply fixes when one party is a corporation who is dictating standard terms to the other party who is an individual.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2019 20:53

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

hobbesmaster posted:

Armack posted:
How likely is it that the impeachment trial made Roberts move toward the center?

Hes always been a "you have to dot your i's and cross your t's if you want to do terrible things!" type.

Plus, it's not the impeachment as much as the pending probable presidential electoral pasting that, I think, would give Roberts pause when it comes to enacting the conservative agenda. Throw some bones to the Dems now, instead of pissing people off and giving ammunition to the "pack the court" movement. Better to take a strategic L and keep his 5-4 majority than take a W which leads to a 6-5 minority.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 16:10

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

saintonan posted:

This petition wasn't appealed from anywhere so would it have been possible to deny cert?

Instead of granting or denying certification, the Supreme Court is granting or denying "leave to file a bill of complaint". So while the SC is the court of original jurisdiction for State v. State, they have decided that, just like with appeals, they get to decide if they want to hear the case or not.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2020 18:41

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that?

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 14:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 21:01

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Yuzenn posted:

Can someone ELI5 the mental gymnastics of this court?

Didn't they just pause this a day ago?

https://x.com/ElieNYC/status/1770155917515886822?s=20

This is blatantly unconstitutional and should be overturned, but the conservative justices who don't want to effectively abolish the federal government are willing to ally with the ones who do to get some brown people get harassed for a few months while the appeals process finishes up.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2024 20:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?