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?

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Couple of articles about the SupCt worth reading:

Supreme Court busy looking for cases � but finding fewer than usual

quote:

Instead of the usual 12 cases that the court has been hearing in recent years during its two-week block of oral arguments, the justices have only seven scheduled for what the court calls the February sitting .

It�s the result of a diminished docket at the court, one with the potential of a historic low. So far, the justices have found fewer cases than usual worthy of receiving full briefing and oral argument.

According to Scotusblog, the independent Web site that tracks the court�s proceedings, the justices are about 10 cases short of what they normally would have taken at this point of the term.

The court has almost total discretion over its docket and accepts about 1 percent of the petitions its receives. At least four of the nine justices must agree to take a case, and attorneys, law professors and legal experts love to speculate on why the court takes so few.

There�s the view that the law clerks who review the petitions are reluctant to suggest their bosses take a case, for fear the case might not turn out to be a good vehicle. There is a theory that the court�s deep ideological divide makes agreement difficult, or that the lack of major legislation from Congress gives the court less to interpret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ss=rss_politics

The Supreme Court confronts the line between free speech and security with protester�s case

quote:

The justices on Wednesday will hear the government�s plea that national security demands base commanders be able to keep people such as Apel, who have been formally banned from a military installation, from setting foot in any part of their domain � even the spots designated for protesters.

The 63-year-old Apel said he cannot believe his monthly vigils � he has been at it since 1997 � are worth all this trouble. �It�s surreal. It�s bizarre,� he said last month after showing a visitor the official protest spot. He is allowed there now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has overturned his most recent convictions.

�I can�t even imagine they took this thing to our local court,� he said. �I thought they�d just keep arresting me forever, hoping that someday I�d just finally stop.�

Apel�s is the first of several cases the Supreme Court will hear this term that raise important free-speech concerns. They will test the justices � and the public � on First Amendment protection for speech that both ends of the ideological spectrum might find objectionable.

In January, the justices will consider a Massachusetts law that expanded a buffer zone around abortion clinics. State officials said it was necessary to protect clinic workers and those entering the facilities from violence and harassment. People who oppose abortion say the law unconstitutionally silences their voices and makes it impossible to reach women who might be persuaded not to have an abortion.

And this past week, the justices decided to consider whether Secret Service agents may be sued if they treat those who are denouncing a president differently from those who support him. The case involves a decision by two agents to move a group of protesters slightly farther away from an appearance by President George W. Bush than those who were there to cheer him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ss=rss_politics

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 16:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:36

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

alnilam posted:

From the majority:
"Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry"

Holy poo poo Equal Protection Null bomb!!!!

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:18

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Jealous Cow posted:

^^^^^that part

Does that bit referring to larger discrimination against gays imply strict scrutiny or did we not get that?

Man who knows. Still haven't read the opinion, but if there aren't a thousand lawyers rewriting their gender discrimination briefs I'll eat my hat. The fact we didn't go this path 30 years ago is a loving travesty. Oh I am getting wasted this weekend!!!!!!

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:27

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Grey Fox posted:

Roberts is a loving coward. He has the power and justification to make a positive impact on this country's civil rights, but instead he's content to wait out the status quo (remember how long it took every state to formally abolish segregation even after the court got involved?) despite the real harm coming to gay and lesbian couples.

His response to this case is ignorant of history and is further proof that he's just an opportunist that wants to play to both sides of politics.

And he's heading the most liberal Court in three decades.

Can you have too much good news? I'm cresting over here.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:33

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

xbilkis posted:

Scalia footnote:

Scalia on marriage and "hippies"

Cresting

EDIT: Eat a bag of lawfully committed dicks Scalia

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:34

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Kill Dozed posted:

Can someone explain why Robert's decent is so off base (from a legal and not a moral perspective)? I am overjoyed at the ruling today, but it seems like his decent is at least based in some legal thinking, and not a Scalia/Alito "gently caress the gays" mindset.

If it was the majority opinion, it would have effectively created two Americas, depending on where you were born and ow much income you had to flee, violating both your due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:58

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

there's a strain of black conservatism along the lines of "white people can't bring me down" that he comes from

it's orthogonal to the normal liberal vs. conservative discourse

FYGM to the extreme.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 16:21

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Man, Scalia and Utility Air loving things up two terms in a row. And largely about the same issue!

# ¿ Jun 29, 2015 15:42

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

foobardog posted:

I think he is just like Boehner to Scalia's House Freedom Caucus. He knows that to succeed in politics you need to have some cloak of general reasonableness, especially when all branches are not controlled by your party. I'd love to be proven wrong and find out he's a reasonable swing vote like Kennedy.

He's done and is doing remarkably well pushing the country rightwards in a few key and inconceivably important ways.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2016 23:58

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

showbiz_liz posted:

Interesting Twitter Stuff about today's abortion arguments:

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/705099706087690243

https://twitter.com/JoshACLU/status/705112741095325696

But then again, you have Kennedy signaling that he wants to just send it back to the lower courts.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 23:17

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Mr. Nice! posted:

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a 4 liberal majority, kennedy concurrence saying it should be sent back down for more info, and alito/roberts/thomas dissent?

No, AFAIK, it would be pretty lovely. Pretty much every clinic in Texas would be closed pending a Supreme Court ruling probably.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2016 20:12

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

This has been going on since 2011, with Tenessee, Texas, and Arkansas (I think) passing their own laws. https://www.texasobserver.org/legislative-proposal-nullify-lgbt-nondiscrimination-laws/

The TN example was held up due to the plaintiffs not having standing. Seems those laws have survived a lot of challenges, but I could be wrong.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 21:34

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Rygar201 posted:

Is this a grammar issue or a legal terms issue? Is 'persons' defined differently than 'people'?

Personhood is a legal term for a type of entity entitled to certain rights and privileges.

I.e. children may not be considered persons depending on the jurisdiction and context.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 18:08

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:

Thanks, that's actually 100x more concise than the stupid NYT article.

Kennedy was pretty silent during arguments, I gather? All the noise is about Roberts and Alito going hard against the Solicitor General. Either way, its not filling with me confidence. As someone who has volunteered with DACA kids, this is a case that I've got a lot riding on.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 00:29

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

I don't know slate's reading of it is pretty downbeat: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ation_plan.html

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 03:29

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

kaleedity posted:

it is interesting that in 1901, a two-term republican president's primary domestic policy pointed towards breaking up trusts. Eight years later, when Teddy's prot�g� Taft becomes president, they have a falling out over breaking up US Steel, which Roosevelt considered One of the Good Ones. Four years after that, after an election divided by Roosevelt's third party candidacy, a democrat becomes elected that implements the FTC to enforce his new Clayton antitrust act.

Was there something different about how politics were corrupt then?

This article is germane I think:

quote:

The following year, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for President, asked Brandeis to sketch out a position for him on the �Trust problem� which would be different from that of Theodore Roosevelt, who was running as a third-party candidate. Brandeis wrote a letter making the point that the Democrats were for enforced competition in industry, whereas Roosevelt�s Bull Moose Party believed that trusts and monopolies �should be made �good� by regulation.� Brandeis went on, �We believe that no methods of regulation ever have been or can be devised to remove the menace inherent in private monopoly and overweening commercial power. This difference in the economic policy of the two parties is fundamental and irreconcilable.�

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/why-big-business-and-big-government-haunt-america

The suspicion of large corporation was much more prevalent at the time, after the predations of the Gilded Age. The roll-back in the widespread agreement to whittle down trusts has been occurring since the Progressive movement, and only recently seen some push-back.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 22:02

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

OddObserver posted:

Is this sort of wide-teaching order normal or appropriate? As a layperson, this sort of thing feels really weird jurisdictionally --- how often do states ending up suing outside their circuit happen? Why would this sort of thing end up in some particular Texas district anyway?

It's pretty bug-poo poo crazy.

quote:

Ethics scholar Kathleen Clark of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law said she was �astounded� by the sanctions Hanen imposed.

�There are two�ethics training and the list�and neither one is narrowly tailored to address the specific allegation of misconduct and he really doesn�t explain the alleged misconduct,� Clark said.

Clark recalled several instances where a district judge became so upset with lawyers in a preliminary matter that the judge was removed. Judge H. Lee Sarokin was pulled off a case in 1992 after he called the tobacco industry �king of concealment and disinformation� upon examining documents in camera that tobacco companies sought to keep privileged, she said.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/s...r#ixzz49WjW6kGs

# ¿ May 24, 2016 01:03

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

GlyphGryph posted:

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

There is some precedent for citing the Ninth Amendment for privacy cases, most notably in a concurrence in Griswold v. Conneticut (the case protecting contraceptive rights) and the original District ruling in Roe v. Wade.

But, yeah, nothing I can find too important and recent.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2016 15:13

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

So DACA's done then?

EDIT: Slate predicted this would be the most disastrous way to decide this case: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...disastrous.html

# ¿ Jun 23, 2016 16:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:36

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

About the domestic abuser case, how impactful is this case when it is increasingly easy for even felons to regain their gun rights? Article is a couple of years old: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?_r=0

# ¿ Jun 29, 2016 00:49

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