|
I was legitimately panicking last year at all the bullshit SCOTUS released that changed everything before last year's bar exam. I passed and they kept the questions well away from ConLaw topics, but it's going to be even worse for the new cohort coming through
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
I've had clients arrested for sharing the same name and similar date of birth by local police in Georgia. The entire 11th circuit being ok with taking multiple days to confirm the actual presence of the subject of a warrant is hosed up. I hope David Sosa gets his petition granted so that David Sosa, David Sosa, David Sosa and David Sosa (and ~915 other David Sosas) can go to Disney without fear. With this court, they'll probably apply the 11th's decision to every circuit though 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Yep. You would be amazed. I used to work for the U.S. Passport Agency with the Dept of State. We had to ID people with the same name and birthday all the time by ging down to place of birth or even deeper. Less common names are more common than one would think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
Kagan uses the Chicago nuke analogy in her dissent
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
You aren't. That is why these shouldn't have been cases in the first place. They only got up to SCOTUS, and one of them won, because the 6 Republican judges wanted Biden to lose no matter how stupid the theory or inadequate the legal reasoning
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
It makes it even more obvious what partisan hacks they are if you know what executive supremacists they are. They've all gone for decisions that let presidents do whatever the hell they want in the past. But suddenly it's all States Rights (to get brown people killed) and balance of power between the branches when the president has a -D
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Please resign at the end of the term, effective when your replacement is confirmed. I love Sotomayor but we can't risk another McConnell ratfuck
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Luckily, they already created such a bill, and passed it! It's called the 14th amendment
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
Unfortunately for the right, Trump et al keep losing and getting juries willing to actually punish him because the juries and courts actually are working. They are bending over backwards for him and his chuds to be fair to the right (and basic constitutionality). They keep losing because it's A: actually egregious conduct and B: he crimes in deep blue areas. The jury of his peers is guaranteed to be heavily slanted left because that's where he crimes! If he wanted a better jury he can go crime in bumbfuck Mississippi. Compare that to SCOTUS and the fifth circuit which are basically just making poo poo up at this point and laughing that nobody can stop them
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
I've seen some law profs basically say this makes it so the only way to stop Trump for 14th amendment reasons at this point is for Congress to refuse to certify his electoral votes. You know, the very same thing Trump tried to riot his way into doing!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
The "... Remove such disability" language implies that the bar to office is self-executing without needing Congress to intervene except to undo the bar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:My read is that Congress can enact a law stating that, under the 14th, anyone who is convicted of x by a federal court is automatically barred from the ballot. Then, Congress can still overturn this bar via a 2/3 majority vote. This literally cannot be the right reading. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He was never convicted of a crime. Your reading therefore does not bar him from holding office. A reading that lets the Arch Traitor into office is a reading that can't be right
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Jefferson Davis had run for the presidency, then his disqualification from the presidency definitely wouldn't have been enforced through states unilaterally removing him from their ballots. There would definitely, absolutely be some kind of federal government action to officially declare him disqualified and make that disqualification absolutely clear and official to the many ex-Confederate states that wouldn't remove him from their ballots. Would there have been massive action by Congress to stop Davis from running and make sure literally everyone in the world knew it was because he was stopped by the 14th? Probably! Would it have been required though? No! The amendment only requires action to undo a disqualification, not affirm/create one. The fact that lovely states were being lovely and Andrew Johnson was being lovely doesn't mean the amendment doesn't exist or clearly says what it says, either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Cimber posted:They have jurisdiction because they say they do. They have jurisdiction because the Constitution gave Congress the power to set SCOTUS' jurisdiction*. Congress gave them final appellate jurisdiction over all matters with federal questions. That includes suits over constitutional matters**. Jurisdiction isn't an issue here *They have original jurisdiction that Congress can't touch in a few areas like suits between the states and ambassadors per article 3 ** They stole constitutional review in Marbury though, tbf, which was basically "we decide because we say we do"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Yeah, my reading is that a personal page that links to the professional page and maybe posts the occasional news story about themself can block people as it's not government action. It's when the person solicits feedback, makes announcements etc from their page that it becomes governmental and therefore no blocks. It's KISS: keep it separate stupid And that's honestly a good rule
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Biden wouldn't use it to do the funniest thing(s) though
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
The SCOTUS themselves put deadlines on election cases, making it so cases can't be decided near an election (generally about 6 months or so IIRC). So they knew that these cases needed to have the opinions released as early as possible so that elections offices could act on them. But oops, we didn't finish this decision until May and that is too close to the election so I guess we have to use the unconstitutional map that happens to favor the Republicans. Sorry guys, our bad!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:I suspect they're on route of finding the Magna Carta as too limiting of executive power (for some values of the executive). The Twelve Tables and 10 Commandments is all we need. Stone law, only law.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2024 00:33
|
|