|
Cimber posted:So does this ruling mean that anyone can refuse to do business with a member of a protected class if they claim to hold strongly held religious convictions and dealing with that protected class would somehow injure them? No.
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:My experiences and bias are the basis yes. Westmont used to be significantly more women:men ratiod. I've never met a graduate that chose to attend the school - it's a school parents choose. All 3 schools are very religious. SPU has had lawsuits regarding racism, but they still have a diversity department. You know UNC was also part of the case, right? And that the lawyer for a group of student respondents (repped by the Lawyers Committee, which is a very well regarded civil rights org) got argument time as well? (Not to mention an absolute fuckton of schools weighed in through the amicus process.) Long winded way to say, we get it, you don't like Harvard, but that doesn't mean they weren't genuinely trying to defend the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Growing up I always thought everyone knew about this, even if they don't have enough income to take advantage. I was shocked the first time I ran into someone who categorically viewed debt as "how they getcha." Guess my skin color and economic class! Law school alone these days can easily top 300k once you count living costs. (Eg, Georgetown.) Add in undergrad and 400k is trivial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:Is the issue that you are looked down upon for working with your hands? I don't know. Yes. (Also that while trades provide a comfortable living, they don’t have the lottery ticket career potential a college degree theoretically has.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
They’re all former clerks, it’s 100% chipping in for the booze for the party.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Are SC nominees subject to the blue slip? No. (Nor have they ever been. Blue slips are generally a DCT thing, and are sometimes applied at the circuit level.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It's not that Miers was "good" it's that it's not possible for her to have a worse SC judicial record than Alito has had There is always more and it is always worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
Yes. Which is *exactly* what Miers is likely to have done had she been confirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Where do you find it explicitly written? “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” makes it pretty clear that the death penalty is contemplated.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not really the case for new nominees. It was true for Thomas when he was appointed but these days new SC nominees almost always have ivy league backgrounds and extensive resumes. See: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Thomas went to Yale and was an EEOC chair and circuit court judge before being nominated, I don’t think that he was any different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:So who were the 4 justices who are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause, and what weird hosed up theory did they have for pretending not to be aware of it? Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They didn’t write anything explaining their reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Sotomayor has Type I Diabetes. Which is not, generally speaking, a problem if you have adequate medical care. Which she does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:T1D still reduces life expectancy by as much as a decade in Finland and Sweden, and even people with the lowest measurable risk factors (A1C, smoking status, eGFR, BMI) still see a notable reduction of life expectancy. Even T1D that is generally well managed over time is hard on the organs. That ignores current age (and honestly doesn't say much about how controlled/quality of care). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2088852 is more relevant, I think. For a woman of age 70 with T1d, remaining life expectancy is 12.8 years; for a woman of age 70 without diabetes, it's 15.5 years. It's not really that big a difference if you've made it that far. (Also worth noting that this came up during her nomination - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wh-still-mum-on-sotomayor-diabetes-024778 - and "doctors said Drexler’s report that Sotomayor lacks any evidence of eye, kidney, nerve, or heart problems is remarkable and indicates she can expect greater longevity than the typical diabetic.")
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, the most likely outcome is 6-3 with the Republicans holding that Trump's actions don't probably rise to a level of "insurrection" sufficient to trigger the amendment while the liberals go "what the gently caress" Nah. Roberts could quite easily be the 4th vote against, even in a 5-4.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I doubt it. Roberts is the one conservative justice who understands that public perception of the court's legitimacy can affect his ability to effect change. He'd never sign onto an obvious bullshit Calvinball argument just to be on the losing side. He absolutely might cast the deciding vote either way, but he'd leave the dissents to the shameless shills. I'm not arguing that Roberts would sign on to an insane losing argument. I'm saying he'd be on the "what the gently caress" side. (e: I also wouldn't bet against him being able to bring along one of Kav or Barrett, who've at least shown some willingness to listen to Roberts on this stuff.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Javid posted:listening to the "can public officials block people on facebook" oral arguments, and I feel like there needs to be a branch of jury duty where you JUST explain technology and internet things to the supreme court justices. I couldn’t find anything like that in the transcript (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-324_fe9g.pdf) - Thomas asks about whether/what about the Facebook service is a *property*, which is important to the sense of the argument re: restricting access to personal property, but that’s the only thing even remotely similar to what you describe. (Also he didn’t bomb in, it was right after the advocate signaled that he was done with his opening and was ready for questions.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
Remember that forum is a magic word in the context of the first amendment - they probably are not asking if it’s a web forum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:The numbers you just quoted paint a picture of a group that goes after Republicans and Democrats fairly equally, with the Trump Administration being an organized criminal enterprise. Which it was... CREW is a Democratic organization in the same sense that the ACLU is - the people who work there are mostly Dems because they believe in ethical behavior in government, but they don’t care who they go after if they’re loving up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Right, which is why it’s a meaningless way to claim an organization is Democratic in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Gotta love lifetime appointments with an extremely high bar for removal. At least he's leaving on his own soon enough and surely this sort if nakedly political personal beliefs-in-place-of-law insanity is something the government can appeal right? They already have an order from the 9th Circuit staying the dude’s release while they decide the appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 02:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Several Justices have said that oral arguments are a waste of time. The standard statement is “you can’t win your case at oral argument but you can definitely lose it.” At SCOTUS it’s more useful for the justices to signal to each other what they’re thinking/interested in/concerned about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Slaan posted: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. Sure, but either way, the *states* are not the correct actors here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:How often does the court hear a case in October and then not rule on it by April? Three articles in a row on Washington Post were all about how three different states with racist gerrymandered districts had not received a ruling from the SC so they are just going ahead with the racist districts. It's not infrequent. Taking a quick look, 2/6 from October (CFPB case and the SC districting case), 4/7 from November, 5/7 from December remain undecided this term, for example. And last term, 5/8 cases heard in October (Clean Water Act case, Alabama redistricting case, dormant commerce clause case, § 1983 SoL case, and the Warhol/Prince fair use case) weren't decided until April or later. 2021 term was better, with only 2 of the October cases still pending on April 1. e: Basically, the court doesn't sit on opinions, they release them when they have a final opinion ready to go. For complex or controversial cases that takes longer than for the cases no one hears about because mostly just the lawyers care. Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
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
|
|