|
Zeroisanumber posted:We're going to be cleaning up after this court for a very long time. Maybe all five of the conservatives will split an order of salmon mousse and give us a chance to create something decent. I'm alright with Clarence Thomas writing his parallel-universe dissents against an eight-justice communist majority, personally.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I hope this stupid derail over how something can be given realistic credentials simply by force of faith can be stopped before someone gets too deep into their sincere belief that the world is better off without six million or so people of a specific ethnic group. Now you're just being incoherent. I'm with the people who are hesitant about stripping otherwise permitted religious freedoms/exemptions on the basis of "nope, you're ignorant of actual science".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Imagine, if you will, that Scalia and Thomas, to pick two, retire/pass on, and the court is stacked with screaming liberals, then. Will Thomas remain Chief Justice? If so, imagine the legacy of the Thomas Court. As much as I'd love to imagine the legacy of the Thomas Court, you probably mean Roberts.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:how our Republic would look very different if Reagan and George H. W. Bush never had the opportunity to appoint the justices they did. HW Bush appointed Souter and Thomas. Okay, Thomas takes the majority in, uh, the majority of the Bad 5-4 Decisions, for his own reasons, but even if you ignore the occasional case where 1860s jurisprudence demands that he join the side of the angels, HW did alright. He certainly made the Court a more interesting place. (And Reagan appointed Kennedy, so there's that.) There is nothing good about W's appointments except that Mrs Miers didn't get confirmed. Also, someone else was going to say this, but Clarence Thomas very rarely contradicts anything he has ever penned. Don't lump him in with Scalia, especially post-Lawrence Scalia. Edit: also, to go up the page a bit, Clinton probably didn't commit (provable) perjury. His lawyers carefully picked apart the definition of "sexual contact", and Clinton himself was extraordinarily careful in his court statements. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 16:55 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wonder what part of Thomas' oh-so-unique-and-distinctive form of jurisprudence led him to officiate at Rush Limbaugh's private wedding. His wife probably asked him nicely. Alternatively, there is no justice I trust more to make a distinction between his goofy rear end personal opinions and his far goofier rear end jurisprudence.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:This was also my first thought. Are police officers setting up for a "tactical advantage" really equivalent to troops demanding housing under the 3rd? It's not like there's a well-developed 3rd Amendment jurisprudence to use as a guide. Which is obviously an unconscionable oversight in American law, so he's trying to create some jurisprudence.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
No more dicking around and bringing a copyright suit in the state with the longest possible statute of limitations.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books. Presumably Thomas feels this is a decision that needs to be left to the States. Does Alito have a stated reason to oppose gay marriage?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:SCOTUS just denied cert on every marriage equality case it had up. They were cases appealing pro-SSM rulings, so that means the lower court ruling stands. You only need four votes for cert, and judges who agree with the ruling generally deny cert, so that means at least one of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted against hearing the cases. Could conceivably be Thomas. I can see him reasoning his way into letting the states and their judiciary sort poo poo out on their own in this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Of course it's those three. Clarence Thomas. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You win. Every once in a while, I am reminded why we keep Discendo around.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Antti posted:Working example of rules lawyering: John Bowie smiles and calls for the bailiff.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:And yet it will have absolutely no impact on his decision. Seriously, if there's one justice I trust not to be swayed by politics, it's Thomas - he's too crazy. No, he's too principled. I respect him for that. It's his principles that are nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
I thought they were lawyers, not economists?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Oh good, I always wanted to see a presidential candidate strangled on live television by the vengeful revenant of John Marshall.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
Nope.  Any delegates the legislature chooses to send. Although as Cosmobot notes, there may be state-by-state restrictions.Also, if you think all state legislators know what they're doing, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What kind of personality does Kennedy have? I only ever get the impression that he is a simpleton who is titillated by the historical significance of his own cowardice and lack of principles. I don't think it's entirely appropriate to call any of the Supreme Court justices simpletons. (That's why Harriet Miers didn't get confirmed!  )He's certainly pretty boring outside of the SC. Big on prison reform but does absolutely nothing else interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:This thread title is really creepy now. I kinda like it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Its because it's not actually superior to any other justice and just has extra administrative overhead. Eh - being able to assign the opinion when on the winning side can be important.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Unless Thomas was Chief Justice, of course. Not going to lie, I would enjoy this until I died from the nearest lawyer spontaneously detonating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'd like to see the Senate GOP start firebombing Cruz but they'd have to come around to the concept of a work ethic first. I was delighted when Trump birthered Cruz and the entire GOP senate minus Mike Lee, Only Friend, went "hmm, that is a reasonable point and questions should be asked about his eligibility".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It doesn't help the party but it does help them individually. They'd get primary'd if they appeared open to compromise. This is a hole they've dug themselves into. Ah, game theory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing. God I wish. I like Soros (as long as he is never allowed within 2km of the Federal Reserve), I'd be 150% onboard with him purchasing a couple states.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
tekz posted:He needs to be executed for black wednesday. Look, when you make a pact with dark gods for perfect currency speculation superpowers, you use them, okay?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Sotomayor would like a word with you. This is particularly relevant given what Alito, as an Alumnus, was Concerned about. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Hell, my mother's a doctor and rants about poo poo like that frequently. But I handled juuuust enough birth injury cases where the doc really did screw the pooch to go "yeah, no, keep that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads". Medical malpractice insurance (which is in turn a thing because court cases) led directly to massive improvements in anesthesiology practice, and a significant reduction in the complication/death rate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:JCO has also put a lot of effort into anesthesiology including intraoperative awareness so there's been a big emphasis on the field in the last 15-20 years. JCO?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That makes a lot of sense- thanks for the insight! None of the other names being floated make a lot of sense to me as actual shortlisters- I'd want people with more experience. I'm guessing the white house's goal is to force Republicans to discuss this lack of experience, thus going on record with media actually responding to candidates so that the same obstruction frame can continue to be applied. Is Sri Srinivasan tricky enough for your tastes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Radish posted:That doesn't sound too bad I guess. They can't all be Sotomayor and anything that's not as bad as Scalia is going to unfuck the court a lot. Kagan is herself Perfectly Fine. Not particularly exciting in terms of actual jurisprudence but fine, and has a little fun with her opinions sometimes and is generally layman-friendly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Well, dang. That's not great. Guess I'll be hoping for GOP obstructionism (and a Dem win in November). Criminal appeals are a Pretty Important part of the SC (and the thing Alito is obsessively, 100% horrible on, to the point that in his previous judgeships the prosecutors and police departments he was granting vast powers went "whoa, slow down there a bit hoss, that sounds like a bit much").
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That's not what happened. Oh, were you there?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Why? What specific issues are you worried about? What do you base this view on? He is mediocre on criminal appeals. Tends to side against the convicted a slightly worrying proportion of the time. Other than that he's pretty good, but he is definitely on the lawnorder end of the spectrum. Still a massive improvement on Scalia unless you really care a LOT about rights re police searches, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:The only problem with this line of thinking is that when the GOP finally gets a chance to make and confirm the nominations they want, they are not going to approach it in such a thoughtful manner. I mean I know it sounds lovely but these sorts of concessions are exactly why the progressive movement is so weak in the US. If the Tea Party gains the WH and Congress they are going to start nominating college Republicans. Believing they won't sink that low is a dangerous gamble. So? Barack Obama is hoisting them on their own petard by nominating a man who is, broadly speaking, okay. When they fail to confirm him, that'll help the side of light and goodness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Sotomayor is amazing in some ways, but she's not great in others. She's been the sole dissent on some cases where I really agree with the majority. Which is exactly why I like having one, and only one, Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:How was Scalia on marijuana? Is this another day to be happy he is dead? He hated marijuana enough that he was perfectly happy to compromise his originalism and go "no, see, marijuana is so bad that this time I am firmly in favor of rampant abuse of the Commerce Clause to meddle in intra-California matters." It's one of the more popular citations for Thomas being way more consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:At a certain point the President is going to start using the recess nomination power, but aside from that, yes. This resulted in a bit of a kerfuffle in Louisiana when Muslim (and Nation of Islam and friends) got a bunch of voucher money for private schools in the most impoverished parts of the state with the worst public schools. The legislative response was "gosh, when we said people should be empowered to send their kids to religious private schools, we didn't mean those people. "The program is kind of a catastrofuck in results terms but last I checked A) it was still in place and B) nobody had figured out how to exclude non-Christians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:So what you're saying is that the greatest thing Scalia ever did on the court was die Second greatest, he also provided in Lawrence v Texas a very compelling argument for gay marriage that was then repeatedly cited in lower courts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yeah this I got a guy to the right of Attila the Hun to oppose arbitration by noting that it's how Muslims can take civil disputes (especially divorce and inheritance) to a religious court. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The article is pretty biased, the Roberts exchange is obviously him playing dumb to get to his gotcha. It is admittedly both a good and funny line.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh. Well he is dumb. While hilarious, that Mitt Romney quote is constantly taken out of context. In context, as I recall, it would have been more accurately phrased as corporations are MADE UP OF people [and therefore not soulless evil artificial intelligences]. I think that diagnosis ignores the fact that the corporate entity acts sort of like a composite entity and even the C-level folks are partially beholden to corporate structure and priorities, and is therefore kind of dumb and whitewashy, but it's not QUITE as dumb as the soundbite alone sounds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 19:21
|
|