|
axeil posted:Oh god I forgot about Bush v. Gore. What was the actual rationale they gave for that one beyond "the recount needs to stop because this is silly." Or if you're more cynical "the recount needs to stop because we have 5 Republican-appointed justices and stopping it allows a Republican to win the White House." e: oh god I didn't mean to hit post Amarkov fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Dec 3, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
StarMagician posted:Seven of the justices in that case were Republican-appointed. And they were the 7 justices that ruled the same way on the 5-4 case, because oh my god that loving case. Broad overview (because I'm too lazy to effortpost right now): Every justice except Ginsburg and Stevens agreed that the Florida recounts were unconstitutional, because the lack of a clear statewide ballot standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. Breyer and Souter argued that, to remedy this, the case should be remanded to Florida with instructions to establish a uniform standard and apply it. But an old provision of federal law says that, if a state has made a "final determination" of its Electoral College representatives by six days before the meeting, those electors are locked in. The remaining five justices ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida had ruled that the Florida Legislature had intended pre-recount tallies in elections to be a "final determination". Since there was no time to complete a recount between the Supreme Court's decision on December 12 and the six day deadline on December 12, the original result had to be locked in as the final one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I loved the provision that this ruling can't be used as future precedent or whatever it was that they threw in there as a compromise or something at the end. Especially since it let everyone say the stupidest things. REHNQUIST, C. J. posted:No reasonable person would call it “an error in the But you aren't disputing the per curiam opinion. Doesn't this mean the normal state election procedures also violate the Equal Protection Clause, and thus that you ordered certification of unconstitutionally determined election results? oh right the per curiam opinion says it doesn't apply to anything else ever e: quote:Nah, Breyer was a Clinton appointee and Stevens was a Ford appointee, also Breyer and Souter made a patented Stephen Breyer strategic partial concurrence that they didn't really believe in to try and lure O'Connor or Kennedy to a middle ground position (note that this strategy actually worked in the PPACA case). That they were. I'm a dumbass 
Amarkov fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I guess I am having trouble understanding the Hobby Lobby thing. The PPACA establishes that a protected class of religious employers do not have to "give [their] money to an insurance company (on behalf of [their] employees) that may then use said money to pay for contraception that goes against [their] religious beliefs". I agree with you that this is a silly provision, but it exists. The question is whether or not Hobby Lobby has the right to be classified as a religious employer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is Kennedy really making the argument "Well how can there be a free rider problem if the state employee wants his benefits slashed and his pay to be the shittiest possible because he'd rather Illinois have a balanced budget? Then the union is screwing him over by bargaining to get paid enough to feed his family and take them to the doctor instead of spending his pay on sweet tax cuts for the top 1% This is why people are worried about the case. There's definitely some government employee who hold an earnest, political belief that government employees should make less money. So to avoid agreeing with this, the court would have to rule that automatic deductions somehow aren't donations. And I have no idea how they would go about doing that. e: Now that I've read the orals, though, your argument isn't actually what Kennedy's saying here. Some particular employee might heavily value pay over pension, to the extent that they'd prefer 1 more dollar in pay to a thousand more in pension money. (Perhaps they believe public pensions are inevitably doomed.) If a union trades $1 in pay for $100 in pensions, it's acted counter to her interests. So she can't be a free rider in this situation. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
"
|
fade5 posted:E: On topic, would national right-to-work have any effects on places that are already right-to-work like here in Texas? Or is it just "Oh hey, now you guys are screwed just like we are, good luck, you'll need it." The "national right-to-work" people are talking about would only affect government employees.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
He seemed to agree that, if unions did salary negotiation and only salary negotiation, they'd be fine. An increase in pay may technically be an increase in the size of the government, and thus the union activity is technically a political position. But government-as-employer has been held to get some leeway in this regard, and nobody seems inclined to change that. The issue Kennedy brought up on the preceding page was about something subtly different. Unions routinely negotiate for an increase in staff (or a reduction in hours, which is the same thing). This is a direct increase in the size of the government, but it only creates a free-rider problem to the extent that employees care about the number of hours they work. So if there exists some government employee who doesn't mind working more hours, he's getting his pay deducted for a political purpose to handle a free-rider problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Can someone explain how the questions in Harris v. Quinn could possibly lead to the Court holding "national right to work go gently caress yourself"? I mean I see right to work is relevant in this case but I don't follow the logic on how that ruling could possibly come from this case. Or are people expecting one of those John Roberts style "chip away at everything good until America is the worst place on earth" opinions that would eventually make right to work go national? The plaintiffs are arguing that all agency fees for a government union are a violation of the First Amendment, since people might have a political objection to any change in the structure of government jobs. If this argument holds, no government union will be able to charge agency fees; this is right-to-work. You're right that this isn't quite "national right to work". There's no possible outcome where the ruling gets imposed on private businesses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
The core problem with Hobby Lobby is that Congress acted stupidly. They wrote a contraceptive exemption that only applied to nonprofits without any coherent reason (beyond "hey the Catholics are mad"), and they wrote a dumb clause into the RFRA that makes it automatically supersede all future legislation. The ruling was questionable, but this really shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Technically the contraceptive regulation and the exemption were drafted by HHS/the executive/Obama. Congress only said "preventive care", the rest was Obama. How did I not know this O.o
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Magres posted:Also how bad is the Harris v Quinn ruling? Seems like they kind of sidestepped it while saying "please, give us a better case for gutting unions, we really want to and just need you to lob us an easy pitch to knock out of the park." They spent almost the entirety of the oral arguments talking about unions. The fact that the Court released such a narrow opinion indicates these arguments were not convincing, especially since nobody wrote a concurrence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:They specified what this applied to, in advance. They have established that yes religion is an argument for (some) companies to make in court. Then stated, but this only applies to a certain religious belief. I assume because they had the self awareness to understand they just opened a line of argument that could negate virtually any law. They specifically refused to evaluate whether the HHS exemption policy itself was valid. They just ruled that, given its existence, closely held for-profit corporations must also qualify.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the opinion that specifies why the ruling only applies to closely held corporations, is there? So in addition to the cases extending the RFRA to blood transfusions or whatever, it also seems inevitable that we're going to see cases from larger, publicly traded companies and the like. In a large or publicly traded company, the decisions of the company need not be decisions of the owners. So there's no claim of religious principle to be made; the owners are passively allowing contraceptives to be provided, in precisely the same way that Catholic nonprofits passively allow the government to provide them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Uh I'm pretty sure Jackson personally nullifying court decisions tops FDR threatening to stack the court. He probably never said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; if he did, it was in regards to Worcester v. Georgia, which did not order the President to take any action. He definitely didn't personally nullify any Supreme Court decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 22:33
|
|