|
The case is only over birth control that the FDA claims may prevent implantation.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
joeburz posted:It should matter because proving the accuracy of one of those is feasible and has actually already happened. They just choose to consider the science to be inapplicable because it doesn't agree with their belief(assuming it isn't actually just malicious "ignorance" in order to push their inaccurate view). Their scientific argument is entirely based on FDA statements about birth control.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
The Neonode n1m.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Has anyone read about Justice Stevens' upcoming book?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
What is his definition of a "special interest"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:You don't even need hypotheticals. Are judges really supposed to recuse themselves if they only have a financial connection to amici? That seems really overbroad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
The latter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Yes Kennedy supports civil liberties regardless of politics, generally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Replacing Kennedy would end the 5-4 decisions giving corporations more rights. He has continuously sided with 'corporate rights' since Roberts took over IIRC the Roberts court hasn't "given corporations more rights" except using a tortured reading of that phrase.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Between their expansion of money as speech, Not done by the Roberts Court. "We cannot share the view that the present Act's contribution and expenditure limitations are comparable to the restrictions on conduct upheld in O'Brien. The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as destruction of a draft card. Some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two. Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a non speech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 16 (1976). quote:restricting the definition of corruption, ? quote:and clamping down on Class Actions they absolutely have been expanding the power of corporations Again, only using a tortured reading. The AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision found that state laws forbidding class action waiver contracts were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Blame Congress leaving lovely laws on the books.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was. One of the decisions was that attorney fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the more important one was that the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the attorney fee award part of the Patent Act was almost impossible to meet and was not the correct interpretation of the law. So you had IP groups supporting the FC decisions because the FC loves IP trolls and lets them get off without a fee award constantly, while tech companies that are constantly being sued over software patents and the like opposed them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
All I'm hoping for is cert grant in Ryan v. Hurles 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Alito's passive-agressive dissent from denial of Beard v. Aguilar is amusing.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
I was about to mention Stevens' 2A dissents. Every justice talks about history and tradition when it suits them, just like they all use that one federalism quote.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I am the 18%.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Counterpoints: Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas. United States v. Windsor, Boumedine v. Bush, Kyllo v. United States, Texas v. Johnson, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, District of Columbia v. Heller, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:BSA v. Dale is really an outlier from that group because its the one that doesn't say anything about the relation between citizens and their government other than in a fairly peripheral way. Can the government force a private club not to discriminate? Otherwise it was a dispute between two private individuals. I suppose to an extent, but were NYT v. Sullivan and NYT v. United States really such different cases? And where would you put Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I think those NYT cases are quite different from each other, and both very different from the Boy Scout case. Libel damages and criminal prior restraints are different beasts entirely. There was no issue of truth in NYT v US, and in fact if what the NYT wanted to report had been false that would have made the US' case weaker, not stronger. At any rate, what the government can prevent you from saying, and what responsibility you have to third parties for reckless speech are very different beasts, at least in my opinion. If we had criminal libel statutes in the U.S., that would close the gap considerably, but we don't. We do have criminal libel statutes. The cert question in Driehaus is about procedural issues, but the underlying case was Rep. Driehaus' complaint with Ohio about SBAL's statements. Going back to Dale, my thoughts are that if the antidiscrimination law had a provision allowing the state to bring civil suits, similar to civil regulatory actions, it would still be fundamentally the same case with the same analysis. In any event this is pretty far off the original point, I just wanted to point out decisions (that I agree with) striking down either laws or government actions
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Holy crap I new there was still some crazy statutes on the books, but I didn't think it was ever enforced. I sleep well knowing that my virtue and chastity is protected from my frat bro neighbors  Jastiger posted:That is a very interesting opinion by Thomas regarding P&I and it seems quite strange that it opens a window for him to pick and choose which rights are and are not protected under the Constitution. It seems it allows him to reject pretty much anything written after 1800 on the grounds that it isn't in the Constitution, so it is up to his interpretation. No, he's writing against the current doctrine of selective incorporation. In the bizzaro-world where Slaughter-House was overturned, the entire Bill of Rights would apply to the states. Thomas does have some other weird views though like believing the Establishment Clause is solely a federalism provision and shouldn't be incorporated.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Don't most people agree at this point that Slaughter house was incorrectly decided though? It's just a crazy idea to overturn 150 years of selective incorporation jurisprudence at this point as a practical matter. What hasn't been incorporated at this point? Civil jury trials and grand jury indictments is all I can think of, which is kind of strange since those both actually are due process issues. Also the 3rd, the Vicinage Clause, and excessive fines. I don't know what else it would mean except maybe Thomas wants to expand economic liberties like the "right to practice a trade" advocated for in Slaughter-House.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I lost my old hobby Pacer account, so I just signed up for a new one. I'll pull the docket when it gets processed unless someone else with one wants to do it sooner. I just ran it, the latest docket and some of the filings are on RECAP. The last thing that happened was in March when discovery was stayed pending the defendants giant motion to dismiss. Here's the MTD: http://ia601809.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.95379/gov.uscourts.nvd.95379.17.0.pdf
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Yes. And? It's not like ignoring/sleeping through them makes for better jurisprudence. What Thomas opinions do you think are inconsistent?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Remind me, could this hypothetically be headed off with a legislative patch that reapplies the content of substantive due process into P&I? If by legislative you mean amendment. Congress can't expand constitutional rights through legislation.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Here is the amended complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/223077220/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-Nevada
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Much as merely implicit corruption is not actually corruption the merely implicit role of expanding surveillance in stifling dissent means it doesn't exist to stifle dissent. The 4th amendment is less split along court lines than you might think. Check out Kyllo v. United States.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
The Federal Circuit was Reagan's greatest crime.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
The only files Google copy and pasted were rangeCheck and those test files, and they stipulated to damages of $0 for those. The function declarations were the same but of course they have to be for Java.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
FedCirc already distinguished Accolade a long time ago. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. is closer to the current situation.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Is there any source that breaks down SC (and other court) decisions to look for correlations? Looking at how Justices vote with each other, influence of amici, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Like the SCOTUS Blog stat pack? Somewhat, but more in depth.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought Scalia is a strong believer in legislative ahistory...like for example imagining that Congress didn't actually want to pass the VRA, they just voted for it anyway or they would have been tarred as racists and booted out in the next election. Therefore Congress' true intent was not to pass it... That wasn't in the final opinion.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well there's the full stat pack if you click through the link near the top of the page. That page I linked to is just a summary. They have advocate stats, but I don't think they do for amici. I'm interested in messing with a lot of things, and the whole stat pack is interesting but not complete. I'm currently writing a script to try to parse opinion PDFs and docket pages 
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I mean, there aren't really that many opinions (and there's a lot of data already out there), so it doesn't quite fall into Big Data. Amici mostly, but also attempting to look at Justice splits by topic. Like that study about 1A decisions depending on the politics of the speaker.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
So the scotusblog chart of pending cases and opinion authors means that Roberts is probably the author of Bond v. United States right?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Hurles is gonna die in prison before being executed at this rate.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I don't know that it was even a real switcheroo. Raich was awful, but there's certainly a gulf between the economic activity of growing marijuana and Lopez/Morrison.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Seriously, Kennedy is a bad writer. I think it's just Windsor. My interpretation is that he couldn't write something that would change federalism too much to avoid becoming a concurrence to a Ginsberg plurality, but didn't want to utter "heightened scrutiny" yet either.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I'm interested in messing with a lot of things, and the whole stat pack is interesting but not complete. I'm currently writing a script to try to parse opinion PDFs and docket pages Update: parsing PDFs is ugly work. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:That used to be part of my old job and I've come away with the opinion that PDF is probably the worst format to store data in if you want to read it with a machine. I include Excel 97 in that consideration. Luckily I'm using an HTML converter. It gives me tag soup but it's easier than parsing the raw PDF. Still a lot of ugly conversion to get to my screenshot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 18:06
|
|