|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013 In which a sitting supreme court justice unironically says "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion"
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
I mean, that won't keep 4 justices from voting against it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Piles of poo poo that they are, I couldn't see Roberts or Scalia going for that. Why? Roberts is a old fashioned Texas racist, and Scalia gets his opinion from talk radio and then has his staffers spend the next month figuring out a tortured logic to justify it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Scalia I'm less certain about, but he's usually a reliable vote when there's a clear-cut constitutional issue on the table. And Roberts has a lingering respect for the rule of law that even being a retrograde reganite shithead hasn't completely tamped down like it has in that useless hack Alito. Like that time business forced people to give up their right to association to form a class action suit simply by using their service, and he agreed with the justification of "it's what businesses want"?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes. Scalia and Roberts are conservative, not psychotic. I may find their views unpalatable, but presenting opposing positions as categorically crazy isn't productive. Yes, Scalia for example doesn't think the constitution actually considers women people. Perhaps the truth is in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Montgomery kinda surprises me given the court's recent "racism isn't real" stance
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. Boy how noble of him!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Scalia liked to dress up lovely decisions in originalism to give his opinions some veneer of merit - even if actual originalism wouldn't agree with him. I forgot which decision it was, but the end result was that it legalized companies putting clauses into their EULAs that blocked class-action suits. Scalia ruled in favor with the basic premise of "because companies want it". Thomas on the other hand is consistent in viewing the United States through the eyes of barely-high school educated landed gentry who considered him to be lifestock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So the 2 would be Alito and Thomas. What is Thomas's reasoning for banning abortion? Abortion is primarily used by PoC, which would adversely affect the founding father's plantation ROI.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is he right? It doesn't explicitly state "you have a right to privacy". Anything that you must infer from text instead of reading the text directly is illegitimate in the mind of a textualist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:Yeah, can anybody fill us in on what we can expect from him? 10 months with no hearings followed by a 1 paragraph obit in on page 50 of the NYT in 8 years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, it goes to the DC circuit which is heavily liberal, and then to the Supreme Court to uphold the DC Circuit 4-4. Thank god for the one time Reid grew a spine
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
While this isn't strictly SCOTUS related, I have a semi-legal question - what's the deal with "unindicted co-conspirators"? From a cursory glance, it seems like a tool prosecutors can use to quasi-legally smear people they don't like that they have a mere hunch is involved in something? It doesn't seem to require any proof, and while it has no real legal meaning, the fact that it's coming from a prosecutory authority seems to lend it more credence than if it was just Glenn Beck ranting about stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
So this has probably been covered, but assuming Clinton wins and the senate Republicans all of a sudden want Garland because he's far more moderate than someone Clinton would pick with a supposed mandate, does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Is there a graceful way to do that, or is he beyond giving a gently caress about looking graceful?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Maybe Obama genuinely thinks Garland would be a good justice? Why does everybody assume that isn't the case? I assume it to be the case because Obama has spent the last two years antagonizing and generally having a dont-give-a-gently caress attitude towards the GOP's obstruction so nominating a younger more leftist person would make more sense - however, nominating a moderate and still having the GOP stonewall makes for a much better election-year story. I mean at least theoretically, except the media totally forgot about this unprecedented obstruction in about 1 week.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:5th Circuit just knocked down Texas' Voter ID law. Discriminatory under the VRA. Oh cool so the SCOTUS can knock out another VRA provision
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no it can't, it can only tie 4-4 and affirm the 5th circuit I mean when President Trump appoints William "gas the gays" Pryor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I found the opinion: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV3.pdf Not really since the official position of the conservative half of the SCOTUS is that racism hasn't existed since 1964.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:This is the first time I've actually been upset about Scalia's death. I may have hated his jurisprudence, but I think he would have enjoyed seeing his friend in the opera. please don't' humanize fascists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Hasn't the senate held a 40 second session every 3 days for a while to avoid ever being in recess? This has been done by both parties for a decade ever since W appointed Bolton to be UN Ambassador in recess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:NLRB v Canning was bad. I'm not a law-ologist, but as a layperson Obama really seemed to overstep his bounds with those appointments. Sure GOP obstruction on the issue was bullshit, but it seemed like he was in a clearly defined constitutional corner on the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 15:44
|
|