- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 20:42
|
|
- DTurtle
- Apr 10, 2011
-
|
Say you're right, the demand isn't going to go up so much that you get crippling debt like 4 year colleges do. In the public vocational school example i showed you, you can become a plumber or auto mechanic just going that route, it's completely free, it's just kids don't want to go to these vocational schools, so that school has vastly lower enrollment than my high school did. The amount of and complexity of the instruction is vastly lower, than say, doing computer science, i don't think you can turn kids into software engineers via high school like you can trades. There's nothing inherent about trades that would make it expensive unless the government started doing stupid crap like guaranteeing loans again, and even still, you're not going to see it cost anywhere near as much as college.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 22:52
|
|
- DTurtle
- Apr 10, 2011
-
|
I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis?
Basically, Roberson turned up in the ER with his comatose kid, who died. At that time there was a lot of hysteria about people shaking their baby, this leading to brain injuries and death. Roberson was immediately suspected for doing that, no proof was found, but he was convicted and sentenced to death anyway.
By now, „shaken baby syndrome“ has been largely disproven and is viewed as junk science. An appeals court in New Jersey has actually ruled that that is the case. In Ohio, another guy who was previously convicted based on SBS was released after a new trial, because SBS is junk science. A good number of other people have also been exonerated of a previous conviction due to SBS.
Unfortunately, Roberson is in Texas. And even though Texas has a law that is specifically aimed at overturning previous convictions based on junk science, exactly zero convictions have been overturned. Just last year, Texas executed Kosoul Chanthakoummane, who was convicted based on „hypnosis of a witness to obtain identification, bitemark analysis and a discredited form of DNA testimony.“
Roberson‘s execution was stayed in 2016, a new evidentiary hearing was done, numerous experts testified that SBS was junk science, but the trial judge ignored all that and maintained that SBS was still a „reasonable diagnosis.“ A Texas appeals court also affirmed that position.
So basically Roberson is hosed because Texas still thinks that junk science is acceptable, while in other jurisdictions that same junk science can‘t be used. So based on where you did something, different types of „evidence“ can be used. Obviously Texas is lobbying hard for the Supreme Court not to take the case, because reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 23:27
|
|
- DTurtle
- Apr 10, 2011
-
|
You are extremely mad at an imaginary future scotus rejection of a theoretical act of congress that scotus themselves have just ruled congress has the direct and sole authority to perform. Given that congress is absolutely not interested in performing that act during this election cycle, fixating on that instead of the greater problem - that congress is utterly useless - seems unproductive.
In the last few days, the Supreme Court delivered two body blows to anyone hoping that former President Donald Trump might face consequences for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.
...
A written Constitution and the courts that are supposed to enforce it are weak guarantors of a liberal democratic society. The Supreme Court of the United States does not always align itself with authoritarian policies and movements, but it does so often enough that it cannot be counted on as an ally in a conflict between constitutional democracy and something more sinister.
And the Court is particularly ineffective in standing up against figures like Trump, who enjoy broad (if not necessarily majoritarian) political support.
Constitutional rights and other legal safeguards are worthless in the face of a sufficiently powerful political movement
For 49 years, the right to an abortion was a constitutional right, affirmed over and over and over again by the Supreme Court. And then, one early summer morning, the right disappeared.
The American people woke up on June 24, 2022, with their right to an abortion intact. Before noon, it was gone.
This did not happen because of any substantive change to the Constitution. The Constitution in 2022, when Roe v. Wade was overruled, was identical to the Constitution in 1973, when Roe was first handed down (save for a minor, irrelevant amendment concerning congressional pay).
Rather, Roe fell because the minority of Americans who oppose abortion organized. They took over one of America’s two major political parties. And then they installed their operatives on the Supreme Court of the United States.
...
So the idea that Donald Trump, and the MAGA movement he leads, would crumble simply because there’s a law saying that his actions are forbidden was always naïve. When powerful political movements conflict, the Court honors the law maybe some of the time. And it is just as likely to align itself with an authoritarian faction as it is to choose the rule of law.
It’s not even clear that the Supreme Court is capable of standing up for the rule of law in the face of a sufficiently determined opposition
...
Consider Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the odious pro-slavery decision that declared that Black people are “beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” This decision is now widely viewed by scholars as an attempt to resolve sectional tensions over slavery by handing down a sweeping, comprehensive judicial declaration of the rights (or lack thereof) of enslaved people.
In the very next presidential election, the nation elected President Abraham Lincoln, a man whose commitment to abolitionism developed only gradually, but whose contempt for Dred Scott was apparent in his very first act as president. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln revealed his intent to openly defy the Court’s decision:
quote:If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
A similar narrative played out nearly a century later, with the Supreme Court taking the opposite side. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court famously held that racially segregated public schools are “inherently unequal,” placing a unanimous Court in opposition to the Southern racial apartheid that characterized that region ever since the 15th Amendment ceased to function.
But Brown was enforced unreliably in its first decade on the books, and enforcing it required extraordinary resources that were far beyond the judiciary. President Dwight Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne Division to protect Black students attending a historically white high school in Little Rock.
At least initially, moreover, Brown accomplished virtually nothing in the states most determined to resist it. As legal historian Michael Klarman has documented, only 40 of North Carolina’s 300,000 Black students attended an integrated school five years after the Court’s decision. In Nashville, just 42 of the city’s 12,000 Black students were integrated six years after Brown. By Brown’s 10th anniversary, only one in 85 Black children in the South attended an integrated school.
...
The landscape did shift in 1964, but not because of anything the Supreme Court did. That was the year Congress passed legislation permitting the Justice Department to sue segregated schools, and also permitting the federal government to withhold funds from schools that refused to desegregate. Two years after this bill became law, the number of Southern Black students in integrated schools increased fivefold. By 1973, 90 percent of these same students were in desegregated facilities.
So the Court was unable to achieve integration in the face of a powerful white supremacist political movement in the South. It was only after a more powerful movement gained the sympathy of the federal government, and enlisted Congress and the Executive in the fight against segregation, that Jim Crow began to crumble.
There is a lesson here for all who hope to defeat Trump’s authoritarian movement.
No one is coming to save us from Donald Trump. We have to do it ourselves.
...
No one is coming to save us — not the courts, not the Constitution, and certainly not a process for choosing candidates that has not been used since the 1960s.
Donald Trump will be defeated, if at all, in November at the ballot box. The only thing his opponents can do to make that happen is to vote for Joe Biden, and to encourage others to do the same.
There is no other solution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 13:38
|
|
- DTurtle
- Apr 10, 2011
-
|
The majority's reasoning (or at least ACB and Kavanaugh's reasoning, since the rest of the majority didn't explain their reasoning) is extremely straightforward.
Basically, regardless of whether the 5th Circuit's stay on the injunction makes any sense or not, it's an extremely temporary administrative stay that should be replaced by a longer-term ruling shortly, so ACB thinks it's a little early to bother the Supreme Court with something that should be mooted any day now. She advises the lawyers to come back in a week or two when the 5th Circuit has made their actual decision on the stay, and says that if the 5th Circuit drags their feet on that then the lawyers should come back anyway because this stay being very short-term is the sole reason she's punting it.
Generally, an "administrative stay" is only done for a few days when immediate damage could happen, in order to give enough time for a proper decision for a "stay pending appeal" to be decided. An administrative appeal needs no judgement with regards to likelihood of success, while a stay pending appeal needs to show that the appealer “has made a strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.” As there are some 150 years of extremely clear case law about the matter at hand, that is unlikely.
To avoid this, the 5th Circuit panel of judges decided to abuse the administrative stay in order to buy time (something they‘ve recently started doing more often) - and the Supreme Court via ACB has now officially endorsed this abusive tactic.
Vox News posted:
…
To summarize, the Fifth Circuit claimed it was issuing the kind of order that is used to briefly pause a case in order to buy judges more time to decide an issue. But then it delayed its own time-buying order by a week and kicked the case to a different panel of judges who likely won’t even pick up the case for another couple of weeks.
That is not what administrative stays are for. The Fifth Circuit’s order functions almost identically to a stay pending appeal. They just called it an “administrative stay” because the law will not permit them to issue a stay pending appeal in this case.
Nor is this an uncommon practice in the Fifth Circuit. As Sotomayor writes, “[T]he Fifth Circuit recently has developed a troubling habit of leaving ‘administrative’ stays in place for weeks if not months.”
…
DTurtle fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 20, 2024
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 00:30
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 20:42
|
|
- DTurtle
- Apr 10, 2011
-
|
You appear to have misinterpreted the article you linked to. In fact, did you even read the actual Supreme Court ruling at all? ACB didn't endorse that tactic. Just the opposite, in fact: her opinion explicitly and directly calls out the exact thing you're complaining about, and gives the Fifth Circuit a rather direct warning to stop loving around with administrative stays like this.
From the very article you quoted:
quote:
Editor’s Note, March 19, 2024, 7:30pm: An initial read of Barrett’s opinion was that it was likely to inspire gamesmanship by judges seeking to avoid Supreme Court review. On Tuesday evening, however, the Fifth Circuit issued a new order which suggests this will not be the case. This piece has been updated to account for these developments.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 02:27
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 19:00
