Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


Don't we already have a precedent with draft laws and pacifists for how to treat beliefs as legitimate or not?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


Stickman posted:

Since we already agree that there are certain rights that one cannot sign away in a binding contract,

Is there any particularly specific jurisprudence on this? Obviously you can’t sell yourself into slavery as the canonical example, but in plenty of circumstances you can restrict your own right to speak, probably to own firearms - can’t agree to vote for a specific candidate, and presumably you can’t promise not to vote, but for example could you promise affirmatively to vote? Etc etc, is there a standard test for what you can’t voluntarily abrogate.

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


Declan MacManus posted:

poo poo, a.c.b. is only the one being nominated because it spites the libs; she only has two years of federal judgeship and three years of actual law practice and has spent the rest of her time in academia. if you were looking for a candidate who has little to no practical experience in how the law actually plays out in court and how it affects the lives of common citizens, she's among the least qualified. while i don't think supreme court justices should be exclusively pulled from the ranks of federal judges or people who have experience as judges, i think someone who's been cloistered in a university for over 15 years is uniquely out of touch with how the legal process works and can't appreciate the broader implications of what some of her rulings might mean. while that's to an extent true for all supreme court justices, it only further underscores how this pick is just spiteful maneuvering on the part of the republican party.

Kagan was Solicitor General so she wasn't purely in acedemia, but she was never a judge at all, was that as bad?

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


Who the hell is this senator only voting with their party 25% of the time?

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


vyelkin posted:

With no sitting VP, who would break a 50-50 tie to appoint a new VP?

The OLC seems to believe that nobody gets this power without a sitting VP. There's distant precedent for the presiding officer (in this case the pro tem) voting as their elected office and as their parliamentary office, but evidently that died out after the late 1700s.

https://www.justice.gov/file/23736/download

quote:

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment does not require a Vice President to relinquish the office of Vice President when he becomes Acting President because of a temporary Presidential disability; in fact, the Amendment and its legislative history clearly contemplate that the Vice President will continue to serve as Vice President during and subsequent to the Presidential disability. See 1965 House Hearings at 87; S. Rep. No. 1382, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 11-12 (1964). The Vice President would, however, lose his title as President of the Senate. See 111 Cong. Rec. 3270 (remarks of Sen. Saltonstall); J. Ferrick, The Twenty Fifth Amendment 199 (1965).

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


davecrazy posted:

Isn’t their a case on the docket that will eliminate gun control?

This year is going to be a right wing bonanza.

The issue in NYSRPA is whether or not New York can require you to show 'proper cause' in order to get a concealed firearm carry permit. In theory I suppose the court could rule that permitless carry is legal everywhere, but from oral argument it mostly seems like they'll go with 'you have to have a consistent, objective standard for giving out permits.'

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string


SubG posted:

The 20A explicitly gives the Congress the power to decide what happens if "a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term":

So if the court had told Florida to do a full recount, and no president or vice president would be selected until a later meeting of the EC, we would have had President...

quote:

John Dennis Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician and convicted felon who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply