SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Everything I've seen over the past week or two has said it's more of a 60-40 lean Republican.

No one on either side is taking the polls seriously until the summer is in full swing. Ground game is where the Democratic advantage is. For instance, at this point last year it looked like McAuliffe was going to lose.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 20:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 21:43

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Does anyone have good links to discussions about economic liberties in Constitutional law, and whether or not they count as civil liberties? I know its basically a semantics question but it could be a useful one.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 16:45

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Well, that's just the problem isn't it? Civil liberties is already kind of vague but economic liberties could refer to literally anything under the sun, especially if you're Aeon Skoble and you think any infringement upon the ability to transact is a violation of your glorious market freedoms.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2014 21:19

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense.

This was also my first thought. Are police officers setting up for a "tactical advantage" really equivalent to troops demanding housing under the 3rd? It's not like there's a well-developed 3rd Amendment jurisprudence to use as a guide.

# ¿ May 8, 2014 16:53

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Doctor Butts posted:

God drat, I guess I have to read Scalia's poo poo:

Honestly, while Gillman, Graber, and Whittington's new-agey approach to Conlaw is interesting, I've always found the non-case text to be subpar. The "questions" they include typically have an obvious bent like this, which is fine in a regular book, but keep it out of casebooks.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 16:04

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/top-alabama-judge-orders-halt-to-same-sex-marriage-licenses.html

quote:

ATLANTA � The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, on Wednesday ordered probate judges in the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that could cloud the carrying out of the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex unions.

Within hours of the administrative order, the probate court in Mobile County said on its website that it was �not issuing marriage licenses to any applicants until further notice.� That probate office, among the busiest in Alabama, was involved in the litigation that last year prompted a federal judge in Mobile to strike down the state�s marriage restrictions as unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Moore previously used an administrative order to try to derail same-sex nuptials in Alabama. On a Sunday night last February, hours before same-sex marriages were scheduled to begin in the state, he issued a similar order to probate judges, most of whom defied the edict.

On Wednesday, Chief Justice Moore, who is among the country�s most prominent religious conservatives, argued, in part, that probate judges should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of a pending State Supreme Court case. The fact that the case pending before the state court is at odds with the Supreme Court decision, he said, has prompted �confusion and uncertainty� among Alabama�s probate judges about how to apply the federal court�s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

�Many probate judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with Obergefell; others are issuing marriage licenses only to couples of the opposite gender or have ceased issuing all marriage licenses,� the chief justice wrote. �This disparity affects the administration of justice in this state.�

The chief justice�s order prompted immediate criticism from supporters of same-sex marriage, who said they would be monitoring probate offices in Alabama�s 67 counties.

�Roy Moore is obstructing same-sex couples� access to marriage, which they are constitutionally guaranteed,� said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. �This is just more of his shenanigans. It�s about him and his personal beliefs at this point, rather than carrying out the rule of law.�

Legal experts also questioned the chief justice�s order, which they said clearly veered from the Supreme Court�s opinion.

�Ordering the state�s probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to all couples who seek them constitutes an exercise in futility,� Ronald Krotoszynski, a law professor at the University of Alabama, wrote in an email. �At best, it sows chaos and confusion; at worst, it forces couples to bring federal court litigation in order to exercise a clearly established federal constitutional right.�

The chief justice�s action also put him in conflict with other Alabama officials. Last summer, Attorney General Luther Strange, who also opposed same-sex marriage, acknowledged the authority of the United States Supreme Court�s decision.

�While I do not agree with the opinion of the majority of justices in their decision, I acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court�s ruling is now the law of the land,� Mr. Strange said in June. �Short of the passage of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between one man and one woman, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.�

Ginsburg sighed as she drew her katana

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 00:35

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

hobbesmaster posted:

If you think that's weird don't look up "Judge-Executive"

Wow. I like that he actually has no judicial power but does have some degree of legislative power.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 03:18

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Josh Lyman posted:

Obama also isn't really qualified. He's never been a federal judge or argued before SCOTUS.

He was, however, a Constitutional law professor. And...President?

# ¿ Feb 15, 2016 01:53

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Correction: "War criminal John Yoo". Alternatively if you're a stickler, "torture apologist John Yoo."

Here's my, uh, favorite John Yoo quote. Apologies for Daily Kos.

quote:

When CNN host Fareed Zakaria asked him about CIA techniques like "forced rectal feeding", "threatening to rape the mothers of prisoners" and "people with broken limbs being forced to stand for hours and hours," Attorney Yoo said that would be against the rules (if it in fact it happened):

"Those are very troubling examples. They would not have been approved by the Justice Department. They were not approved by the Justice Department at the time...They were not supposed to be done and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders."

But during a December 2005 symposium in Chicago, Yoo argued that under his theory of the "unitary executive" and virtually unlimited presidential power as Commander-in-Chief, President Bush could legally order those tortures and much worse. Yoo was asked:

"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

Continue reading below about John Yoo's balls below:

"No treaty," replied John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who wrote the crucial memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture, "war on terror" detainees and domestic surveillance without warrants. Yoo made these assertions at a public debate in December in Chicago, where he also espoused the radical notion of the "unitary executive" -- the idea that the president as commander in chief is the sole judge of the law, unbound by hindrances such as the Geneva Conventions, and possesses inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies to his fiat. This concept is the cornerstone of the Bush legal doctrine.

Yoo's interlocutor, Douglass Cassel, professor at Notre Dame Law School, pointed out that the theory of the "unitary executive" posits the president above the other branches of government: "Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo" (one of Yoo's memos justifying torture). "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that," said Yoo.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2017 23:42

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

CommunityEdition posted:

Can we rejigger the Supreme Court while we�re in there? This whole nakedly partisan lifetime appointed body with legislative powers thing kind of sucks.

if the GOP rams through a nominee now, the notion of packing the court will certainly become more mainstream for Ds

# ¿ Sep 19, 2020 08:04

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

At that rate, let's just offer to reinstall Sandra Day O'Connor.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2020 19:58

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

a lot of jurists don't really give a poo poo about ensuring their ideology wins in a broader way, and making strategic choices to reflect and further that. it's part of the cult of the robe - they see law as an intellectual debate rather than an ideological battle.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2020 04:23

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Evil Fluffy posted:

Stop replying to racist garbage like Drone Jett, TIA.

How is it racist to say that abortion was imposed by judicial dictate? That's an incontrovertible fact. The legal reasoning of Roe is itself fairly shaky.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2020 15:04

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Look at his rap sheet. I don't think it's worth anyone's time arguing with a literal Nazi, they don't really do good faith arguments in the first place.

OK well gently caress that guy, in this case however, his argument is prima facie correct.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2020 15:17

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

Well idk if it's racist but it's incorrect to say Democrats did it: the guy who wrote the opinion was a Nixon appointment

Being appointed by a Democratic or Republican President does not automatically make you a "Democratic" or "Republican" Justice, which anyway isn't really a thing that exists in the same way as it does in the rest of the American political sphere. Justice Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, for instance.

That being said, you can't seriously be implying that Roe was somehow the product of judicial conservatism or judicial conservatives or a conservative legal doctrine of any kind.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2020 20:04

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

The op claimed that Democrats imposed Roe on the country. That's just flat wrong sorry, split all the hairs you want, "Democrats" didn't do that.

I agree with this, and I should have read his statement more closely. I interpreted it as "liberals" rather than "Democrats."

# ¿ Sep 24, 2020 20:40

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Kaal posted:

It's actually the name that was chosen by the DC city council and used in the admission act that was passed by the US House. Personally I find "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" to be kind of a gimmicky mouthful, but some of the supporters love it and it's just a name.

My state is literally named "Massachusetts" and we get by just fine

# ¿ May 22, 2021 17:43

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Fuschia tude posted:

That's the name of the local native ethnic group though.

The question is whether or not it's a mouthful and it certainly is to people not from the U.S. And even for some Americans!

# ¿ May 23, 2021 03:30

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

obama campaigned for "civil unions" and against same sex marriage. he only publicly supported same sex marriage in a very perfunctory way after biden went public on it, which obama privately threw a hissy fit over. naturally liberal rags from the NYT to the New Yorker lauded obama for his courage.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2021 19:53

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

you never know, maybe ol' clarence will choke on a public hair left in his coke and biden will get another supreme court pick to squander on a centrist in a quixotic attempt to gain republican votes and appear "nonpartisan"

# ¿ Feb 17, 2022 16:59

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

raminasi posted:

What tools and techniques did they use to do that?

https://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Power-Modern-Presidents-Leadership/dp/0029227968/

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Feb 17, 2022 17:24

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

it shouldn't be overturned, but alito is not wrong to say that roe v. wade is a weak and poorly argued decision

# ¿ May 3, 2022 04:02

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring.

# ¿ May 3, 2022 23:48

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

"Didn't read lol" has fewer words than both of those posts

# ¿ May 3, 2022 23:53

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Vegetable posted:

My understanding is that Roe v Wade was already a mess of a legal judgement. It was prescriptive in a kinda arbitrary way, and some progressive jurists themselves think it doesn�t hold much water.

I think the opinion kind of takes that approach? There is a fair amount of weirdo dicta, this is Alito after all. But two of the basic points are that (a) you have to do some pretty crazy logical cartwheels to find a right to abortion in the Constitution and (b) abortion looks much less like a right deeply rooted in history and tradition than something Americans hotly disagree about and should be resolved through politics and legislation, instead of through judicial fiat.

I don't think Roe should be overturned for all kind of reasons, but judicial conservatives are most certainly correct that it is a weak and poorly argued decision. Women in this country would have been much better served by a vigorous legislative push by the abortion movement over the past few decades, instead of desperately trying to prop up a fatally flawed Supreme Court decision amid infighting and all kinds of excesses.

ulmont posted:

I was considering doing a standard summary, but there�s no point while the thread is just getting white noised.

I think this would be a pretty important addition to the thread, if you want to undertake it.

# ¿ May 4, 2022 00:10

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

It seems extremely unlikely to me that Kav, Gorsuch, or Roberts would vote to overturn Loving or Lawrence. I could see Gorsuch and maybe Kavanaugh overturning Griswold, but not Roberts.

# ¿ May 4, 2022 00:19

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

*Thomas* has said he believes _Loving_ was wrongly decided.

There is a reason I didn't mention Thomas but I am not aware of any statement by Thomas that he believes it was wrongly decided, do you have a link?

# ¿ May 4, 2022 01:27

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

I'm not sure Dobbs is more political than Roe. Roe is political as hell. The legal reasoning is...labored, if we're being charitable. Roe happens to be the policy outcome we want, but it uses Rube Goldberg logic to get there. Alito is saying no, that's not in the Constitution, if you want that then you have to pass a law. The dicta may reek of Christian conservatism, but the legal principle there sure is a lot less nakedly political in nature.

Killer robot posted:

Yeah, I'm 100% for codifying abortion rights in federal law, but the fact is any SCOTUS that would make the leaked decision could strike federal abortion rights down with far less violation of precedent. Still gotta do it, if just to prove outright that the court must be fixed.

I guess it would depend on what the law is exactly, but I wonder what argument the court conservatives would use to strike down such a law.

# ¿ May 4, 2022 03:44

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

It�s a good thing that the constitution state the Supreme Court has the power to review laws and the gives the power to the executive branch to ultimately execute those laws however it deems necessary, up to and including rejecting the Supreme Court�s review, as has already been stated but you seem to ignore.

no it doesn't lol

there are a lot of posters in d&d whose vehemence is inversely proportionate to the degree to which they understand basic facts about a subject. this subforum would be somewhat better if they would stop doing this!

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 13, 2022

# ¿ May 13, 2022 15:26

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

"the fact that marbury v madison established judicial review has nothing to do with when judicial review was established," i scraem as i slam a hammer down on my dick and balls again and again

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ May 15, 2022 14:31

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

a fun fact about the supreme court bar: the only real requirements are 1. be an attorney for 3 years and 2. pay $200

# ¿ May 16, 2022 15:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 21:43

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

it's hosed up how many civilians died in obama-era drone strikes and probably one of his most shameful legacies.

however, the argument that anwar al-awlaki was denied due process rights has always rung hollow to me. the guy was an active member of al-qaeda, hiding in yemen while shepherding multiple attacks against civilians. seems fairly clear that killing him was an act of war

if an american joined the nazis during world war II and became a commander of bombing operations against civilian targets in England, would anyone give a legal poo poo if the U.S. merked him?

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 2, 2022

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 22:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?