|
axeil posted:Oh god I forgot about Bush v. Gore. What was the actual rationale they gave for that one beyond "the recount needs to stop because this is silly." Or if you're more cynical "the recount needs to stop because we have 5 Republican-appointed justices and stopping it allows a Republican to win the White House." Seven of the justices in that case were Republican-appointed.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Amarkov posted:And they were the 7 justices that ruled the same way on the 5-4 case, because oh my god that loving case. Broad overview (because I'm too lazy to effortpost right now): I know this is the nitpickiest argument ever, but this is the Supreme Court thread so gently caress it. Stevens was nominated by a Republican, and Breyer (who voted with the 7, but not with the 5) was appointed by a Democrat. e: JeffersonLives beat me to it StarMagician fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, but those few are the ones at issue here. Hobby Lobby covers contraception methods that are scientifically acknowledged to operate only by preventing fertilization without any realistic potential of preventing implantation of a single ensouled cell. I'm sure the answer is no, but do we have any concrete data on the rate of induced miscarriages due to prevention of implantation? Because I'm sure their insurance covers routine procedures that are much more risky to living fetuses, such as amniocentesis, which induces miscarriage roughly once in every 300-500 procedures.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the point of this reasoning? If Hobby Lobby prevails, you are just giving them more ammunition to restrict their health insurance, Hobby Lobby has no obligation to know precisely the risks of any given treatment and adjust their health insurance accordingly (if their insurance company would even allow such a specialized plan). Insurance covers (or does not cover) a wide variety of procedures for pregnant or near-pregnant women, all of which carry some degree of risk to an unborn fetus/fertilized egg/baby. If they're covering amniocentesis, but not birth control, but it turns out that that procedure has more of a chance of killing a fetus than birth control does, it isn't really about the risk to the child. What level of risk/reward do they find acceptable before they allow coverage? If anything this is an argument against them, that it's not actually, as they claim, about saving babies. It also illustrates just how complicated this issue really is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:You seem to be trying to make a substantial burden argument (the procedures that they want to not cover do not result in failing to implant a fertilized egg often enough to offer a substantial burden to them), but the frequency of miscarriage of amniocentesis (or of any other action) is unrelated to that argument. Pretty much this. I think you understand my argument, but just to restate it, they use the danger to fetuses as an argument against covering birth control, but still cover a lot of other routine procedures that also present a danger, perhaps even a greater danger, to developing fetuses. Their argument would ironically be much more logically consistent if they would just come right out and say that they oppose all forms of contraception outright for religious reasons, not because of any possible effects some versions might have on embryos that manage to slip through.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Well, that's loving wonderful. Do the Supremes have anywhere close to the degree of technical expertise they would need to write a decision that would accomplish this?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It effectively is an (extremely small scale) affirmative action program to attempt to increase opportunities available to women and minority lawyers. That it's done under a discretionary rule about class counsel efficacy is more likely an issue of pragmatism, especially if you look into how Baer actually administers it (which is that he requires the firm to file a memo showing their efforts to staff women and minority lawyers). And again, we return to Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." The counsel adequacy idea is similar: that someone from an outgroup is going to be able to more effectively relate to and advocate for clients from an outgroup. Judge Baer is like 80 years old, the amount of fucks he gives has likely dwindled to a very small number. I think I agree with this interpretation, but I'm still not clear on a couple of things 1. How are the attorneys for a class-action case chosen? If a mainly-minority group chose a bunch of old white men to represent it, who is this judge to tell them they were wrong for making that choice? 2. What does this look like in actual practice? Or, what would female/minority lawyers do that white men would not, and how would that serve to secure additional winnings for the plaintiffs?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I wish the coastal population centers could be leveraged to expand liberal jurisprudence into the blood-red plains states. Make California the Western border of a circuit and have it be the mega-circuit that covers HI, CA, NV, CO, AZ, NM, TX, KS, and OK. Have OR and WA be the core of another that covers AK, WA, OR, WY, MT, ID, UT, ND, SD, and NE. Is there a structural reason that the 9th circuit is more liberal than the others? They're all nominated by the President, so it should be fairly random which circuits happen to have more conservative or more liberal justices at any given time. My first thought was that it might have something to do with Senatorial privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So has anyone heard anything about Harris v. Quinn? It seems like the court should obviously rule in favor of unions, but what are the chances of the conservative wing pulling out some tortured justification to destroy public sector unions? Wouldn't they just rule that you can't be required to pay for political activity, but you can be required to pay for bargaining activities (as is the case in non-Right to Work states)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
esquilax posted:"Preventing people from getting punched in the face" is a compelling government interest so no one is exempt from the requirement that you not punch people in the face. Hobby Lobby is arguing that mandating birth control does not serve a compelling government interest for reasons x, y, and z, which means they should be exempt from that requirement. If all they have to do is prove that the government has a less restrictive means available of serving this government interest (which is, in this case, ensuring that individuals have birth control available), wouldn't taxpayer-funded birth control for everyone fit the bill? Not that they would actually do that, but the point is that they have the ability to do so, and if they did, it would accomplish their goal without forcing Hobby Lobby to do anything. Seems pretty open and shut to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes? Yes, but that's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope posits that one policy will lead to a completely unrelated policy. Example: "if we allow gays to get married, next thing you know they'll be asking to join the military too!" This doesn't apply when the logic used to justify one decision can also be used to justify another: "If we allow gays to get married on the basis that anyone should be allowed to marry who they love, we will also have to allow cousin marriages for the same reason!" Nor does it apply when another decision follows as a natural consequence of a previous one: "If we allow gays to get married, next thing you know they'll be adopting children together!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Congress also passed a law saying that birth control will be included in a health plan offered by a company if they wish to avoid various penalties. Didn't the lower court rule the other way? If so, they'd want to grant cert if it were crystal clear that the circuit court ruled in error.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Not in so far as it continues a trend to gut it. Not that affirmative action could have won anyway with Kagan recusing herself. Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove in court that an anonymous tip had been received? "The police dispatcher received a call at 1:35 AM..." I once called the police when I noticed a driver who was very obviously drunk, hoping he would be pulled over. I had no idea that didn't qualify as probable cause.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:The Supreme Court slapped the Fed. Cir in the face again and returned more power to district courts with regard to attorney fees in patent litigation suits. See Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems. 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. So my question is, how did these groups get married up? Whose job is it to find these nobody companies in esoteric disputes and shepherd them to the highest court in the land, and why do they agree to it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:If the FDA is supposed to be a one-stop-shop for juice labeling regulations then why should consumer expectations of flavor dominate the process? Why not also consider consumer expectations of nutrient benefits, or of ingredients, or sugar content, or any other factor? Exactly, I don't get why this is so complicated. It doesn't matter what the FDA's probably constantly-changing regulations say. If you don't want to be sued under Lanham, stop loving lying to your customers. Seriously. I'm one of the few people here who isn't to the left of Joseph Stalin, and yet half of you have found a way to poo poo all over one of the few consumer protection laws I actually support.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1A protects the right to be an rear end in a top hat. Don't like it? Don't go in public. Oh you're out in public? I'm sure you've got a lot of cool reasons why you don't have to hear it. So put on earplugs(or don't, whatevs). Prior restraint is prior restraint, smd. Close, but there's a better solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq94liFIBRY
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 04:07
|
|