|
Crows Turn Off posted:So do you agree with Alito, that the Constitution covers no implicit rights despite the Ninth Amendment stating exactly that? The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Because Alito said it doesn't, and quoted all sorts of 13th century anglo-saxon law that said so. Ignoring all the other stuff of course that supports it. Plus ignoring all the precedent that deals with body autonomy.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. Then explain Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
The last thing we want is to have congress have direct control of every single agency regulation. Congress cannot and should not dictate for example what the minimum horizontal spacing from clouds should be for aircraft flying VFR.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes it will 100% be the last one they put out After the justices are safely 500 miles away from DC with their phones turned off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Today and tomorrow are going to be release days. Don't expect any R v. W decisions today, they are going to release that tomorrow or in July.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. The SC basically told NY "No, you don't get to pick and choose. You must apply rational tests for approval/disapproval of CC permits, you can't just make it up as you go along."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Dobbs ruling issued, same essecially as the leaked document. Written by Alito, concurred by Roberts. Roe V Wade is official dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives." Bullshit. Why do guns get a historical test that the people's elected representatives are not able to handle, but abortion is able to be handed to the people's representatives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
At this very moment abortion is now illegal in a number of states, as they had laws on the books that explicitly said that said law would not take effect until the moment that the SC revoked Roe. That has happened, triggering all those anti abortion laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Truely this is tyranny of the minority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
I hope all the ladies who protest voted for Jill Stein are happy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
I;m having a really hard time looking my daughter in the eye right now. She's only 11, but how can I explain to her that her body isn't truely her own, that people consider her a vessel?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The voters put those insane theocratic white supremacists in power. I don't know why there is such resistance to accepting the fact that the voters are the problem. There is no 3rd party coming in and forcing things upon the public that we didn't choose. It is about time people wise up to the fact that the public sucks. We, as a collective, chose this outcome. Except we didn't. The Republicans have won 1 election by the popular vote since 1988. But they have put in 6 of the supreme court justices currently sitting. The fact is that our system of government is broken.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Here are the States with trigger laws, yes? So abortion is now illegal in these states? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/states-set-to-ban-abortion-after-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Sounds like Hillary should have run a better campaign then so she could have earned their votes. I mean, yeah she had a pretty lovely campaign and I guess the Stein voters thought she would win over captain 'grab em by the pussy' like everyone else did. But I wonder how many Stein voters in swing states are now regretting casting their protest ballot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Thomas specifically writes his concurrences so he can do it in later ones. in other words, citing your own work == making up poo poo out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
DemoneeHo posted:I'm going to briefly break my anti-D&D posting policy and say that blaming Jill Stein and Stein-voters is wrong. Stein had no effect on Clinton's electoral votes; any votes that she earned took away a very tiny amount away from Clinton. If there was no Stein in 2016, Clinton still would have lost those red states and still would have had a comfortable margin in blue states. quote:In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, one could plausibly blame third parties for the outcome. In Michigan, Clinton lost by less than a percentage point, a deficit she could have recovered from with half of Stein’s votes. Again in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Clinton lost by one point, Jill Stein’s votes would have covered her loss. Had Clinton won all three states, she would have won the election. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Something I wrote to a political blog I read. Thoughts? Hello. A few weeks ago I wrote and asked if you thought that Ginny Thomas was likely to be the leaker. Your response was fairly tepid, but I now feel the need to write again and say that I stand by that guess. I have a few reasons why. 1) She’s a political hack, and is part of the far right wing of the GOP. We’ve seen her actions in connection with January 6th, and she does not seem to be in any way measured, reserved or have any respect for the institutions of the United States. She believes only in power. 2) While she might be a fanatic, she’s no dummy. I suspect that she, like a lot of the other far right GOPers might be feeling a bit queasy about this victory, as it's a case of ‘dog catches car’. Now that they got what they wanted, did they really want this? Roe was great for the GOP to fundraise and campaign for, identify ideologically pure candidates and to rally the religious base, but now that they have it are they going to be able to keep the political momentum? 3) Furthermore, the religious right portion of the GOP will not feel the need to work together with other sections of the GOP big tent. Senator Josh Hawley stated openly that "For years on the conservative side of the ledger, social conservatives have been told that they had to form an alliance with the corporatists, the neoliberals, in order to get elected," he said. "I think that alliance is over today. There's no reason for social conservatives to go along with a corporatist agenda that frankly never had much support in the country.” https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-overturning-roe-v-wade-help-republicans-electoral-college-2022-6 This is a problem for the current GOP, and if they have to rely only on the religious voters they are going to very quickly find themselves in the minority. 4) The shock and outrage engulfing the country right now would be a hundred times worse had the leak not hit in May. Imagine would the country would be like if yesterday was the first time we heard the decision? So I think that Ginny Thomas, political operator that she is, deduced the above and decided that leaking the decision was probably the best thing that could happen for the GOP. After her husband got Alito’s initial draft of the document, she and he worked together on writing his concurrence opinion. She then leaked out the Alito decision to some of her fellow political operators as a way to forewarn them that this was coming down, and that they needed to get their talking points and press strategies in line and in order. I don’t think she expected the leak to continue to spread and is indeed panicking a bit that this might get traced back to her. Roberts, I believe, knows all this but is loath of reveal it because he still in his heart believes that the Court should be respected. Revealing that the wife of a justice was the leaker would be the final straw for the destruction of the moral authority of the court. I’d be interested in hearing your views on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
[edit] retracted.
Cimber fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
raminasi posted:That sounds interesting, is there something I can read about this? https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/new...aled-carry-law/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is nowhere near what they said. And no, I'm not doing the pedantry thing where I nitpick at an obvious paraphrase. They have expressed no intention whatsoever of ignoring the Supreme Court ruling. Fair points. I retract my statement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. I'm reading the Thomas opinion on the NY 2nd amendment case, and this guy is loving out there. For example, he has, and I'm not kidding, almost 30 pages talking about laws from the middle ages. quote:When handguns were introduced in England during the Tudor and early Stuart eras, they did prompt royal efforts at suppression. For example, Henry VIII issued several proclamations decrying the proliferation of handguns, and Parliament passed several statutes restricting their posses- sion. See, e.g., 6 Hen. 8 c. 13, §1 (1514); 25 Hen. 8 c. 17, §1 (1533); 33 Hen. 8 c. 6 (1541); Prohibiting Use of Handguns and Crossbows (Jan. 1537), in 1 Tudor Royal Proclamations 249 (P. Hughes & J. Larkin eds. 1964). But Henry VIII’s displeasure with handguns arose not primarily from con- cerns about their safety but rather their inefficacy. Henry VIII worried that handguns threatened Englishmen’s pro- ficiency with the longbow—a weapon many believed was crucial to English military victories in the 1300s and 1400s, including the legendary English victories at Crécy and Ag- incourt. See R. Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow 32, 34 (1903); L. Schwoerer, Gun Culture in Early Modern Eng- land 54 (2016) (Schwoerer). See page 39 of the PDF if you want to follow along. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Why the hell should I care what Henry the 8th thought about guns, and what does that have to do with states having 100 year old laws on the books about concealed carry that Thomas and company wiped away. 100 years of legal jurisprudence and states rights suddenly was decided not to matter by a right wing activist court.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Some more on this: The fact that Montana gets two senators and NY gets two senators really tilts the advantage to the low population states. Montanna has 1 senator for every 500,000 people. New York gets 1 senator for every four million people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's ultimately going to depend on how broadly the decision is written. But I expect it to be really bad. After the way they threw Roe in the dumpster, it's really not at all out of the question that they will say that administrative agencies are not allowed to make their own rules at all, which would mean that Congress would have to do it instead. And we all know how well that will go. Tearing up Chevron deference has been a goal of the right wing ever since it was decided. How dare administrative agencies use their special knowledge to make regulations!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
More to the point, getting rid of Chevron means that agencies like the FAA can't decide things like safety rules any more. They have been put in charge of that by congress, but Congress, having This way congress does not get bogged down with writing every single regulation for air safety. Does congress really need to give a poo poo about if its 500 feet of seperation in class E airspace? Not at all. Does the FAA? Very much. They also get to enforce their rulings and they will come after pilots who break the regs. The right however, really hates a few agencies in paticular. If you guessed FTC, IRS or SEC then give yourself a star.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
External Organs posted:Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy? Probably not. Likely it would be hobbled such that companies with enough resources could challenge administrative rules and win ten times out of ten, but most rules would be ignored or followed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Correct. The closest thing the military does is place restrictions on contracted firms that they have to adhere to certain laws/policies/regulations, but as that's part of the contractual activity, I don't believe it's covered by Chevron. I actually don't think the military gets much actual say in that either, I think its more the civilian administration of the DoD.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
5 minutes until 5 unaccountable life appointed people start releasing the next batch of right wing vomit. I'm expecting a bunch of opinions by Gorsich, Kavanagh, and maybe one from Barrett. Yes, I know i can't spell their names.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
moose47 posted:I assume the outcome of this case would have been the same if the coach had been performing a satanic ritual on the 50-yard line, right? Funny, because Jesus explicitly said NOT to do that stuff. quote:And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. 6But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They will definitely feel forced to join in. This decision ignores that the social and personal context of the situation violates the spirit of the first amendment. Christian prayer will become mandatory for having a good experience on that football team, and many others "Well ya know....Adam, Bob and Chuck are all good football players. The fact that Adam and Bob get more snaps than Chuck has nothing to do with the fact that they prayed with me after the game and everything to do with the fact that in my opinion they are just slightly better than Chuck. Tiny bits better, so hard it takes a professional like me to determine it. We do want to win state, right?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:He could. It just wouldn't have any practical effect. An executive order is an order by the President to an executive branch agency to tell them to do or stop doing a certain thing. Saying "It is the position of this administration that the right to abortion is a human right" really doesn't do a lot, practically. He's said he is looking at other executive orders he could issue regarding abortion. The other problem with executive orders is that as soon as the next person take over, all the old orders are wiped away. So even if Biden did do something to facilitate access to abortion (such as ordering the VA to allow anyone to use their hospitals for the purposes of aquiring an abortion), it would come to a screetching halt Jan 20th 2025 or 2029.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Listening to Opening Arguments podcast today was hard. They pointed out that one of the schools in the lawsuit against Maine (I forget the case name), had explicitly in its 9th grade social studies sylabus class objectives discussion how Islam was bad, wrong and dangerous and how students should fight against it. So the SC is making Muslim taxpayers in Maine pay to have schools attack them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
New batch of awfulness 5-4 decision with Gorsuch siding with the liberals in dissent in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. States can prosecute offenses in Native American lands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Not quite as bad? No, its bad, and might even be super bad if you take it to the logical conclusion. Native lands This is an older map, but it shows how much lands in Oklahoma were directly administered by Native tribes.  This ruling however, says that states can now come into Native tribes and arrest non tribe members for offenses commited on tribal lands. The Native tribes themselves have no say in this. Their local police cannot overrule the state police now. a) this violates all sorts of treaties that the native tribes signed b) This means that a good source of native income is now directly at threat, because what happens if a state goes into tribal casinos and starts arresting anyone who is not a member of the tribe for illegal gambling? Not paying taxes on tobacco products or alcohol?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Yup, they got that brass ring in their hot little hands and by god they are cashing in while they still can. I would imagine the court is going to stay 6-3 for a long time, at least 10+ years. I can't see Thomas retiring during any democratic administration when McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
West Virginia vs EPA out, 6-3 decision. Yuck edit: EPA can't regulate carbon Dioxide. Also as I read it, it seems that Chevron deference is dead too. I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong on that part. edit2: More i read it, the more it looks like they gave Chevron a good punch in the guts, but they didn't pull a knife and rip the guts out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah it looks like they just killed the planet, not the concept of congressional delegation. So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:
No, its just going away for the summer as the term is over, and people are uhh...going to miss their legal nerdery?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Comstar posted:When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it? I'm sure you mean this as a tongue in cheek post, but my serious reply would be to worry seriously about Moore v. Harper. That will be heard in October of 2022, but the decision won't come out until after the midterms. To quote electoral-vote.com's writeup of this issue: quote:The specific issue in question is the North Carolina district maps, which the Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered six ways to Sunday, and the Democratic-controlled state Supreme Court struck down. The Republican legislators are arguing that the Constitution gives them sole authority to administer federal elections, and that they should therefore not be answerable to the courts in elections-related matters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Kulkasha posted:Question: does the SC have an explicit right, as granted by either the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, to rule on the Constitutionality of any law, or are they only explicitly the final court of appeals? If neither then by their own recent logic they have no authority. Actually, the ability to strike down laws that the SC uses is not an explicit right, but is instead one it granted to itself in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison of 1803. In that case the court decided that because a law conflicted with the constitution, then that law was not a valid law and was struck down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison Yes, congress could do something about it if they really wanted to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 13:51
|
|