|
So basically in Goff they said "You, Mr. Company, need to show how it's really critical for Mr. Religious be onsite on Sundays. Normal scheduling doesn't cut it, if he can be replaced then he should. However, if he's the only guy who can do X and you need him onsite that day then that's ok."
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Ok, so time to pump out all sorts of campaign ads in 2024 that say "ok, you want student loan debt relief? Better get your rear end to the polls and vote democrat."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
So does this ruling mean that anyone can refuse to do business with a member of a protected class if they claim to hold strongly held religious convictions and dealing with that protected class would somehow injure them? Can I refuse now to deal with people of the Jewish faith? Can i refuse to serve non whites at my restaurant? Can I kick LGBT folks out of my barber shop?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Bingo The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Not really. Every May-June it was always ranting about the latest terrible ruling and urging some combination of the President / Congress / the States / the populace to rise up and reject it. Exactly how this was to be accomplished was usually underspecified. Well, all ways to do that are considered unpalatable. Court packing? Term limits? Changing the role of the SC? Gonna need congress to sign off on that which means getting rid of the filibuster. Gotta keep the filibuster to stop good idea because the bad people might do bad things with it gone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
USSC Then: The states have rights and can administer elections as they see fit! (Gerrymandering) USSC in the near future: No, not like that!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hmmm yes, addressing executive / king immunity after an attempted coup is not an urgent matter Its cowardice on the USSCs part. What I think will happen is that the DC appeals court will deny Trumps idiotic claim of immunity, the USSC will sit on it for a few weeks and then deny cert. Trial will be delayed until May, assuming other poo poo isn't appealed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Eh, I think the Court is going to dismiss the Colorado case, but not on officer status. Instead they are going to say 'Well, what insurrection is hasn't been defined by congress, so no state can kick anyone off for insurrection. Case closed."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They didn’t write anything explaining their reasons. wait, what happened?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
For the presidental immunity question I think they'll get 4 people to accept cert, then decide to put it in on the normal schedule and won't be mentioning on it until after the election. Hey, if he wins then the problem goes away, if he loses well the problem goes away! Thats great for the court! (sucks for us) For kicking him off the ballot I'm betting they'll come up with some bullshit that 'congress has to pass a law to declare someone insurrectionist', and call it a day. Because this court is the benchmark for moral courage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
I wonder if years from now if legal scholars are going to be reading the courts ruling on this and deciding this was a work of partisanship or if they are going to consider it legitimate work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
SO what i think is going to come down: "Nope, this is a federal question, not something the states can decide. (Please ignore the fact that we let states decide all sorts of other federal questions when it comes to voting, thanks, love and kisses). Now, if Trump is convicted in the DC case he'll not be eligible since the 14th would automatically trigger, so it doesn't matter if he's on the ballot or not. Unless of course we stall things for so long that Trump is elected before the trial can complete, in which case he'll pardon himself and make all this moot. Yeah...about that, we are gonna schedule hearings on if Trump can be tried or not sometime in the next season, maybe December. Sound good? Ok? No one has a problem? Great!" --Roberts
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
Dick Jones posted:Given the divisive, unpopular 5-4 rulings made in the past few decades it sure would be odd for the conservative majority to suddenly adopt the stance of "Sure, the text says [x] but we have to make some pragmatic considerations here. Bad actors might behave badly.". They clearly weren't making considerations like these in cases like Shelby County v Holder, despite the dissent warning about the exact scenario that unfolded in the wake of the decision. No one outside of law geeks is going to get upset about Chevron going away. It's too much inside baseball for the general public to know or care about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:An update on this since it was a big topic here last year: Thomas is now back recording OA because the court ordered him to be let back in, and appointed a receiver to be the tiebreaking vote between him and Andrew. And apparently Andrew won't be, because he's gone radio silent for weeks now, ever since Liz Dye announced she was leaving the show, which just so happened to be right after the receiver was made official. The trial proper is apparently still set for August, but considering Thomas got Andrew's anti-SLAPP motion thrown out, things are looking up for him. So if Thomas is back and sex-pest is gone, who's the lawyer explaining all this poo poo? Hell, i think Thomas should hire the guy who makes the legal eagle youtube channel to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Waiting until the jury was sworn in and then dismissing it would do it. Surely you were not thinking of someone in the District of Southern Florida when you typed that out, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 06:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It also means that the 14th is no longer self-executing even though it very clearly was at the time of it's passage, hence Congress acting to give an exception to the Confederates. More than that, a clear majority of Senators voted to remove him from office. The only reason he wasn't removed was due to partisan bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. Well, only the _right_ people should be using it. :p
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Friend, we nearly unanimously saw the 9-0 unity vote coming months ago. FWIW, i remember everyone being all doomy when the lawyers were loving up oral arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
So, lets say this happens: 2024 elections and Trump wins (I just threw up in my mouth typing that out) Also, the House flips back to the democrats, and the Senate sees a +2 democratic gain. Since congress is seated before January 20th, what would happen if the first order of the new House is to pass a law stating that Trump is declared ineligable for the office and the Senate passes it. They blow up the filibuster to do so. Trump, by this SC logic is now inelegible to become POTUS and his VP takes the seat instead? Or hell, how about this? 2024 swings to Biden, and in 2026 the republicans retake both houses. Their first order of business is to pass a law stating that Biden and Harris has engaged in insurrection and that they inelegible to be president. Suddenly the Speaker of the House is President. But you say, we already have a mechanism to remove the president, its called impeachment! Ahhhh, but according to this ruling simply declaring someone ineligible is enough. Are we basically backing into a parliamentary system where the house of Commons chooses the chief executive from their party?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That would be a bill of attainer and unconstitutional. But its not! The SC clearly stated the only way to evoke 14.3 is to have congress do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Stickman posted:What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? They have jurisdiction because they say they do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
SC: States cannot just selectively apply the constitution! They don't get to decide how their laws are applied when it references something like the 14th amendment! They can't overrule the federal government! C'mon, that would lead to chaos! Also the SC: States can absolutely selectively apply the constitution when it comes to immigration and border security. They do get to decide how their laws fit vs the constituional right of the government to police it's borders.They absolutely can overrule the federal government!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Lets not litigate 2016 AGAIN please, otherwise I'm going to start bitching about Gore 2000 and nobody wants that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:18 year old me voted for Nader because he made fun of both Bush and Gore. But I live in Illinois and my vote did not matter with the electoral college. TBF I lived in Jersey at the time and I voted for Nader as well, not because I wanted him but because I wanted a viable 3rd party. Had I lived in a state that mattered I would have easily voted for Gore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That would depend on the intent of the law though right, if the legislature passed the law because they wanted to raise the limit, surely the new law would take precedence even if they didn't explicitly repeal the old one, that would be a much more reasonable interpretation than assuming they passed a pointless law just for the fun of making a pound of weed double illegal. No, you would need to explicitly repeal the old law or at least have verbiage in the new law that says "Public law number 14.2.3 is hereby amended to remove the phrase 'six weeks' from subsection B and replace it with the phrase 'fifteen weeks'. All other articles and provisions of public law number 14.2.3 shall remain in force."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh that's the most bulletproof way to do it but it's not required by anything. Legislation that contradicts previous legislation does get passed sometimes and when that conflict happens the most recent law takes effect. Courts generally rule on the intent of the law when there's some ambiguity in the wording like that. Except, ya know,
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sometimes you just want to sleep in your own bed/yacht. A friend of mine is an attorney, and he actually had to speak in front of the USSC a few months ago on a routine matter. (Asking the court to admit another attorney to the court). He said that Thomas was asleep during all this and had to get woken up by a clerk to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 12:51
|
|