|
I'm trying to find the phrase that I think Scalia used, saying that the strength of one's convictions can be determined by their actions. What he seems to have gotten across was that Obama should have acted as though something was unconsitutional and ignored it, rather than followed the letter of the law and waiting for a SCOTUS ruling.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
esquilax posted:A source that isn't an op-ed, which often get facts wrong. This is an extremely relevant fact and I would expect it to be mentioned in the court opinions. My understanding is that they added it to the plan to comply with the mandate and sued to get it removed. It was some stupid phrase like "Courage of Conviction", and it was a backhanded slap at the POTUS when they awarded him the ruling anyway, if I remember correctly. Yeap: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/supreme-court-defense-of-marriage-act.html?pagewanted=all Page searching for 'courage' will get you to the line. Apparently when it comes to disagreeing branches of state, you're supposed to shoot first and just cross your fingers the eventual ruling doesn't get you impeached later. Edit: Fixed a link. The more I think about it the more insane this court seems. I hate to muck up old derails but is their refusal to give advisory opinions a constitutional thing or is it a precedent thing? Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Edit: Reading up on what the hell I'm talking about.
Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
spoon daddy posted:Trolling the troll? awesome! All we need is more judges to do this until Scalia's cholesterol takes care of the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
McAlister posted:So mr green faces a problem of schroedinger's slut. The woman in the hypothetical is a Madonna and a Whore at the same time. You don't know which one till you look and see. If you wrote a book, I'd read it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Since Game of Thrones has started up, I kept trying to remember which Justice was Walder Frey, and couldn't name anyone but Thomas. Kudos again on the awesome OP. I want to print it as an informative poster. edit: As I'm sure you all know, it was Scalia
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I really don't see anyone getting hurt but Aero when the SCOTUS tells them to know it off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Lord of Boners posted:It isn't about burden of proof though? It's about destroying evidence. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution. You seem to be equating "not destroying evidence" with the burden being on the defendant to prove his innocence, which is not the case here. I think the 'burden of proof' conflation is that cold storage and transport of perishable goods isn't free, and is actually quite expensive. If the statue was against fish less than 20' long instead of 20", it would be obviously burdensome for someone to maintain and provide 72 19' perishables to the court. Nothing to do with the legal term, but someone has to pay for that evidence to get to court and apparently it's ok to decide the fisherman, not yet proven guilty, is expected to foot the bill, which does kind of suck. I imagine it would get recuperated if the state lost their case, or could arguably be deducted from whatever fine is decided if the defendant made a stink about it in court.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Barudak posted:800 million people living in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. In a 5-4 decision the only thing fighting for order in the chaos: judges The prelude of John "I am the Law" Roberts makes a lot more sense all of a sudden.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Is the process for impeaching a justice really that difficult? If getting a blowjob from a secretary is grounds for impeachment I don't understand why the Clarence Thomas is getting away with all these Koch brothers handjoes.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I also think that it's at least interesting, if only as an intellectual exercise, to consider whether or not the 3rd amendment has renewed applicability in our new era of mass cheap surveillance. Is the government using your Xbox to spy on you, something the Snowden documents reveal is at least possible, all that different from the government actually stationing a soldier to live in your home? I thought the implicit concern when quartering Redcoats was that they wouldn't be bound by local law enforcement, so in practice nothing would be stopping them from taking liberty with your wife and daughters. Maybe I've been watching too much Game of Thrones, but in my mind the problem is that they're psuedo-foreign soldiers just as much as turning my home into a temporary B&B.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its more like "Hey Scalia you were exactly right about what the majority decision means and its a good thing" It's easier to cast into the civil rights era, imagining Scalia said "The way it's written now, white women will start getting married to BLACKS!" Scalia was saying it as a harbinger, all waving his hands and waggling his fingers in impotent rage. The circuit court judges quoting him are using it as a factual statement that yeah, interracial marriages are totally fine and in fact protected by law. See, even the hateful bigot technically agrees with us  .
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I kinda want him to get stranded on the east side of DC for a couple days, just to see what it would do to him mentally. Sounds like the feel good family comedy of the year.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Nah, the problem is that Westlaw and Lexis share a virtual monopoly on the practice, and make insane amounts of money by charging exorbitant rates for lawyers to access their databases. They lobby against changes that publicize and make finding the caselaw easy. I just went to a small talk by one of the key server architects at lexis, and whereas the point of the talk was that his data was secure, the implication that what their company does procedurally is non-trivial was definitely conveyed. What I didn't hear is that Lexis is lobbying against the implementation of software solutions like theirs in a public domain- where would I go to confirm this? "XYZ is lobbying for IJK" is usually accepted out of hand as probably true, but in this case I got the impression that it wasn't necessary or even wanted, as they were offering a whole suite of services for indexing and categorizing this information. edit: quoted the wrong mention of Lexis. double edit: Looking at my notes, I went to a talk from a different legal document handler, but the question still stands, I suppose. Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 16:45 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Employees of the company aren't going to tell you that they do this. And if it's a server architect, they probably have no idea what the executive-level approach to these things is. If this were someone from Lexis working on server architecture, he's probably thinking of LexisNexus, which, together with WestlawNext, represents the relatively new "cadillac" version oftheir database system- more bells and whistles, much more expensive. These represent the first improvements or innovations in the databases essentially since their conception, and they were created almost entirely in response to each other and the slow emergence of nonprofit, free to use databases. Well yeah, but that's all motive, which I specifically said I didn't trust because of my experience with the subject. Is there any evidence for lobbying or is the motive the only reason it's believed Lexis and Westlaw lobby against a public database?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Lessail posted:gently caress the supreme court Obama needs to appoint 2 new Justices asap.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Lessail posted:has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before No you see it's a net win because it only the employees of Hobby Lobby (and other closely held companies) are getting their employer's religion forced on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's very strange, because it seems to conflict with some of the limiting language of the majority opinion. Jeez, this case has been an absolute mess. Akin to a Bush signing statement. This is is pretty unprecedented, isn't it? How binding are SCOTUS orders, if at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's not really strange at all. This was an opinion that comes down to "employers may not be compelled to fund the purchase of contraception" and just uses a lot of words to cover it up. They opened up a legal hole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through and then explicitly narrowed it down to basically "just contraception". The fear is that the majority decision explicitly narrowed the hole down to "these debated contraceptive methods, because we say so", and the order widens it again. The outrage yesterday about "because we say so" was limited because of how that legal hole was explicitly not unexpandable in the decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
So did they cover the test for what corporations are closely held, and what tests are required for "sincerely held" religious beliefs, for which religions its applicable, or is that more fun stuff we get to have clarified by order and mandate further down the road?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Also what can be gleaned from semi public information is beyond the scope of what a reasonable person would expect. If I go to great lengths to secretly frequent a gay brothel, my actions are undone if I bring a cell phone: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0 Google (and the NSA, according to Snowden at least) will be able to piece together information that would otherwise be considered private. That sort of blows the whole reasonable expectation out of the water.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
No, some students knew they would get bailed out by Big Uni so they gambled recklessly with their precious studying time. Little did they know their studying time was created at the expense of the poor tutionpayers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Everytime you're giddy that Scalia is dead take a drink
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Involuntary Sparkle posted:I found out in a group chat and was shaking I was so happy. I was then upset because after telling my brother and cheering with my husband, I had no one else I could celebrate with that would care or understand. Dude I'm f5'ing this page waiting for more people to post. I want to stop people on the street all like, Have you heard the good news?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Withnail posted:Lol, Obama summarizes scalia´s wikipedia page and steps off with an (almost) imperceptible skip in his step. Obama hasn't looked so lively in years
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. It goes 4-4.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Anyone reading up on the gerrymandering case the Supreme Court is investigating? I'm like 99% sure that the manual tipping of the scales in the favor of whoever is in power isn't going to be solved by a SupCourt judgement at this point, but it's always nice to know when it's going to happen, what the standing is, who is likely to vote in any given direction. Etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 20:26
|
|